Isn't the general consensus that Iran is indeed pretty damn close to have a bomb?

So, the premise of Tuckers argument is likely incorrect.

Tucker went cray cray

esteban said:

---

Tucker is no longer owned by the Murdochs which allows him to take the sane and correct position on Iran. Levin is a total shill for Israel and pushes their interests over ours at all times. This is why he wants yet another disastrous war. Watching Americans die for Israel is a longtime hobby of his. I'm not a fan of either, but Tucker at least has half a brain and a teaspoon of integrity.

---

esteban said:

---

Tucker is no longer owned by the Murdochs which allows him to take the sane and correct position on Iran. Levin is a total shill for Israel and pushes their interests over ours at all times. This is why he wants yet another disastrous war. Watching Americans die for Israel is a longtime hobby of his. I'm not a fan of either, but Tucker at least has half a brain and a teaspoon of integrity.

---

from a long time liberal poster on F16. When you align with esteban and obama, you should reconsider your position.

Carlson has been a shill and grifter for Qatar for many years.

he has been railing against any intervention in Ukraine, Syria, and Iran for decades.

he doesn't like the Jews, and of course has to go with the old anti-semitic libel of "it's the Jews pressing for war who won't fight in that same war"

even though there are literally MILLIONS of Christians in the USA who want to bomb the Iranian nuclear reactors.

Carlson is just as much of an anti-semite as Candace Owens, he just tries to hide it a bit more. why does he dislike the Jews? whether from his hardcore Catholic sect beliefs, or just his Qatari payouts, or his isolationist viewpoints.

Quote:

---

whether from his hardcore Catholic sect beliefs

---

link?

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Isn't the general consensus that Iran is indeed pretty damn close to have a bomb?

So, the premise of Tuckers argument is likely incorrect.

Tucker went cray cray

---

pic.twitter.com/tCtcJlPyAk

— Mises Caucus (@LPMisesCaucus) June 5, 2025

Levin is the only cognitively superior host on FNC. (Watters and gutfeld are awesomely funny and worth watching, but neither can carry Levin's intellectual jock strap)...

That said, Levin is wrong about Iran.

TexAgs91 said:

---

This is one area that Tucker is certifiably insane on. Of course Iran wants to build a bomb. After every marxist/democrat regime in the US, they are that much closer.

---

America has spent ~30 years and trillions of dollars fighting one regime change war after another in the ME for no gain to us, and now we're supposed to fall for another "they gonna get WMDs if we don't stop em" lie again like we did in Iraq?

esteban said:

---

Watching Americans die for Israel is a longtime hobby of his.

---

When did this happen?

thorough evisceration by AG.

AG in bold, Calson in quotes.

So what is actually going on here is that Tucker (who was elected by no one) and some allies inside the administration have been leading an effort to set a more isolationist foreign policy for the administration. They've had some success in undermining the general direction, but Trump himself remains conflicted between the two camps and views Tehran's regime as an enemy. This group has been making every effort to undermine any other strategy, including by leaking classified discussions to the press. So now they are increasingly worried that Trump is going to recognize the talks are failing and is going to sign off on a strike on the Islamic Republic's nuclear facilities. So they lash out. Many of the arguments here are just regurgitated, dishonest talking points from the Obama appeasement team, but only more dishonest and absurd. Tucker is heavily relying on the ignorance of his audience and not engaging with anyone who disagrees with his propaganda efforts. So let me respond to his rant line by line (my responses in bold)

Quote:

---

Mark Levin was at the White House today, lobbying for war with Iran. To be clear, Levin has no plans to fight in this or any other war

---

(This is a dumb chickenhawk argument suggesting no one who isn't in the military, which would include Tucker btw, can support any action).

Quote:

---

He's demanding that American troops do it

---

(This is the strawman Tucker heavily relies on, pretending that a strike on nuclear facilities is equivalent to a ground war where American troops are fighting and will die… it's just a lie).

Quote:

---

We need to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons, he and likeminded ideologues in Washington are now arguing. They're just weeks away

---

(No one saying weeks away, but some thresholds will make any action more difficult).

Quote:

---

If this sounds familiar, it's because the same people have been making the same claim since at least the 1990s

---

(The Islamic Republic has been a consistent terrorism threat and killed numerous Americans since 1979, but the emphasis on their nuclear program started in the 2000's).

