“When oil traders are not panicking over Iran, one has to question why Tucker Carlson was panicking over Iran?”
Dig back through Carlson’s “lived experience” as a reporter/journalist and you find a clue.
Tucker bought into the fraudulent “WMD” sleight of hand employed by the Bush administration and key allies like Great Britain to justify the Iraq war.
One might observe that an older and arguably wiser Tucker displays a disdain for the establishment military machine that has in its DNA an undeniable thirst for war (and the profit it brings).
TCN is littered with sound bites of loathing against Neocon flimflam men whose tongues are hinged in the middle. They feign peacemaking but deliver Tomahawk missiles in the end.
Tucker may have a blind spot based on the WMD caper—and the 20 years of war, death, destruction, and failed nation building it brought us. All for naught, in his view (and many others agree with his perspective).
Then there’s the ultra orthodox Islamic “Republic” of Iran (biblical Persia) whose contemporary leaders favor a final conflagration through which their 12th Imam will be revealed (at least theoretically this is their doctrinal position—though, like all men, they would prefer not to die in said conflagration).
Carlson’s burgeoning spiritual awakening (I interpret him as a “seeker” in this regard) may have included gaining a better understanding of the objectives of orthodox Islam vis-à-vis the rest of the non-Islamic world. This understanding should give any rational thinker pause regarding plunging into an existential “conflict” with a semi nuclear capable Persia.
In summary, Carlson’s communique may have felt “knee-jerk” to some, but it is consistent with the TC I have listened to over the past two decades. Men change with time and experience. Tucker is no exception.
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!)
Excellent work as always Peter. More people need to read your work. Tucker built a solid support base for years on his Fox glory days. His opening, and a solid foundation of credible guests was an hour I rarely missed. The Dominion disaster and hasty settlement revealed the Potemkin village at work. Anyone with any sensibility knew something was wrong with the outcome of the 2020 election. However, one better be able to prove their case. It also further exposed that the talking heads are spewing what is handed to them. This is clearly the case with Chris Cuomo, who I count not stand, but has a great show on News Nation. Leland Vittert hooked me on News Nation. Tucker has now revealed himself as a complete charlatan. Giving agency to frauds like Candice Owens and Darryl Cooper without challenging their orthodoxy lost me as a fan. His acceptance of antisemitism in a manner that excites Jew hatred from the right because it’s good for ratings only further diminishes his credibility. The money must be good. Compare him to Chris Rufo, who is under constant attack and yet continues to not deviate from his thesis. Good for Tucker, his impressive numbers, rabid fans, and big money. He’s nothing more than another Jew hater out to make a buck. He’s a provocateur that feats on hyperbole. However, I don’t think anyone had any idea at the depth Mossad has infiltrated Iran. This changes everything. Israel has no second chances. They have nowhere else to go.
Of course, if Trump does something dumb like listen to Lindsay Graham or Sean Hannity, then all of Tucker's fans will be able to pile on and say "Tucker was right!"
However, at this juncture an "all out war" is just not likely even with US involvement. No Iranian ally has assets in the region to contest the skies, and the US is no more likely to attempt a land invasion of Iran. The forces are simply not there for an effort of that sort.
What US involvement would do is disrupt trade talks with China and negotiations to end the Ukraine war with Russia. By becoming once more a partisan actor in the Middle East, President Trump would shred his "peacemaker" street cred.
At this juncture there is no strategic reason for the US to join in bombing Iran. Hopefully that means Trump won't.
I doubt anyone is seriously seeking a full scale land invasion. Hiter sent 4 to 5 million troops from the Black Sea to the Baltics and still lost to Russia. However as we can both agree, this is a very complicated situation and Iran with its current ideology is a real threat to western civilization way beyond its hatred for Jews and Israel. In addition, the people of Iran are very different than the situation that was Iraq or Afghanistan. Any regime change has to come from within, IMHO.
My understanding of Iranian/Persian history suggests that Trump telling the Iranian people to evacuate their own capital might be the best approach to triggering regime change.
This is becoming a war of humiliation, and the mullahs are powerless to stop it.
Cultures which valorize martyrdom the way Iran does tend to have a strong sense of national pride. Right now the mullahs are leading Iran into an embarrassing defeat. I do not believe the Iranian people are likely to forget or forgive.
They are not about to become BFFs with Israel, but the Iranian people could be getting quite disgusted with the regime. That's not a look that lets authoritarians remain in charge for very long.
The problem is too many people familiarize themselves with one situation and then treat another situation as the same without familiarizing themselves with it. Repeat ad nauseum. For Tucker, everything in the Middle East is the Iraq War all over again.
