Uncategorized
Tucker Carlson thinks antisemite Nick Fuentes is the future of MAGA
The uproar over Tucker Carlson’s decision to host Nick Fuentes, a notorious Holocaust denier and white nationalist, for a friendly chat on his popular online talk show last week focused on the need to maintain a firewall between mainstream conservatives and antisemites like Fuentes.
But Carlson sat down with Fuentes — who he’d previously called a “fed” and mocked as a “weird little gay kid” — out of recognition that the firewall is collapsing and a belief that conservatives like himself need to figure out how to harness the movement Fuentes represents to achieve their many shared political goals, including shifting America’s posture toward Israel.
For years, Fuentes has held court on daily livestreams for a dedicated audience of young men, sometimes called the Groyper Army, drawn to his obsessive focus on defending white America from immigrants, minorities and Jews, and his willingness to troll and agitate mainstream Republicans.
That dynamic made him anathema to GOP leaders and even to other influencers like Charlie Kirk, who supported many of the same political positions as Fuentes, but avoided his most inflammatory rhetoric about women and minorities (“Your body, my choice,” Fuentes famously posted online after the 2024 election). And yet Fuentes grew more popular, and, in the months before his murder, Kirk had started to adopt some of his talking points.
Carlson, meanwhile, has had one foot in the political wilderness since he was pushed out of his primetime slot on Fox News two years ago. He relaunched his show on X and, unmoored from any editorial oversight, began embracing various conspiracy theories — UFOs, false flag attacks, 9/11 trutherism. But he has also maintained a close relationship with President Donald Trump, and spoke during primetime at the Republican National Convention last year.
Carlson started to turn against Israel in the past year, a shift he has framed in isolationist terms but which coincided with his willingness to interview figures like Darryl Cooper, an amateur historian and Holocaust revisionist, and Candace Owens, who shares Fuentes’s open antipathy toward Jews.
Fuentes is already aligned with mainstream Republicans on immigration, but Carlson is seeking to enlist the Groyper Army in his uphill political project of turning the MAGA movement against Israel.
“I feel like going on about ‘the Jews’ helps” Israel’s supporters, he told Fuentes at one point in their conversation. He begged Fuentes not to judge people simply for being born Jewish — an incredibly narrow understanding of antisemitism — but even that was a struggle for the 27-year-old streamer, who repeatedly reaffirmed his most extreme views.
“As far as the Jews are concerned, you cannot actually divorce Israel and the neocons from Jewishness,” Fuentes said. He went on to expound on the theory that Jews are rootless cosmopolitans (“They’re unassimilatable”) and obsessed with their historic persecution such that they prioritize Israel’s interests (“We don’t think like that as Americans and white people”).
***
At several points, Carlson tried to push back and suggest that appeals to identity politics in the United States could only lead to division and even political violence, but this only prompted Fuentes to argue that “a big challenge” to social harmony is “organized Jewry in America.”
Crucially, Carlson never rebuked Fuentes. The disagreement over how much to blame “the Jews” was framed instead as an earnest difference of opinion between two figures working toward a shared goal of limited immigration and an isolationist foreign policy.
The pair eventually moved on to discuss pornography (“It seems like it’s making a lot of people gay,” Carlson observed) and traditional gender roles, where Carlson’s earlier insistence that you can’t treat people differently based on how they are born seemed to evaporate. There was a bit of an odd couple dynamic between the two, including a surreal digression about Joseph Stalin (“I’m a fan,” Fuentes told an incredulous Carlson, “always an admirer.”).
But the crucial thing that Carlson understands, like Kirk did before him, is that Fuentes represents the vanguard of the conservative movement and that whatever forces were once able to shape the contours of this movement by setting priorities and enforcing norms against people like Fuentes — the Mitch McConnells and Fox Newses — are losing power.
This poses a unique threat to Jews because, as a small minority, they have historically relied on one of two different strategies to maintain their safety and status in society. The first is to build a coalition with other minorities who, by joining together, have more leverage to demand equal rights. And the second model is to maintain a close relationship with those in power who can carve out special protections for Jews.
The second model has been the preferred approach to working with an increasingly authoritarian Trump administration hostile toward minority rights, and it’s found some success as, for example, the White House has demanded colleges end their diversity programs while simultaneously demanding they tailor special services to help Jewish students.
And yet as the power of conservative gatekeepers like McConnell and Rupert Murdoch erodes, this contradiction can only be maintained if MAGA leaders are able to genuinely convince their base that Jews are an important part of their coalition.