Quote:

---

It's a lie. In fact, there is zero credible intelligence that suggests Iran is anywhere near building a bomb, or has plans to

---

(This is just an absurd lie repeating Tehran propaganda. There is extensive evidence that the Islamic Republic has been building an active nuclear weapons program and has made substantial progress. A new IAEA report details an extensive record of Tehran hiding their nuclear activity and specifics related to development, including even testing the detonator for a nuclear weapon https://reuters.com/world/china/iaea-report-says-iran-had-secret-activities-with-undeclared-nuclear-material-2025-05-31/…).

Quote:

---

None. Anyone who claims otherwise is ignorant or dishonest.

---

(This is a nice trick Tucker uses often where he says something false or likely false, then claims disagreeing with it is ignorant or dishonest)

Quote:

---

If the US government knew Iran was weeks from possessing a nuclear weapon, we'd be at war already.

Iran knows this, which is why they aren't building one. Iran also knows it's unwise to give up its weapons program entirely

---

(These two sentences contradict each other. He both claims there is no effort to build a nuclear weapon and says it would be foolish to give up an effort to build a nuclear weapon?).

Quote:

---

Muammar Gaddafi tried that and wound up sodomized with a bayonet. As soon as Gaddafi disarmed, NATO killed him. Iran's leaders saw that happen. They learned the obvious lesson.

So why is Mark Levin once again hyperventilating about weapons of mass destruction? To distract you from the real goal, which is regime change young Americans heading back to the Middle East to topple yet another government

---

(Again, no one is advocating for troops on the ground. This is an invented strawman. Everyone should support regime change given the current regime is the largest sponsor of terror and is responsible for much of the violence in the region, but very few are advocating for an invasion and ground war to achieve it. Also, a strike on nuclear facilities will be very unlikely to achieve regime change, so saying this is the goal is just made up).

Quote:

---

Virtually no one will say this out loud. America's record of overthrowing foreign leaders is so embarrassingly counterproductive that regime change has become a synonym for disaster. Officially, no one supports it. So instead of telling the truth about their motives, they manufacture hysteria: "A country like Iran can never have the bomb! They'll nuke Los Angeles! We have to act now!"

They don't really mean this, and you can tell they don't by what they omit. At least two of Iran's neighbors both Islamic nations already have nuclear weapons

---

(This is wrong. Pakistan is the only Islamic country with a nuclear weapon. That creates a lot of danger, but it is not the same as a regime that openly arms most of the major terror groups in the region. Iran getting a nuke would launch an arms race in the region as Saudis and others would insist on having one too).

Quote:

---

That fact should scare the hell out of Mark Levin. Yet for some reason he never mentions it. How come? Because it's not the weapons he hates. It's the ideology of the Iranian government

---

(the ideology Tucker is downplaying here is the one that leads them to scream "death to America" in their legislative sessions, kill thousands of Americans, develop numerous terror proxies, and has even recently attempted to put in place to assasinate President Trump),

Quote:

---

which is why he's lobbying to overthrow it.

It goes without saying that there are very few Trump voters who'd support a regime change war in Iran

---

(Something no one is proposing).

Quote:

---

Donald Trump has argued loudly against reckless lunacy like this. Trump ran for president as a peace candidate

---

(Trump ran with a similar FP as his term 1, which at least in terms of Iran, meant peace through strength. He took out the top general in the Islamic Republic's history - something that Tucker claimed would lead to war- and applied max pressure on the regime during that term).

Quote:

---

That's what made him different from conventional Republicans. It's why he won. A war with Iran would amount to a profound betrayal of his supporters. It would end his presidency. That may explain why so many of Trump's enemies are advocating for it.
;

And then there's the question of the war itself. Iran may not have nukes, but it has a fearsome arsenal of ballistic missiles, many of which are aimed at US military installations in the Gulf, as well as at our allies and at critical energy infrastructure. The first week of a war with Iran could easily kill thousands of Americans.

---

(This is Bagdad Bob equivalent absurd propaganda. Not only is no one advocating a ground war with Iran, but these several paragraphs might as well come straight from the Iranian ministry. When Trump took out Soleimani, they responded with some missile launches on several American bases in Iraq. Zero troops were killed)

Quote:

---

It could also collapse our economy, as surging oil prices trigger unmanageable inflation. Consider the effects of $30 gasoline

---

(The world, and particularly the U.S. are far less reliant on Iranian oil now. That's the whole point of promoting domestic production. In addition, again this is based on some type of all-out war, which is separate from a strike on nuclear facilities).

B

Quote:

---

ut the second week of the war could be even worse. Iran isn't Iraq or Libya, or even North Korea. While it's often described as a rogue state, Iran has powerful allies. It's now part of a global bloc called BRICS, which represents the majority of the world's landmass, population, economy and military power

---

(BRICS is a political and diplomatic coordination effort, it is not a military alliance. Almost none of those countries would ever support Iran militarily, much less against the United States. The idea that India or even the UAE would fight against the U.S. for Iran is beyond laughable).

