Qamar Bashir
If there is one American media figure who has done more than any other to rupture the long-standing conservative consensus on Israel, it is Tucker Carlson. A son of a diplomat and a deeply patriotic American, Carlson has positioned himself as the most relentless critic of Israel’s outsized influence over U.S. foreign policy, congressional decision-making, business networks and geopolitical strategy. In his telling, Washington’s reflexive alignment with Israel has drawn the United States into wars, drained its treasury and compromised its sovereignty.
That argument was on full display in February 2026 at Ben-Gurion Airport, where Carlson conducted a combative, two-and-a-half-hour interview with U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee. Carlson accused American officials of “prioritizing Israel” over their own country, pressing Huckabee over civilian casualties in Gaza, biblical rhetoric invoked by Israeli leaders, extradition disputes and the scale of U.S. military aid.
Carlson’s contention was blunt: if American taxpayers provide billions in assistance — at least $16.3 billion in direct military aid since October 2023, with broader estimates exceeding $21 billion — then American officials have a duty to ask hard questions. He framed the issue as a defense of U.S. sovereignty. Why, he asked, should a prosperous, technologically advanced nation with a strong per-capita income require continuous American subsidy?
During the interview, Carlson raised the issue of Christian casualties in Gaza and the West Bank, as well as the destruction of churches, hospitals, and schools operated by Christian communities. He questioned the ambassador about reports that Christian civilians had been killed and Christian institutions damaged during military operations. The ambassador acknowledged that such incidents had occurred, describing them as unintended consequences of war and stating that Israel had expressed regret over those events.
The debate intensified when the ambassador argued that Christians enjoy greater protection in Israel than in many Muslim-majority countries. Carlson challenged that assertion, claiming that there are more Christians in Qatar alone than in Israel. He further argued that Qatar has provided land for churches, schools, and hospitals and that Christians there live openly and peacefully. In contrast, Carlson alleged that Christians in Israel face intimidation and harassment and that their numbers have declined in recent years due to emigration.
While referring to the Epstein files that have been made public in the United States, Carlson raised the issue of connections between Jeffrey Epstein, the established paedophile and blackmailer and Israeli intelligence agency Mossad, and the present President and former prime ministers of Israel. He said that Israel used Epstein’s facility to compromise influential political figures, royalty, senators, and members of Congress through illicit activities involving minors and used their engagement as a blackmailing tool to garner support for Israel in the important decision making in Washington and other influential political capitals. He confronted the Ambassador to hold the Israelis accomplices of Epstein accountable. The Ambassador admitted the connection between Epstein and Mossad but evaded the question by stating the responsibility for prosecuting crimes committed on U.S. soil lies with American authorities, since Epstein operated primarily within the United States.
During the interview, Carlson directly confronted a theological claim of Israel for the land promised to them by God “from the Nile to the Euphrates.” He pointed out that, if interpreted literally in contemporary geopolitical terms, such a claim would encompass parts of present-day Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and beyond.
Carlson pressed the ambassador on whether this scriptural narrative could justify territorial expansion under the banner of a so-called “Greater Israel.” In response, the ambassador said that if Israel conquered those territories then why not. The tone and tenor of the Ambassador clearly suggested that he was aligned with the Israel dream of greater Israel and was playing his part to pursue the elusive Israeli dream.
During the exchange, Carlson raised the issue of civilian casualties, specifically asking about how thousands of children had been killed during Israeli military operations. The ambassador acknowledged that large numbers of civilians, including thousands of children, have died in the conflict, but maintained that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) attempt to minimize civilian harm even much better than the US army does.
Carlson then pressed further, asking whether the ambassador was implying that the U.S. military operates with lower moral standards than the IDF. In response, the ambassador cited historical examples of American warfare, including the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the flattening of the entire Germany during World War-IIduring and civilian casualties in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. The Ambassador seemed so bought up by Israel that in defence of the IDF that he blamed the US army as worse than the IDF, clearly reflecting where his loyalties are and how, instead of defending the interests of the US in Israel, he was defending Israel which was against the term of employment of an Ambassador.
Under the Vienna Convention an ambassador’s foremost duty is to represent and protect the interests of the sending state—not to advocate for the host country. In a high-profile interview, the ideal ambassadorial posture would have re-centered the discussion on U.S. interests rather than theological or expansionist narratives.
Now the question has been raised as to why Israel has strengthened its regional deterrence capabilities while the United States has borne significant costs—deploying troops, maintaining military bases across the region, committing naval assets to protect sea lanes and allied interests, and providing substantial financial and military assistance. They argue that this burden has placed American personnel and infrastructure at heightened risk while increasing fiscal and geopolitical strain.
As a result of Carlson’s crusade against Israel’s tyranny in Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Qatar and Iran and its support based in Congress, Senate and White House, according to Pew Research Center, the public’s views of Israel have turned more negative over the past three years. More than half of U.S. adults (53%) now express an unfavorable opinion of Israel, up from 42% in March 2022 – before the Hamas attack of Oct. 7, 2023, and the ensuing Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip.
What began as a series of interviews has now evolved into a defining ideological confrontation within American conservatism. Carlson is not merely questioning battlefield tactics or diplomatic language; he is challenging the moral, financial, and strategic foundations of America’s unconditional alignment with Israel. By forcing senators and ambassadors to defend casualty figures, regime-change rhetoric, and billions in aid, he has exposed a widening rift between interventionist orthodoxy and nationalist restraint. Whether one views his campaign as courageous accountability or destabilizing provocation, it has undeniably shattered the illusion of consensus. The Republican Party may still stand institutionally with Israel, but the grassroots conversation has changed — and once a foreign policy doctrine is dragged into open public trial, it rarely returns to unquestioned authority.
The writer is Press Secretary to the President (Rtd),Former Press Minister, Embassy of Pakistan to France,Former Press Attaché to Malaysia and Former MD, SRBC.He is living in Macomb, Michigan