It's not wrong to be concerned about a repeat of Iraq.
It is wrong to pretend the US can ignore the Middle East. Those oil flows impact the price of West Texas Intermediate, as we've seen with this latest price fluctuation.
It's also wrong to pretend that Iran is not actively pursuing nuclear weapons. There simply are not reasons for enriching uranium to 60% and beyond that do not entail military uses in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty--and Iran has been in violation of the NNPT going back to 2003.
It's equally wrong to pretend that Iran is not an existential threat to Israel. Iran's support for Hamas and Hezbollah alone prove the folly of that supposition.
None of this means the US should join Israel in bombing Iran back to the Stone Age. It does mean Israel has a casus belli for bombing Iran's nuclear weapons infrastructures.
Will President Trump's approach end up with the US getting more deeply involved in Israel's war with Iran? It could happen, but with Iran actively looking for a ceasefire, at present it's just not the most likely scenario. That Iran has chosen not to launch missiles at US assets in the Middle East suggests Iran does not want the US to become entangled in this war.
At this juncture, it would be a strategic mistake for the US to become involved. At present, Trump is keeping the US from becoming involved. Maybe tomorrow that changes. Maybe tomorrow Trump makes a mistake. But the facts that are being reported now do not point towards Trump looking for reasons to join in the bombing, and it is foolish for Tucker Carlson to pretend that they do.
Tucker Carlson, like so many "independent" voices, push emotionally triggering narratives as a means of increasing their audience and social media "influence". Ultimately, it is a quest for power.
Full disclosure: I absolutely promote myself and my Substack, and therefore I am also looking to grow my audience and social media influence. I don't criticize Tucker Carlson for his ends, but rather for his means. It's his approach which falls short.
My approach does not entail manipulating my audience or lying to them. My approach does not involve telling people what to think about the information I put out there.
I very much doubt Tucker Carlson and those like him can honestly make the same claim.
From your story, an important question:
“When oil traders are not panicking over Iran, one has to question why Tucker Carlson was panicking over Iran?”
Dig back through Carlson’s “lived experience” as a reporter/journalist and you find a clue.
Tucker bought into the fraudulent “WMD” sleight of hand employed by the Bush administration and key allies like Great Britain to justify the Iraq war.
One might observe that an older and arguably wiser Tucker displays a disdain for the establishment military machine that has in its DNA an undeniable thirst for war (and the profit it brings).
TCN is littered with sound bites of loathing against Neocon flimflam men whose tongues are hinged in the middle. They feign peacemaking but deliver Tomahawk missiles in the end.
Tucker may have a blind spot based on the WMD caper—and the 20 years of war, death, destruction, and failed nation building it brought us. All for naught, in his view (and many others agree with his perspective).
Then there’s the ultra orthodox Islamic “Republic” of Iran (biblical Persia) whose contemporary leaders favor a final conflagration through which their 12th Imam will be revealed (at least theoretically this is their doctrinal position—though, like all men, they would prefer not to die in said conflagration).
Carlson’s burgeoning spiritual awakening (I interpret him as a “seeker” in this regard) may have included gaining a better understanding of the objectives of orthodox Islam vis-à-vis the rest of the non-Islamic world. This understanding should give any rational thinker pause regarding plunging into an existential “conflict” with a semi nuclear capable Persia.
In summary, Carlson’s communique may have felt “knee-jerk” to some, but it is consistent with the TC I have listened to over the past two decades. Men change with time and experience. Tucker is no exception.
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!)
I'm an accountant who wandered into being an engineer. Facts are what I know and trust. Theory and models and narratives not so much.
Excellent work as always Peter. More people need to read your work. Tucker built a solid support base for years on his Fox glory days. His opening, and a solid foundation of credible guests was an hour I rarely missed. The Dominion disaster and hasty settlement revealed the Potemkin village at work. Anyone with any sensibility knew something was wrong with the outcome of the 2020 election. However, one better be able to prove their case. It also further exposed that the talking heads are spewing what is handed to them. This is clearly the case with Chris Cuomo, who I count not stand, but has a great show on News Nation. Leland Vittert hooked me on News Nation. Tucker has now revealed himself as a complete charlatan. Giving agency to frauds like Candice Owens and Darryl Cooper without challenging their orthodoxy lost me as a fan. His acceptance of antisemitism in a manner that excites Jew hatred from the right because it’s good for ratings only further diminishes his credibility. The money must be good. Compare him to Chris Rufo, who is under constant attack and yet continues to not deviate from his thesis. Good for Tucker, his impressive numbers, rabid fans, and big money. He’s nothing more than another Jew hater out to make a buck. He’s a provocateur that feats on hyperbole. However, I don’t think anyone had any idea at the depth Mossad has infiltrated Iran. This changes everything. Israel has no second chances. They have nowhere else to go.
