
Tucker Carlson's interview with Ted Cruz shows unconditional US support for Israel could be waning
During a recent episode of The Joe Rogan Experience podcast, the documentary filmmaker Ken Burns quoted a famous Mark Twain line: 'History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes.' He was making the point about why it is important to listen to the voices of the past, even if their messages offend you today.
The conversation was in the context of his upcoming project on the American Revolution. Burns argued that it is the most important historical event in terms of shaping the world we live in now, because it created a unique political and economic engine, the impact of which we are still struggling to get to grips with 250 years later.
Less than a fortnight after the Rogan-Burns podcast came out, a less refined, more combative exchange took place between two other individuals, which underscores how the definition of what the US is has kept evolving since the 18th century.
When the journalist Tucker Carlson confronted US Senator Ted Cruz in a now-viral interview, it marked the beginning of the end for an expectation of how the US conducts itself on the global stage – with obvious implications for those of us living in this region.
Mr Cruz, for long a dependable voice for hawkish Republican policy and unwavering support for Israel, found himself cornered. Carlson, representing a surging populist strain of 'America First' conservatism that is aligned with President Donald Trump's political base, was pushing Mr Cruz to properly articulate why it was important for the US to topple the Iranian establishment. The backdrop to this interview had been pressure from senior Republicans in Congress to join Israel's attack on Iran – championed by Prime Minister Bejamin Netanyahu – with the stated aim of removing any nuclear threat it poses. Mr Netanyahu, it's important to point out, also called for ordinary Iranians to rise up against their rulers.
Digging into questions about why America should risk a war with Iran, why its support for Israel needs to always be unconditional and if American interests have been co-opted by the agendas of other nations, Carlson sought a rational explanation for such long-standing beliefs of what was good for the country and its people, despite clear evidence to the contrary.
Instead, Mr Cruz fumbled over his responses. He jumped from religious justifications to security jargon and then to accusations about his interviewer's motives, including suggesting that anti-Semitism and support for Russian President Vladimir Putin were behind his challenging posture. Mr Cruz came across as highly cynical and manipulative, lacking moral and intellectual depth, while Carlson seemed earnest and committed. It may have been wholly performative, but it still made my jaw drop.
The exchange, quite because it was between two heavyweights from the same political and cultural strata, represents the rupture of a long-assumed ideological and religious alliance between the traditional Republican guard, still clinging to post-9/11 doctrines, and the newer class, increasingly sceptical of endless wars and foreign entanglements following the mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr Cruz's inability to make a sensible case for decades-long foreign policies represents a breaking point for anyone who had still been working under the illusion that there aren't a multitude of transactional interests at work beyond what might benefit the average American.
History resonates with examples of such stunning revelations.
The one that has a similar cadence comes from the Fourth Crusade, when European knights, on their way to try to reclaim Jerusalem from Muslim control, instead attacked and looted Constantinople – considered then to be the greatest Christian city in the East – in 1204. Fuelled by Venetian debt and Byzantine intrigue, the result was a catastrophic betrayal of values that had stood for more than a century.
In the wake of it, public trust eroded, unity fractured and the Great Crusades were undermined. They were exposed for what they were – political, cynical and morally hollow. It would become increasingly more difficult for people in Europe to justify spending resources, lives and years on a cause so far away from home.
Yet this failure had been years in the making. The corruption of crusader kingdoms in the Holy Land, their inability to survive without external support, evolving military technology and tactics that made battlefield victories harder to attain, as well as political and economic shifts at home had made them more costly and less successful. The early religious fervour for war and its legitimacy in the eyes of the populace had begun to fade.
The Cruz-Carlson interview is revelatory in its own way. It has unequivocally brought to the centre stage the widespread suspicion among Americans in the idea that US involvement in the Middle East is fundamentally necessary or noble. By shining a spotlight on this national mood, it may have contributed to a more limited engagement by Mr Trump over the past week.
