Tucker Carlson—A Teachable Moment On Why All Facts Matter
Don't Follow The Narratives. Follow The Facts
Tucker Carlson’s Panic Propaganda newsletter pearl-clutching over imminent “all-out” war with Iran is not aging at all well. That happens when one puts narrative ahead of the facts.
On Friday, Tucker decided to accuse President Trump of being complicit in triggering an all-out war with Iran.
Israel launched its long-awaited attack on Iran last night, bombarding the Islamic Republic with dozens of missiles and striking its top nuclear facility and at least five military bases.
The assault reportedly killed Iranian Revolutionary Guard commander Hossein Salami and other top military leaders, and Israel believes other officials and nuclear scientists also perished. The episode came just days after White House envoy Steve Witkoff warned that Iran could unleash a “mass casualty response” if the Israelis bombed its nuclear facilities.
Earlier this week, unnamed Washington sources expressed concern over Israel's ability to fend off Iran’s retaliation, which would inevitably lead to Benjamin Netanyahu ordering the American military to step in and fight on his country’s behalf. Tehran launched its first counterstrike last night, firing over 100 rockets at its attacker within hours of the initial assault.
On Thursday, Iran’s president threatened to “destroy” any country that eliminates his government’s nuclear facilities. Now, the world will learn what that looks like.
However, over the weekend, instead of giving Tucker his all out war, Iran was fielding phone calls and messages from a number of Gulf states encouraging the Islamic Republic to push for a ceasefire—and today is apparently seeking exactly that.
Gulf leaders and their top diplomats worked the phones all weekend, speaking to each other, to Tehran, Washington and beyond in an effort to avoid a widening of the conflict as longstanding enemies Israel and Iran intensified their attacks in their biggest ever confrontation.
Iran is willing to be flexible in the nuclear talks if a ceasefire is reached, one of the Iranian sources said.
Right now, “all out war” is not one of the likely scenarios.
It is worth remarking on what had transpired during Friday.
When Tucker published his “Morning Note”, Iran had yet to respond with anything but drones (not “rockets”). It was not until Friday afternoon when Iran started sending ballistic missiles at Israel, and the first salvos did minimal damage, causing minimal casualties.
Earlier on Friday I remarked on Iran’s slowness to respond.
What's certain is that Iran has yet to mount a meaningful retaliation. The longer Israel continues to attack Iran the less likely it is that Iran will possess the ability to mount a meaningful retaliation. Drones alone are not going to be sufficient, militarily or geopolitically.
Something else failed to emerge on Friday and even Saturday: any signs of significant support of Iran by their “allies.”
While Tucker Carlson’s “all out war” scenario was certainly one possibility, there were multiple data points emerging even then which suggested other less apocalyptic scenarios. Tucker ignored these facts, ignored these data points, ignored these other scenarios.
By last night, even before corporate media picked up on Iran’s seeking a ceasefire, it was already becoming clear that Iran’s military capacities were proving quite underwhelming.
Even oil markets were beginning to see that the apocalyptic worst-case scenario was not the most likely outcome, having eased off the initial price surge triggered by Operation Rising Lion. With today’s reports of Iran seeking a ceasefire, oil prices eased even further.
Oil prices are still trending up, still posing a future inflationary concern, but the price spike from last Thursday has already abated to a large degree.
The same is true for commodities prices across the board.
Oil markets are notoriously twitchy about events in the Middle East. When oil traders are not panicking over Iran, one has to question why Tucker Carlson was panicking over Iran.
Tucker also overlooked perhaps the most crucial detail: Neither Iran nor its proxy militias have made any serious effort to attack US assets in the region. Even Ketaib Hezbollah, one of the more powerful militias based in Iraq, was seemingly accepting of the official US position that this was Israel’s fight and that the US was not “involved.”
This is a significant consideration because, among other things, it suggests that neither Iran nor its proxies wanted the US to become involved. The one escalation that would have had the highest probability of entangling the US directly in Operation Rising Lion was a missile or mass drone attack by Iran on US targets in the region. That did not happen.
Could Tucker’s “all out war” scenario still take place? Yes. Israel is not rushing to give Iran a ceasefire, and a little while ago President Trump posted a cryptic warning on Truth Social encouraging everyone in Tehran to evacuate.
Is this Donald Trump and/or Benjamin Netanyahu overplaying their respective hands? That is very much a possibility. Escalation is still very much a possibility, and that makes Tucker’s “all out war” scenario very much a possibility.
That is always the gamble in conflict. Push too hard or too far and what started out as a successful strategy can quickly fall apart.
If Israel or Donald Trump pushes too hard, or if Trump miscalculates on a social media post, the outcome Trump and Netanyahu both desire might very quickly slip away. We should not ignore that possibility.
But Tucker’s “all out war” scenario was never the only scenario, and even on Friday it was not the most likely scenario. There were facts then and there are more facts now which argue against that scenario.
We ignore the facts at our peril. Prognosticators who ignore the facts end up with considerable quantities of egg on one’s face. Right now Tucker Carlson has a lot of egg on his face.
Tucker Carlson pushed a narrative, and ended up pushing the wrong narrative.
I do not push any narrative. I am not committed to any narrative. I like to think my work reflects that. I know my work the past few days on Iran is aging much better than Tucker Carlson’s.
That’s not a coincidence. That’s what happens when people focus on the facts.
All facts matter, and the facts are all that matter. We should never forget that.
For my bucks, you should have more readers/watchers than Tucker. It's a shame you don't. Thanks for what you do.
One of the extraordinary things about you, Peter, is that you are able to remain factual in your arguments. Most people do not have the brainpower for that; they start with a handful of premises and then build on those to support their train of thought, not realizing that they are using their brain’s reticular-activating system to reinforce in a biased manner. Your amazing ability to truly stick to facts is one of the reasons I call you Magnificent Man.
I read widely, and can see that certain writers are biased toward paranoid sensationalism and disaster scenarios. Their arguments show that they are extrapolating to worst-case consequences, and a reader has to essentially screen on that basis. Other people have biases toward trusting people too much, or trusting systems and institutions too much, and you have to make a mental adjustment for that when assessing their arguments. The ability to stay centered, grounded, level-headed, rational, and factual, the way you are, Peter,is one of the signs of a truly great mind!
I watch Tucker Carlson for his guests. Where else am I going to hear a two-hour, in-depth interview with Tulsi Gabbard or Thomas Massie? Certainly not on CNN! Tucker has good conversational skills and the connections to land worthwhile guests. But I have caught him being factually incorrect, and that has dismayed me, as he then perpetuates a falsehood.
So Tucker, if you happen to read this, Winston Churchill was NOT responsible for the disaster at the Dardanelles during WW1! In spite of enormous political persecution, he was officially and completely exonerated of all blame. In Churchill’s autobiography, he presents all of the documentation that clears his name. The blame officially and rightfully was placed on the Prime Minister’s war council, and especially on Lord Fisher.
(Whew! As a Churchill fan, I needed to get that off of my chest. Thanks, Peter!)