Ted Kept His Cool, While Tucker was a Sucker

Twelve days, no U.S. casualties, Iran’s nuclear threat neutralized—and Tucker Carlson is still busy losing arguments to Ted Cruz.

By Arthur Schaper

July 6, 2025

The war between Israel and Iran lasted twelve days.

Instead of a broad coalition of Arab states trying to push the Jewish state into the sea, one Islamic Republic (read: dictatorship) faced Israel, isolated from all other Muslim nations. Syria wouldn’t help, and Iranian proxies Hezbollah and the Houthis couldn’t since Israel wiped them out already.

Following targeted bombing campaigns, the nuclear Iran that pundits feared is no longer. The Iranian people are rising in the streets, bolder than ever before. Some even celebrated Israeli (and American) strikes on the Ayatollah’s nuclear facilities, watching the explosions from their homes.

However, one self-important commentator was fretting about the United States being dragged into another Middle Eastern conflict if Trump acted against Iran:

Tucker Carlson.

His doom and gloom bordered on hysterical.

Here are some notable (mis)quotes:

The first week of a war with Iran could easily kill thousands of Americans.

Well, a lot of Iranian terrorist generals and plotters died, but no Americans.

But the second week of the war could be even worse.

There was not a second week: twelve days, not fourteen.

But the most outrageous prediction:

A war with Iran would amount to a profound betrayal of his [Trump’s]supporters. It would end his presidency.

Trump is not only still the president, but his decision has also received public support. The Trump campaign has already raised $1.4 billion for Election 2026.

Tucker was wrong. He didn’t concede his error but merely posted, “Thank God.”

When the former Fox News host asked the US senator for the population of Iran, Ted hazarded a good guess: 80 to 90 million people. There are about 91 million, according to a Google search.Tucker pressed Cruz to talk about the country’s demographics. “Mostly Shia Muslim,” Cruz responded, which is correct. Once again, Tucker proved that he was looking to bait a U.S. senator, not get answers to questions. Tucker went right to accusations: “You don’t know anything about Iran!” Seriously?

The whole thing was political theater, and a less prepared government official or guest would have wilted under the pressure and scrutiny. Cruz pushed back on Tucker and turned the tables on him. When Carlson breathed out the moral relativism that “all leaders kill people,” Cruz seized on him like a bulldog: “Donald Trump does not kill people.”

I really enjoyed Cruz’s calling out Tucker on his obsession with Israel. A growing number of social media influencers are jumping on the “Bash Israel” train, most likely for the engagement harvesting. 

Cruz only misstepped when he said, “You think the Jews control everything.” He should have focused on Israel, and Tucker demagogued Ted’s statement to make himself the victim. 

Whatever prejudices Tucker may carry, Cruz needed to focus on substantial points already stated, not motives unstated.

Cruz continued delivering stellar arguments, which Tucker was forced to concede. With all the talk about AIPAC and its supposed inordinate influence, Cruz explained that AIPAC doesn’t get its money’s worth. They lavish funding on Democrats, but President Obama forced the Democratic caucus to choose between him and Israel, and most of them followed Obama. AIPAC still gave them money, and they still got elected! Where is the sense in any of this?

When Tucker slammed other countries for spying on us, Cruz simply pointed out that we spy on them, too. Realpolitik is not a romance novel. Foreign policy recognizes gritty realities and works within them. Espionage and intelligence are defining norms in all national relationships. Tucker wanted to reduce foreign policy to “MAGA-America First” NPC talking points. Real governing is not that simple.

Cruz nailed Tucker Carlson when he said, “Why are you so obsessed with Israel?” He also asked him, “Why are you so determined to defend Russia?” How did Tucker respond? With his offbeat paroxysm of laughter. Did he learn that defense tactic from Kamala Harris? Oh, the significance of the passage of time! Tucker used to mock the former vice president for laughing at statements that made no sense or cackling uncomfortably when someone said or asked something uncomfortable. Tucker resorted to the same ploy, hoping to dodge Cruz’ cross-examination.

Cruz held his own while seeking to foster as cordial, fruitful, and useful a discussion as possible. It was exhilarating to watch. 

Finally, someone in Washington, DC, was pushing back on the wannabe MAGA social media smugness.

Why is Tucker acting like this? He admitted in the interview/debate that he still regrets supporting President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq. 

To Cruz’s credit, he opposed that, recognizing what many pundits (John McLaughlin, Pat Robertson, William F. Buckley) noted as a risky venture sure to cause more problems than it would solve. Unfortunately, the fallout from Iraq has inspired knee-jerk isolationism from some conservative commentators today. This thinking is flawed and dangerous, signaling to rogue states that they can aggress or engage in terrorist attacks without fear. 

Foreign policy realism, àla Brent Scowcroft, is the way to go. The United States should intervene when American interests are directly threatened. Iran has repeatedly called for the destruction of the United States and has propped up terrorist proxies who attack us. Trump exercised necessary and proper authority by destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Tucker was wrong about Iran, and he was too entrapped to take on Ted Cruz. Twelve days can make or break a career—and Tucker’s may not last much longer.

Source: American Greatness website