The query, in one form or another, has ricocheted across social media as the former Fox News primetime star continues to bewilder many on the right, including a substantial portion of his own audience.
According to RedState, Carlson has steadily embraced positions that place him at odds with longstanding conservative foreign-policy instincts, from his skepticism of Israel to his oddly indulgent posture toward Russia and now, most provocatively, Iran.
January 22, 2026
In his Tuesday newsletter, Carlson floated an argument that would have been unthinkable for a leading voice of the American right just a few years ago. He suggested that a nuclear-armed Iran “could end up being a good thing,” a notion that has stunned Republicans who still see the Islamic Republic as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism and a sworn enemy of the United States.
IS RASHIDA TLAIB A DIRECT THREAT TO THE “INTEGRITY" OF THE ENTIRE U.S. GOVERNMENT?
In recent months, Carlson has drifted further from the GOP mainstream, particularly on matters of war, peace, and American power. He has sharpened his criticism of President Donald Trump’s foreign policy and displayed a growing willingness to challenge the role and influence of Israel in the Middle East, a stance that aligns more closely with the progressive left and isolationist fringe than with traditional Reaganite conservatism.
GREG GUTFELD TORCHES DEMS OVER VOTER ID HYPOCRISY AS CNN’S OWN NUMBERS BLOW UP THEIR NARRATIVE
Carlson opened his newsletter by mocking what he appears to regard as overwrought warnings from hawkish leaders, quoting both Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “I can guarantee you that if the Ayatollah gets a nuclear weapon, he will use it,” Graham said on Fox News last year. “I believe that with all my heart and soul.”
He then turned his fire on Israel’s longtime leader, deriding him as a “warmonger-in-chief.” Carlson cited Netanyahu’s stark warning that “there is only one difference between Nazi Germany and the Islamic Republic of Iran… [Iran] is first seeking atomic weapons and, once it has them, will then start a world war.”
FROZEN IN THEIR OWN HOMES: FURIOUS NEW YORKERS SAY PROGRESSIVE MAYOR HAS LEFT CITY TO FREEZE AND ROT
From there, Carlson advanced his central thesis, dismissing the idea that Tehran would ever actually use a nuclear weapon. “What are the chances Iran would actually launch a nuclear attack? History suggests they’re zero, no matter what Senator Graham says,” he wrote, as if the fanatical ideology of Iran’s ruling clerics were indistinguishable from the cold rationality of a conventional nation-state.
FLORIDA TEEN LINKED TO NEO-NAZI SATANIC CULT ACCUSED OF PLOTTING CHURCH MASSACRE
He continued by invoking the old “Axis of Evil” label, only to downplay the threat. “No country in the so-called ‘Axis of Evil’ has ever deployed a nuke, because doing so would be an act of suicide,” Carlson argued, before pivoting to a familiar left-wing talking point: “In fact, the United States is the only nation to unleash its nuclear might as an act of war. It’s strange how Washington considers that a point of pride.”
KAREN BASS ACCUSED OF QUIETLY REWRITING WILDFIRE REPORT TO SHIELD CITY FROM BLAME
That framing glosses over a crucial distinction conservatives have long emphasized: the difference between a liberal democracy forced into a terrible choice to end a world war and a theocratic regime that glorifies martyrdom. Islamist extremists have repeatedly demonstrated that they view death in defense of Islam, often termed jihad, as a noble path to martyrdom, which raises the obvious question of whether Iran’s rulers might be willing to risk annihilation if they believed their regime was on the brink of collapse.
FBI LOGS QUIETLY SHRED DOJ’S CLAIM ABOUT EPSTEIN’S FINAL HOURS
Carlson’s suggestion that Washington views Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a “point of pride” also mischaracterizes how most Americans, and serious historians, understand that decision. While the bombings remain morally fraught, they are widely seen as a tragic necessity that likely averted a far bloodier ground invasion, with U.S. military planners at the time projecting catastrophic casualties on both sides, including potentially millions of Japanese deaths.