Quote:

---

Iran has extensive military ties with Russia

---

(Russia, with a severely depleted military, hasn't been able to take over Ukraine, they have no interest in fighting us directly. Much less on behalf of Iran).

Quote:

---

It sells the overwhelming majority of its oil exports to China. Iran isn't alone

---

(This is easily debunked. Iran has recent direct exchanges with Israel. They got 0 support other than statements from Turkey etc. while an entire coalition including Sunni states worked to knock down their drones and ballistic missiles. Israel alone took out their entire air defenses last year. This whole thing is an alternate reality).

Quote:

---

An attack on Iran could very easily become a world war. We'd lose

---

(It could not easily turn into a world war because mosto of the military powers in the world would be on our side or indifferent and we definitely wouldn't lose… Iran couldn't defeat Israel on their own, much less the United States. This is just a weird Tehran Tucker fantasy).

N

Quote:

---

one of these are far fetched predictions

---

(These are insane predictions).

Quote:

---

Most of them comport with the Pentagon's own estimates: many Americans would die during a war with Iran. People like Mark Levin don't seem to care about this. It's not relevant to them

---

(If this weird fantasy were real, how would Levin not care about the impact to himself and his family? Of course it's not real, it's just nonsense).

Quote:

---

Instead they insist that Iran give up all uranium enrichment, regardless of its purpose. They know perfectly well that Iran will never accept that demand.

---

(The demand is perfectly reasonable. It's to outsource their uranium enrichment to other countries. Something many countries do. They won't give it up because they want to build a nuclear weapon as a safety net for their terror activities, and everyone knows it) T

Quote:

---

hey'll fight first. And of course that's the whole point of pushing for it: to box the Trump administration into a regime change war in Iran.

The one thing that people like Mark Levin don't want is a peaceful solution to the problem of Iran, despite the obvious benefits to the United States. They denounce anyone who advocates for a deal as a traitor and a bigot

---

( This is projection and deflection. Tucker spends all his time smearing and lying about people he disagrees with while avoiding engaging with them directly. He accuses them of not being loyal to America, not caring about American issues etc. all while advocating for open enemies of the United States and spreading propaganda on their behalf. Tucker promotes countries that want to do us harm, like Russia, Qatar, and China, while denouncing actual allies) .

So what is actually going on here is that Tucker (who was elected by no one) and some allies inside the administration have been leading an effort to set a more isolationist foreign policy for the administration. They’ve had some success in undermining the general direction, but… https://t.co/p7CHT47tcF

— AG (@AGHamilton29) June 5, 2025

TLDR VERSION:

MANY OF THE ARGUMENTS HERE ARE JUST REGURGITATED, DISHONEST TALKING POINTS FROM THE OBAMA APPEASEMENT TEAM, BUT ONLY MORE DISHONEST AND ABSURD.

TRM said:

---

esteban said:

---

Watching Americans die for Israel is a longtime hobby of his.

---

When did this happen?

---

The main benefactor of American military action in the ME has been Israel, which is why Netanyahu promised us that "democracy would sweep the region" 20 years ago if we invaded.

US didn't invade Iraq for Israel, so find me an instance.

I absolutely do not believe any source that tries to assert Iran is not planning to build a nuclear arsenal. There is literally no other reason for them having had the nuclear program they have had for decades now. They have vast amounts of petroleum for energy needs. The enrichment capability they have constructed far exceeds the needs of nuclear power generation, yet they are not even dabbling in a significant power generation reactor site.

Anyone telling you that a nuclear arsenal is still not in the long term strategic plans of the Iranian regime is trying to get you to buy into a false narrative.

Secondly, there is a gulf of difference in using up to targeted military power in order to stop an Iranian nuclear weapons program and starting a war with Iran itself.

The USA has attacked Iranian assets before to suppress hostile and terrorist activities and we did not automatically end up in any sort of protracted conflict, let alone any sort of ground war. The idea of this binary of having a diplomatic hand slap fight or an all out military ground conflict launched from who knows where is just ludicrous and a terrible logical fallacy. People who assert there is no spectrum of options are being purposefully obtuse. A military act is not preferable, but if it achieves the necessary result it must be considered in lieu of a nuclear armed state sponsor of terrorism and regional instability that inevitably bleeds over into harming American interests.