The 'America First' movement appears to have passed its first major test, on its way to being the loudest voice shaping the future of its country and defining a new paradigm for US support to Israel.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Khaleej Times
4 hours ago
- Khaleej Times
Immigrants scramble for clarity after US Supreme Court's birthright citizenship ruling
The US Supreme Court's ruling tied to birthright citizenship prompted confusion and phone calls to lawyers as people who could be affected tried to process a convoluted legal decision with major humanitarian implications. The court's conservative majority on Friday granted President Donald Trump his request to curb federal judges' power but did not decide the legality of his bid to restrict birthright citizenship. That outcome has raised more questions than answers about a right long understood to be guaranteed under the US Constitution: that anyone born in the United States is considered a citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' citizenship or legal status. Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker who lives in Houston and is due to give birth in September, pored over media reports on Friday morning. She was looking for details about how her baby might be affected, but said she was left confused and worried. "There are not many specifics," said Lorena, who like others interviewed by Reuters asked to be identified by her first name out of fear for her safety. "I don't understand it well." She is concerned that her baby could end up with no nationality. "I don't know if I can give her mine," she said. "I also don't know how it would work, if I can add her to my asylum case. I don't want her to be adrift with no nationality." Trump, a Republican, issued an order after taking office in January that directed US agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the US who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order was blocked by three separate US district court judges, sending the case on a path to the Supreme Court. The resulting decision said Trump's policy could go into effect in 30 days but appeared to leave open the possibility of further proceedings in the lower courts that could keep the policy blocked. On Friday afternoon, plaintiffs filed an amended lawsuit in federal court in Maryland seeking to establish a nationwide class of people whose children could be denied citizenship. If they are not blocked nationwide, the restrictions could be applied in the 28 states that did not contest them in court, creating "an extremely confusing patchwork" across the country, according to Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. "Would individual doctors, individual hospitals be having to try to figure out how to determine the citizenship of babies and their parents?" she said. The drive to restrict birthright citizenship is part of Trump's broader immigration crackdown, and he has framed automatic citizenship as a magnet for people to come to give birth. "Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason," he said during a White House press briefing on Friday. Worried calls Immigration advocates and lawyers in some Republican-led states said they received calls from a wide range of pregnant immigrants and their partners following the ruling. They were grappling with how to explain it to clients who could be dramatically affected, given all the unknowns of how future litigation would play out or how the executive order would be implemented state by state. Lynn Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance said she got a call on Friday from an East Asian temporary visa holder with a pregnant wife. He was anxious because Ohio is not one of the plaintiff states and wanted to know how he could protect his child's rights. "He kept stressing that he was very interested in the rights included in the Constitution," she said. Advocates underscored the gravity of Trump's restrictions, which would block an estimated 150,000 children born in the U.S. annually from receiving automatic citizenship. "It really creates different classes of people in the country with different types of rights," said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, a spokesperson for the immigrant rights organization United We Dream. "That is really chaotic." Adding uncertainty, the Supreme Court ruled that members of two plaintiff groups in the litigation - CASA, an immigrant advocacy service in Maryland, and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project - would still be covered by lower court blocks on the policy. Whether someone in a state where Trump's policy could go into effect could join one of the organizations to avoid the restrictions or how state or federal officials would check for membership remained unclear. Betsy, a US citizen who recently graduated from high school in Virginia and a CASA member, said both of her parents came to the US from El Salvador two decades ago and lacked legal status when she was born. "I feel like it targets these innocent kids who haven't even been born," she said, declining to give her last name for concerns over her family's safety. Nivida, a Honduran asylum seeker in Louisiana, is a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and recently gave birth. She heard on Friday from a friend without legal status who is pregnant and wonders about the situation under Louisiana's Republican governor, since the state is not one of those fighting Trump's order. "She called me very worried and asked what's going to happen," she said. "If her child is born in Louisiana … is the baby going to be a citizen?"


The National
10 hours ago
- The National
Best photos of June 28: From World Rowing Cup in Switzerland to Jean-Michel Jarre performing in Budapest
Mourners pay their respects as US Democratic assemblywoman Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark lie in state at the Minnesota Capitol, in St Paul. The couple were shot dead at their home on June 14. Reuters


The National
12 hours ago
- The National
Trump wants interest rates down to 1% and would ‘love' Fed chairman Powell to resign
US President Donald Trump has said he wants interest rates to be cut to one per cent and that he would 'love' Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell to resign. Mr Trump added that he would pick a successor who wants to cut interest rates. 'I'd love him to resign if he wanted to. He's done a lousy job,' Mr Trump said of Mr Powell, speaking at an Oval Office event on Friday. 'If I think somebody's going to keep the rates where they are, or whatever, I'm not going to put them in. 'I'm going to put somebody that wants to cut rates. There are a lot of them out there,' he added. Mr Trump's comments are the latest in a series of attacks on Mr Powell in recent months, increasing his pressure on the Federal Reserve chairman to lower interest rates. Mr Powell so far has resisted and maintains that policy decisions will be data-dependent. The President has argued repeatedly that the central bank's policies are keeping government borrowing costs too high. Mr Powell's term ends in May 2026 and Mr Trump is expected to nominate a successor in the coming months, according to Reuters. The Fed last week kept interest rates unchanged between 4.25 and 4.50 per cent. It has not adjusted rates in its last four meetings, largely due to the uncertainty surrounding Mr Trump's tariffs. Mr Powell last week said tariffs could either have a one-off or persistent effect on inflation. Asked by reporters why not cut interest rates this month, Mr Powell said he expected to see 'meaningful' inflation in the coming months. The Central Bank of the UAE, which follows Fed decisions because of the dollar peg, also held rates steady following the US central bank's most recent decision. The Fed has held rates steady after lowering them by 100 basis points to about 4.33 per cent last year. Its next two-day meeting is on July 29-30.