That is challenging when Carlson, Fuentes and Kirk have all accurately pointed out that Jews are overwhelmingly liberal and opposed to Trump — to say nothing of the antisemitic tropes and conspiracies that often animate these complaints.
***
Of special concern to many Jewish conservatives was that the Heritage Foundation, an influential think tank that has been cranking out policy blueprints for the White House, including on antisemitism, rushed to Carlson’s defense after his conversation with Fuentes. President Kevin Roberts insisted that “Christians can critique the State of Israel.” Some staff and antisemitism task force members resigned in response this week.
Several right-wing Jewish groups associated with the Heritage Foundation’s antisemitism task force, including the Zionist Organization of America, threatened to cut ties with the organization. And Ted Cruz, who Carlson hammered over his support for Israel in a June interview, called him a “coward” who was complicit in evil during remarks at the Republican Jewish Coalition conference in Las Vegas this past weekend.
But the politicians and organizations rushing to condemn Carlson and Fuentes mostly came onto the scene before Trump upended national politics, and their understanding of the political landscape does not seem to have caught up.
There is little indication they are capable of reclaiming control of a Republican party whose youth wing was just consumed by a scandal involving several of its leaders making explicitly antisemitic comments about Jews and praising Nazis in a leaked group chat, only to be defended by Vice President JD Vance.
Nearly 500,000 people tuned in to watch Fuentes, streaming from his basement studio Monday night, mock the Jewish leaders who were seeking to ostracize him. He was frustrated but also triumphant. The sudden outrage at his interview with Carlson seemed like a last gasp of the previous “cancel culture” that Trump’s reelection had otherwise wiped out.
Fuentes and his ilk have been unbanned from social platforms, he dined with the president at Mar-a-Lago three years ago — “This guy’s hardcore,” Fuentes claims Trump said, “I like this guy” — and Carlson went from mocking him to enlisting him as a political ally.
Carlson and Heritage seem to recognize that the wind is at Fuentes’s back, and are responding accordingly.
“People are simply catching up, they’re waking up to what has always been going on — which is that we’ve been fighting these people’s wars for generations,” Fuentes told his audience, referring to Jews. “We want our fucking country back.”
The post Tucker Carlson thinks antisemite Nick Fuentes is the future of MAGA appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Trump, on eve of new ceasefire talks: ‘Israel never talked me into the war with Iran’
(JTA) — President Donald Trump insisted that “Israel never talked me into the war with Iran” on his social network Monday, apparently seeking to tamp down a series of reports — including from members of his own administration — that the Israeli government had manipulated him into striking the Islamic Republic.
In the same post on Truth Social, Trump added that his own reaction to the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel contributed to his decision: “Israel never talked me into the war with Iran, the results of Oct. 7th, added to my lifelong opinion that IRAN CAN NEVER HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON, did.”
Trump is facing growing backlash to the Iran war that had been launched with joint U.S.-Israeli strikes, with members of his own party joining a chorus of voices opposing it. A key point of contention is to what degree Israeli pressure played a role in the president’s decision to go to war, with the GOP’s anti-Israel wing maintaining that Trump was manipulated by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio initially suggesting that Israel had forced the president’s hand.
Anti-war protesters have often linked the strikes either to Trump and Netanyahu equally, or portrayed Netanyahu as Trump’s puppet master.
A recent report in The New York Times also indicated that Trump had trusted Netanyahu’s assessment that regime change in Iran would be swift, rather than dissenting views among his own generals. The war has continued for nearly two months, with Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz undercutting the world’s oil supply. The Trump administration is currently eyeing an exit ramp, with polls showing that Jewish Americans are largely opposed to the war even as they support its aims.
But in his new post, Trump continued to confidently declare that regime change in Iran was a possibility.
“Just like the results in Venezuela, which the media doesn’t like talking about, the results in Iran will be amazing,” the president wrote. “And if Iran’s new leaders (Regime Change!) are smart, Iran can have a great and prosperous future!”
Trump’s post comes days after another that appeared designed to combat the perception that he was not in full control. A day after announcing a truce in the Israel-Hezbollah fight in Lebanon, which reportedly surprised even members of Netanyahu’s cabinet, he posted, “Israel will not be bombing Lebanon any longer. They are PROHIBITED from doing so by the U.S.A. Enough is enough!!!” White House officials, responding to confusion from the Israelis, later clarified that the prohibition did not extended to strikes that are considered defensive.
