A full-length interview with Tucker Carlson — The Economist

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Tucker Carlson, thank you for joining The Insider. Oh, Jamin Beddows. Very nice to see you again after, what, 20 years when I appeared on your PBS show? [00:00:08] Speaker 2: 22 years. [00:00:09] Speaker 1: 22 years. You were the idiosyncratic contrarian conservative, and I guess I was a sensible centrist then. [00:00:16] Speaker 2: Nothing has changed by those measures. [00:00:19] Speaker 1: You are now probably the most vocal critic of the Iran war on the right, and I wanted to start with that because you've been pretty clear in your criticism. You called Operation Epic Fury absolutely disgusting and evil the first day. You also said that it was a war that could change world history. [00:00:36] Speaker 2: It will. [00:00:37] Speaker 1: And I wanted to start there because I wanted to help you help me understand how you think this war will change world history. [00:00:44] Speaker 2: You'll control, I mean, control of the Persian Gulf is what, 20% of the world's energy, that's what's at stake. That's why it's, that's the main reason geopolitically it's a relevant part of the world because those seven countries, the six Gulf states and Iran, control, once again, probably 22% of the world's energy. And huge parts of the world, including huge parts of Asia, including our critical American allies in Asia, which would include or really be limited to Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, are wholly dependent on it because they don't have the resources domestically. So who controls that and the aperture on the eastern end, the now famous Straits of Ramos, and also the entry to the Red Sea, like that's the same as controlling a lot of the world. And so that's what's at stake, and so we'll know who won or lost by who controls that by the end. That's the only measure. It's not the Iranian nuclear program, please. It's about access and control. [00:01:49] Speaker 1: So I agree with that. And we at The Economist have been very skeptical of this war. But you have already said that this would hand control of the Middle East to China. Why do you think that? [00:01:59] Speaker 2: Game it out. First of all, I don't want that. I don't think it's good for the United States. I'm American, and I think the U.S. has been an imperfect and increasingly short-sighted steward of its position as like hegemon. But I think there are ways to pull back from empire. There are ways to enter into power-sharing agreements between East and West, which I think would be the wisest course at this point. [00:02:26] Speaker 1: But just let me push you why you think it would hand it to China. It's true that that- Just think about it. Because, yes, there are very strong economic relationships. But China is a net energy importer. So right now, Iran is actually in a stronger position vis-à-vis China than it was before because it controls the Straits of Hormuz. China hasn't shown any interest in having a military presence of the sort that the U.S. has. It has one very small military outpost. So I'm not at all sure China wants to take on that role. So I think when you say it's hand in control of the Middle East of China, I'm not sure that you can really sort of get that. [00:03:00] Speaker 2: This is, and with respect, this is the worldview that squandered Western dominance. The idea that every- no, it is though. It's like, well, they don't have military bases. Well, maybe you don't want military bases. What you want is control. What you want is an outcome that benefits you and that minimizes threats to you. That's the goal. And so it's not obvious that they want to replace, you know, the Fifth Fleet base in Bahrain, for example, with the Chinese naval base. I don't know. What they want is an advantage in commerce, number one, because they understand that ultimately that's what control really is. If you're getting to the point where you're having to exert force, you're displaying weakness. And for the purposes of this, and really of life, the only question is who settles it. It's very easy to start a conflict. A drunk teenager can punch you in the face. And you think China's going to settle this? I don't want China. [00:03:48] Speaker 1: Let me tell you, I think right now the biggest winner is Russia, which is a country that you've never mentioned, actually, to my knowledge, in the last 10 days. Clearly, Russia is winning from the huge jump in oil prices. Russia is the one place where in the short term supply can be increased. Already, Treasury Secretary has lifted sanctions. [00:04:04] Speaker 2: I'm aware of all of that. [00:04:05] Speaker 1: So if someone says to me who's the big winner right now, I think the big winner is Russia. [00:04:09] Speaker 2: It depends. What's your timeline? Short term, for sure. But, you know, over time, a country with, you know, 150 million people is not going to run the world or even the West. It can have substantial influence in its region. And that's exactly where Russia is. Europe and the United States made a massive miscalculation by pretending we could change that. We can't. It's a civilization. It can't be dislodged. But it's not going to run