Ukraine isn my view isn't about Ukraine. It is about the perception of the rest of the world if the USA will remain a global superpower who will use its influence and demand respect and deference or if nations will start to dismiss us and look elsewhere to form alliances and leverage power. If we create a void via isolationism and disinterest, others absolutely will fill it, and they will necessarily become greater competitors to out interests in that process. We can hide behind our oceans but our investments and economic interests cannot in a globalized economy. We don't need to be in every fight, but we do need some successful outcomes once we are in them. We broke Ukraine by demanding they disarm and promising them security in the 1990's, and then again during the Obama administration by repeatedly meddling in and manipulating their internal politics. We bought our role there, and to completely walk away will be broadcasting a very clear message to everyone else globally: the USA is much weaker than it appears, and can be defied, intimidated, and manipulated by anyone with the persistence to outlast an election cycle or two. I'm not sure that another loss, even if it is only by failed support of another nation, is what we want to be a part of.

These things need to.be carefully considered and Carlson's ideological isolationism simply disregards these issues out of hand as if all other nations had no agency or self interest or ability to do us economic harm. I need to see better arguments as to how the benefits outweigh the true costs. Just asking questions doesn't provide answers.

Tucker correct yet again

My post above was what I believed to be his point, the Jsraelis prefer US military presence in the region and were proponents of our military actions there, which is why I provided the specific example of Bibi pushing Congress for military action in 2002.

Iran cannot have nuclear weapons or we will have massive casualties events on the horizon. Whatever Trump needs to do, this is an imperative

Cougar11 said:

---

So Tucker is a clown for not wanting to go to another stupid War? LMAO

---

Tucker is a clown for lying out of his ass on a regular basis, knowing the smooth brains that live on his every word will believe it without question. He is basically Alex Jones lite, but just smart enough to avoid being sued for slander and defamation.

He is also the biggest pro-Putin/Russian shrill in the media.

Rapier108 said:

---

He is basically Alex Jones lite, but just smart enough to avoid being sued for slander and defamation.

---

Just the company he works for.

KerrAg76 said:

---

Iran cannot have nuclear weapons or we will have massive casualties events on the horizon. Whatever Trump needs to do, this is an imperative

---

"Iraq cannot have nuclear weapons or we will have massive casualties events on the horizon. Whatever Bush needs to do, this is an imperative" - You in 2002

Let Israel fight Iran

The US shouldn't do their dirty work and sacrifice American lives for this

Again, when has the US send anyone to fight for Israel. We were going into Iraq no matter what.

If your argument is the Israel prefers the US in the ME, then we could easily say the US is sending Americans to die defending the Qataris.

If the Qataris had nearly as much influence as AIPAC I might agree with you. Since America spent trillions overthrowing regimes in the ME and the only consistent beneficiary is Israel I'd say its fair to be suspicious of what they say.

Oh yeah, you mean like how they influence Tucker and Don Jr through 1789 Capital.

Carlson is a massive hypocrite

I can post pictures of him all day long with Arabs

he certainly chose a side by defending Bashar Assad, Vlad Putin and the Ayatollahs in Teheran!

how in the @#$@#$ is that "America First"?!?!

esteban said:

---

Tucker is no longer owned by the Murdochs which allows him to take the sane and correct position on Iran. Levin is a total shill for Israel and pushes their interests over ours at all times. This is why he wants yet another disastrous war. Watching Americans die for Israel is a longtime hobby of his. I'm not a fan of either, but Tucker at least has half a brain and a teaspoon of integrity.

---

I'm a big fan of Levin (though haven't followed in recent memory). With that being said, everything you said is spot on.

We don't need another damn war without irrefutable proof. Levin is Israel first.

That seemed like a well reasoned rebuttal until this:

Quote:

---

Tucker promotes countries that want to do us harm, like Russia, Qatar, and China, while denouncing actual allies) .

---

Talk about absurd.

dont know about china, but its spot on for Russia and Qatar.

you see his piece creaming over the grocery baskets in moscow?

Levin is another pseudo "conservative" radio talk show fraud who fools the sheep to follow him so he can get rich.

BMX Bandit said:

---

dont know about china, but its spot on for Russia and Qatar.

you see his piece creaming over the grocery baskets in moscow?

---

And? How does making observations equate to being an apologist?

Why don't you watch the Moscow subway and compare it to NYCs? Good grief it isn't being an apologist to recognize the Moscow subway is better than NYCs.

Why?

Failed leftist policies. What some of you are taking as being "apologist" I see instead the absurd notion that as Americans we should ACCEPT having crap infrastructure and a large, useless and sometimes violent population.

Which two Islamic, neighboring countries have nuclear weapons? Pakistan and who else? Certainly he's not comparing Iran having nuclear weapons to Israel.