The new post comes as Trump has sent competing signals about the future of the ceasefire, which is set to expire on Tuesday. Over the weekend, he both indicated that he believed the ceasefire would be extended and warned in a different post that the Iranians must comply with his demands or he would target the country’s civilian infrastructure.
“We’re offering a very fair and reasonable DEAL, and I hope they take it because, if they don’t, the United States is going to knock out every single Power Plant, and every single Bridge, in Iran,” Trump wrote. “NO MORE MR. NICE GUY!”
Iran has said it has “no plans” to attend talks meant to extend the ceasefire scheduled for Monday night in Islamabad, Pakistan. Netanyahu, meanwhile, told Israelis on Monday that he stands ready to return to war if needed.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Trump, on eve of new ceasefire talks: ‘Israel never talked me into the war with Iran’ appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
If Iran Won’t Deal, Trump Must Make the Cost of Refusal Unbearable
A US Navy sailor signals an F/A-18E Super Hornet on the flight deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in support of the Operation Epic Fury attack on Iran at an undisclosed location, March 4, 2026. Photo: US Navy/Handout via REUTERS
The ceasefire with Iran is expiring. The talks collapsed after 21 hours in Islamabad. Iran has closed the Strait of Hormuz. Trump himself, speaking aboard Air Force One, put the choice plainly: “Maybe I won’t extend [the ceasefire]. So you have a blockade, and unfortunately, we’ll have to start dropping bombs again.”
That is the right instinct. But dropping bombs alone is not a strategy. It is a continuation of what has not worked. The question before the administration is not whether to apply pressure, but what kind of pressure actually changes Iran’s calculus. The answer requires being honest about what the war has so far failed to accomplish, and clear about what must follow.
Start with what the strikes achieved and what they did not. The United States and Israel killed Iran’s supreme leader, wiped out much of its senior military command, and damaged its nuclear facilities. These were historic accomplishments. But US intelligence assessments say Iran’s regime likely will remain in place for now, weakened but more hardline, with the Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) exerting greater control. As one analyst put it: “When President Trump says he has changed the regime in Iran, he’s right in one sense: he’s changed it to a much more radicalized regime.” The war shifted who holds power in Tehran, but it did not shift what that power wants.
The IRGC, which now runs Iran more openly than at any point since 1979, looks at the nuclear question through the lens of survival. Analysts say the IRGC will be looking toward the example of North Korea, noting that the country has not been subject to attacks precisely because it possesses a nuclear deterrent. Former Supreme Leader Khamenei’s fatwa banning a nuclear bomb died with him, and for any military whose conventional deterrence has been degraded, the ultimate deterrent is now “a very attractive prospect.”
This is the central strategic reality the Trump administration must accept: Iran’s incentive to acquire a nuclear weapon has increased, not decreased, as a result of the war. Bombing alone will not change that. Only a combination of measures that makes the pursuit of the bomb more costly than abandoning it can.
The first requirement is maintaining the naval blockade unconditionally, regardless of Iranian announcements about Hormuz openings. Iran has been selectively admitting ships from China, Turkey, Pakistan, and India under bilateral arrangements while blocking others, converting the strait into a political instrument rather than surrendering the leverage it provides. A blockade that can be circumvented through side deals is not a blockade. It is theater. CENTCOM must enforce the blockade against all sanctioned traffic without exceptions, including Chinese tankers, and Trump must be prepared to make that enforcement the hill his presidency stands on, economically and diplomatically.
The second requirement is activating European snap-back sanctions immediately. Secretary of State Marco Rubio urged European countries on April 18 to quickly reimpose sanctions, warning that Iran is approaching nuclear weapons capability. This call should not have been made publicly as a request. It should have been delivered as a condition. Washington has leverage over European access to American markets and defense cooperation that it has consistently refused to use in Iran policy. That reluctance must end. A European sanctions regime that closes off the money that the blockade does not reach, will give Iran no economic off-ramp that does not run through US terms.
The third requirement is the most uncomfortable to name. The Iranian people have already done the work the administration hoped bombing would do. Surveys conducted inside Iran show that Iranians believe protests, foreign pressure, and intervention are more likely to bring about political change than elections and reforms. The regime is militarily weakened, culturally weakened, and economically weakened, with a plummeting currency. Protests that began in December 2025 over economic conditions grew into nationwide demonstrations in all 31 provinces, with hundreds of thousands participating and calls shifting from economic grievances to the overthrow of the Islamic Republic itself. This is the most significant popular uprising Iran has seen since 1979, and it is happening right now, under the weight of the war and the blockade.