Undeterred by such historical nuance, Carlson pressed his case that nuclear weapons can serve as a stabilizing force, even in the hands of rogue regimes. “Could the Iranians obtaining The Bomb wind up being a good thing? Whether anyone in the foreign policy establishment admits it, North Korea’s nuclearization has undeniably stabilized the Korean Peninsula. The region has seen no wars, coups, or interventionist-forced regime changes since 2006.”
SAVANNAH GUTHRIE’S BROTHER ISSUES HEARTBREAKING VIDEO PLEA TO ALLEGED ABDUCTORS
He then extrapolated this logic to the Middle East, as if the Kim dynasty and Iran’s revolutionary theocrats were interchangeable actors. “Would Iran becoming a nuclear power have the same effect on its region?” he asked, implying that the mere possession of nuclear weapons might somehow tame Tehran’s aggression rather than embolden it.
JAMIE RASKIN EXPLODES OVER TRUMP’S ‘CANCEL THE MIDTERMS’ JOKE
Carlson went further, suggesting that an Iranian bomb might restrain both Washington and Jerusalem. “Could it finally prompt America to leave the area alone, and incentivize Israel to drop its stated goal of controlling the Gaza Strip and the West Bank? Would it make the Iranian government less oppressive because it wouldn’t have to worry about the West’s constant decapitation ambitions?”
IT'S A MIRACLE! HARDCORE TRUMP SUPPORTER TO GUEST HOST 'THE VIEW'
That line of reasoning ignores the regime’s primary fear: not Western “decapitation” but its own people. The mullahs in Tehran have repeatedly turned their security apparatus against Iranian citizens who dare to protest, overseeing summary executions, brutal crackdowns, and the killing of thousands, with some estimates placing the death toll from recent uprisings at more than 20,000, all to preserve their grip on power.
“ONE NATION UNDER GOD” DAY IS OFFICIAL—THE POWERFUL MESSAGE BEHIND IT IS ABOUT TO GO VIRAL!
Carlson’s musings did not go unanswered on the right, where many still regard Iran’s “Death to America” chants as something more than rhetorical theater. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R) was among those who blasted Carlson’s argument, making clear that conservatives in Congress are not about to normalize the idea of a nuclear-armed ayatollah.
CIA ABRUPTLY KILLS LONG-RUNNING PUBLIC DATA RESOURCE—WHAT DON’T THEY WANT YOU TO SEE?
“Unbelievable. Now @TuckerCarlson is arguing it would be ‘a GOOD thing’ if the Ayatollah had a nuclear weapon. READ it yourself. Apparently ‘Death to America’ is an ambiguous sentiment to Mr. Qatarlson,” Cruz wrote, coining the derisive nickname “Qatarlson” to underscore his view that Carlson’s foreign-policy instincts now align more with America’s adversaries than its allies.
MINNEAPOLIS COUNCIL WEAPONIZES LIQUOR LICENSES TO PUNISH HOTELS OVER ALLEGED ICE STAYS
Cruz doubled down, repeating his charge that Carlson is effectively siding against U.S. interests. “Unbelievable. Now @TuckerCarlson is arguing it would be ‘a GOOD thing’ if the Ayatollah had a nuclear weapon. READ it yourself. Apparently ‘Death to America’ is an ambiguous sentiment to Mr. Qatarlson. #TuckerIsAmericaLast https://t.co/hBIoJgxGkc,” he posted, framing Carlson’s stance as the latest example of an “America Last” worldview.
SOCIALIST NYC MAYOR MAKES BOMBSHELL LAST-MINUTE ENDORSEMENT THAT LEFT CRITICS REELING!
For many conservatives, that is the heart of the matter: whether a prominent figure who once championed border security, American strength, and Western civilization is now rationalizing nuclear weapons for a regime that openly seeks the destruction of both Israel and the United States.
SEN. TILLIS GOES FULL BLACKMAIL: DEMANDS TRUMP MEDDLE IN JEROME POWELL INVESTIGATION OR ELSE!
Faced with a choice between Carlson’s contrarian theorizing and the hard-earned lessons of history and common sense, a great many on the right, like Cruz, are siding with conventional wisdom — and asking why a leading voice of the conservative movement is no longer willing to do the same.