I don’t really care what Tucker thinks. He also has a right to his own take on foreign war games.
I find it curious that some MAGA folks are using the term antisemitism like the woke left uses racism.
Tucker appears to be antiwar. He also seems suspicious of claims that Iran is days, weeks, months from having a bomb ready to deploy.
I don’t think Tucker is an antisemite.
But, he probably is on the wrong side of long lasting peace.
Of course, if Trump does something dumb like listen to Lindsay Graham or Sean Hannity, then all of Tucker's fans will be able to pile on and say "Tucker was right!"
However, at this juncture an "all out war" is just not likely even with US involvement. No Iranian ally has assets in the region to contest the skies, and the US is no more likely to attempt a land invasion of Iran. The forces are simply not there for an effort of that sort.
What US involvement would do is disrupt trade talks with China and negotiations to end the Ukraine war with Russia. By becoming once more a partisan actor in the Middle East, President Trump would shred his "peacemaker" street cred.
At this juncture there is no strategic reason for the US to join in bombing Iran. Hopefully that means Trump won't.
I doubt anyone is seriously seeking a full scale land invasion. Hiter sent 4 to 5 million troops from the Black Sea to the Baltics and still lost to Russia. However as we can both agree, this is a very complicated situation and Iran with its current ideology is a real threat to western civilization way beyond its hatred for Jews and Israel. In addition, the people of Iran are very different than the situation that was Iraq or Afghanistan. Any regime change has to come from within, IMHO.
My understanding of Iranian/Persian history suggests that Trump telling the Iranian people to evacuate their own capital might be the best approach to triggering regime change.
This is becoming a war of humiliation, and the mullahs are powerless to stop it.
Cultures which valorize martyrdom the way Iran does tend to have a strong sense of national pride. Right now the mullahs are leading Iran into an embarrassing defeat. I do not believe the Iranian people are likely to forget or forgive.
They are not about to become BFFs with Israel, but the Iranian people could be getting quite disgusted with the regime. That's not a look that lets authoritarians remain in charge for very long.
"All facts matter, and the facts are all that matter."
If only that were true.
For my bucks, you should have more readers/watchers than Tucker. It's a shame you don't. Thanks for what you do.
That would be so nice! :D
Thanks for saying that. I do appreciate it.
I am always thankful for the audience I do have, and always hopeful it will grow.
The problem is too many people familiarize themselves with one situation and then treat another situation as the same without familiarizing themselves with it. Repeat ad nauseum. For Tucker, everything in the Middle East is the Iraq War all over again.
It's not wrong to be concerned about a repeat of Iraq.
It is wrong to pretend the US can ignore the Middle East. Those oil flows impact the price of West Texas Intermediate, as we've seen with this latest price fluctuation.
It's also wrong to pretend that Iran is not actively pursuing nuclear weapons. There simply are not reasons for enriching uranium to 60% and beyond that do not entail military uses in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty--and Iran has been in violation of the NNPT going back to 2003.
It's equally wrong to pretend that Iran is not an existential threat to Israel. Iran's support for Hamas and Hezbollah alone prove the folly of that supposition.
None of this means the US should join Israel in bombing Iran back to the Stone Age. It does mean Israel has a casus belli for bombing Iran's nuclear weapons infrastructures.
Will President Trump's approach end up with the US getting more deeply involved in Israel's war with Iran? It could happen, but with Iran actively looking for a ceasefire, at present it's just not the most likely scenario. That Iran has chosen not to launch missiles at US assets in the Middle East suggests Iran does not want the US to become entangled in this war.
At this juncture, it would be a strategic mistake for the US to become involved. At present, Trump is keeping the US from becoming involved. Maybe tomorrow that changes. Maybe tomorrow Trump makes a mistake. But the facts that are being reported now do not point towards Trump looking for reasons to join in the bombing, and it is foolish for Tucker Carlson to pretend that they do.
I know. I sympathize with Tucker on restraint in the Middle East but his views have also left him some blind spots.
Tucker Carlson, like so many "independent" voices, push emotionally triggering narratives as a means of increasing their audience and social media "influence". Ultimately, it is a quest for power.
Full disclosure: I absolutely promote myself and my Substack, and therefore I am also looking to grow my audience and social media influence. I don't criticize Tucker Carlson for his ends, but rather for his means. It's his approach which falls short.
My approach does not entail manipulating my audience or lying to them. My approach does not involve telling people what to think about the information I put out there.
I very much doubt Tucker Carlson and those like him can honestly make the same claim.