Trump called on the Iranian people to take their government at the outset of the war. He should not abandon that call as a diplomatic inconvenience. Materially supporting the opposition, providing Internet access to circumvent the regime’s blackout, and making unambiguous public commitments to the protesters that American pressure will not cease while the IRGC shoots demonstrators in the street are actions within the administration’s power. They cost nothing militarily and they impose a political cost on the regime that no bomb can replicate.
A deal that leaves Iran with a five-year enrichment window and underground missile cities under reconstruction is not a deal. It is a countdown. Trump knows what the alternative looks like. He should pursue it.
Amine Ayoub, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco. Follow him on X: @amineayoubx
Uncategorized
Podcast Hosts and Others Must Continue to Call Out Tucker Carlson for His Hatred
Tucker Carlson speaks on July 18, 2024, during the final day of the Republican National Convention at the Fiserv Forum in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Photo: Jasper Colt-USA TODAY via Reuters Connect
Patrick Bet-David, host of the PBD podcast, made an open video to Tucker Carlson in which he offered to have accountants check Bet-David’s finances as well as his wife’s, to see if Israel has given him money. At the same time, the accountants would look into Carlson and his wife to see if Qatar or other countries have given Carlson money.
Though Carlson will certainly not agree to it, it is a good step to put pressure on Carlson. Carlson’s goal is to turn Christians against Israel — and right now, against Trump. It’s not by chance that he falsely claimed Israeli President Isaac Herzog was on Epstein island. There’s no evidence of it, and Carlson made it up out of his desire to vilify Israel.
Bet-David did an interview with Netanyahu, and didn’t call him a genocider — which was tough for Carlson to handle. Carlson absurdly thought Netanyahu would sit for an interview with him. It will never happen because Carlson, whether motivated by money, revenge, or something we don’t know, has been on the warpath against Israel and Jews, obsessively speaking about these two topics. In addition, he is suddenly buddies with those on the far-left who also hate Israel. Known as the horseshoe effect, those on the far-right and far-left can disagree on everything under the sun, but unite in their hatred of Jews.
Carlson is charismatic and has great delivery, though I’m not sure why his absurd laugh hasn’t thrown people off. In this attention economy, it’s about starting conversations. Bet-David smartly put it out there for Carlson to show transparency, which he will not do. What makes this interesting is that when Carlson was first ousted from Fox News, Bet-David made it publicly known that he was offering Carlson a huge amount of money to work for him. This was before Carlson became anti-Israel.
Bet-David was born in Iran, and fled the country to come to America. Bet-David was also right to question why Carlson was downplaying the harms of Sharia law, and focusing on what Carlson thought were its benefits.
My hope is that this leads to Carlson coming on Bet-David’s show. I doubt he will, although there is a small chance because he may think Bet-David is not as intellectual as Douglas Murray or Ben Shapiro. While that’s true, Bet-David is charismatic, can make good points at times, and his experience seeing the evils of Iran firsthand would make for an interesting conversation with Carlson.
It is hard to understand why people believe the things that Carlson and Candace Owens say, though their personalities can be entertaining, and someone unaware of facts perhaps might think they were correct.
Irrespective of the outcome of the Iran war, Carlson is ready with the narrative that it is a disaster. He said that millions could die if America attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities before Trump took action last June. Of course, that didn’t happen. Being wrong has no consequences in Carlson’s mind; it’s about ratcheting up hatred of Israel and positioning it as an enemy of America. At times, it seems Carlson is the one standing against America. As Bet-David pointed out, Carlson said that Sharia law was leading the Muslim world to thrive, while it was declining under America. Carlson also had everyone believing that he was a big fan of President Donald Trump, until text messages revealed he hated him.
While I have my criticisms of Bet-David for not asking tougher questions to idiotic and Jew-hating guests, he deserves credit for calling out Carlson and outing him under the microscope. Because when that is done, what we find is quite ugly. Carlson, through charisma and absurdity, is trying to mainstream the idea that Israel is the enemy of America. He is hoping to reel people in on the lie that Israel bullied America into the war. That’s not the case — and everyone who knows that must continually question Tucker on it.
The author is a writer based in New York.