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.
NBC OLYMPICS BROADCASTER CAUGHT ON HOT MIC TRASHING OLYMPIC FINALS
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.
FREY FACES TOUGH QUESTIONS ON CNN OVER IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT POLICY
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.
ICE AGENTS STORM BOSTON NEIGHBORHOOD AFTER WU’S SANCTUARY ORDER
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.”
VIRAL TESTIMONY USED TO SMEAR ICE REVEALED IN NEW VIDEO—WILL ANYONE ON THE LEFT EVER PAY A PRICE?
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.”
THE AGENT WHO IGNORED THE BUTLER ROOF THREAT IS STILL AT THE SECRET SERVICE—WHY?!
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.
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.”
JOE ROGAN LINKS TIM WALZ’S ANTI–FREE SPEECH STANCE TO EXPLOSIVE SOMALI FRAUD SCANDAL
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.
SUPER BOWL SHOCK IN MUSIC CITY AS ICONIC BARS BLACK OUT NFL HALFTIME FOR “FAITH FAMILY FREEDOM” SHOW
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.
WOKE HALFTIME, PRO-LIFE TIMEOUT: ADOPTION SUPER BOWL AD SET TO TRIGGER ABORTION LOBBY
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.”
WALZ AND FREY TURNED ROUTINE ICE TRANSFERS INTO STREET CHAOS AND HAVE DEMS SCRAMBLING FOR COVER
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.
“RIGHT TO VOTE” SENATOR REQUIRES GOVERNMENT ID TO HEAR HIS SPEECH—BUT NOT TO CAST YOUR VOTE
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?”
NEW ISRAEL OUTREACH TO U.S. CHURCHES SPARKS FIERCE PROPHECY SHOWDOWN
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.
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.
DID KETANJI BROWN JACKSON JUST TRIGGER A SUPREME COURT ETHICS SHOWDOWN?
“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.
TRUMP UNLEASHES TRUMPRX.GOV AND BIG PHARMA IS FURIOUS!
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.
FROM COMET PING PONG TO EPSTEIN’S INBOX - THE ONE WORD THAT WILL NOT GO AWAY
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.
TRUMP’S TEAM IS QUIETLY ORGANIZING A HIGH-LEVEL GAZA “BOARD OF PEACE” MEETING
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.
