Tucker Carlson reportedly recently stirred controversy by asserting that the United States can’t afford a military action against Iran, largely due to the financial strain caused by President Donald Trump’s tariffs.
In a post on social media platform X, he emphasized that now is the worst time for the U.S. to engage in warfare, stating that such action could lead to thousands of American casualties and a likely defeat in the aftermath.
Carlson described any advocacy for military conflict with Iran as not just imprudent, but downright dangerous, suggesting that those pushing for such confrontations are enemies of the United States.
Carlson’s stance follows Trump’s threats of bombings against Iran if negotiations fail, highlighting a tense geopolitical climate.
In that context, Fox News contributor and Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen challenged Carlson, pointing out that Trump is the one actively pursuing military options against Iran, not neoconservatives, who are often scapegoated for war advocacy.
Thiessen pointed to Trump’s previous military actions, including the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani and strikes against Syrian targets, to counter Carlson’s claims of isolationism.
Reactions to Carlson’s comments varied, with some labeling his perspective as overly naive.
New York Post writer Mark Toth derided Carlson’s view, arguing that Iran is incapable of defeating Israel and questioning the logic behind suggesting a U.S. defeat in a conflict.
Other commentators echoed similar sentiments, criticizing Carlson for dismissing the potential threat posed by Iran.
Carlson, known for his non-interventionist views and criticism of U.S. foreign policy, continues to provoke sharp debate on America’s military strategy and economic priorities amid rising tensions with Iran.
[READ MORE: Russell Brand Charged With Rape in U.K.]