the world. And it's not going to set the terms for global trade. It's definitely benefiting. The question right now is how do you resolve the inherent conflict between the United States and China, period. And we know that from Wikipedia just by looking at gross domestic progress. Where's the economic power? [00:04:54] Speaker 1: I just, I don't see any appetite from China to come in and say, we're going to sort this out. [00:04:59] Speaker 2: I don't think there is one at all. [00:05:01] Speaker 1: So then how does this end? [00:05:02] Speaker 2: Well, ultimately it ends because China has such obvious invested interests in the region and because there's such a massive advantage in being the settler of a conflict. [00:05:10] Speaker 1: But let's just move on to Israel because I think that's where, you know, the central point of your argument is, which is that you have argued that this is a war at Israel's behest. And I think you've argued, if I've got this right, you made the point that Israel was doing this because it wanted the United States out of the region. Can you just talk me through that logic? [00:05:30] Speaker 2: Well, let me just go to your first point. I wasn't arguing that the United States embarked on this at Israel's behest. I was noting it. And the Secretary of State has said that. The Speaker of the House has said that. The President of the United States has said it multiple times. Now, there's a kind of revisionism in progress where we say, well, we never said that. Well, you did say that and it's on video. Also, you know, I was talking to a lot of people while this decision was being made and I can confirm what they've already said in public. Yes. [00:05:55] Speaker 1: You're watching my interview with Tucker Carlson from March 2026. If you want to watch our other interviews, including with Steve Bannon and Benjamin Netanyahu, subscribe to The Economist by clicking the link above. Now, back to the interview. [00:06:10] Speaker 2: The United States was moved to act because the Prime Minister of Israel said to the President of the United States, I'm acting. [00:06:16] Speaker 1: Just hold that thought because I want to come to that because I'm not at all sure that I find that completely convincing. But let's just stick with the- Convincing, it's true. The President said so. The President says a lot of things that are not true. Let's just stick with the argument of why you think Israel would want to do this so that the United States gets out of the Middle East. [00:06:35] Speaker 2: The first thing you need to do in order to understand why people are doing something is to think about the world through their eyes. So let's just do that from the perspective of Israel for one moment. This is a nuclear-armed country, the only officially nuclear-armed country in the region that has an inherent drive to territorial expansion and for more resources. It doesn't make it different from any other country, Imperial Japan, or any other country in a similar situation. This is an ascendant country with a leader who sees himself as a global leader, as he said last week. So what constrains them in that? Well, a couple of things. Three things, really. One, most obviously, is Iran, which is a counterbalance to Israeli power, right? And also a funder of all kinds of regional problems for them and Hamas and Hezbollah and all the rest, the Houthis. So you've got to do something about Iran. You need a new regime, or you probably just need to do what they have done in all these other countries, cause chaos. Two, the Gulf states. Of course, the GCC, the six Gulf monarchies, because they're the biggest investors in the United States, and they're the producers of all this energy. You cannot, number one, allow them to unite in any kind of, like, Gulf NATO. And two, you have to reduce their power. You've got your own new gas field, so it's like, and you've got Azerbaijan, so it's like you don't need them. And three, you have to get the United States out, because the United States has, for 80 years, constrained you. You're looking at me, this is like the most obvious thing I think I've ever said. You're looking at me like I'm speaking Swahili. [00:08:08] Speaker 1: Yeah, I honestly, I mean, I'm not quite speaking Swahili, but I'm listening to that. And when I first heard you say it on your podcast, I thought, does he really believe this? And you clearly do, and you've clearly explained it. But I find that explanation very hard to marry with what seems to me to be the reality of a country of 10 million people that has had, since its founding, the United States as its patron and ally, an absolutely essential ally. And I think, actually, if you read Prime Minister Netanyahu's autobiography, his entire political career has been based on understanding the importance of U.S. support. I find it hard to believe that a country would want to kick out that support to go it alone or to, you know, go it with India, which is, I think, what you said in another podcast. I just, I don't, I don't see the logic of that. Does it have a choice? Well, that's a different thing. You said because it wanted the United States out. [00:09:03] Speaker 2: No, it has no choice. Because, and I'll tell you why, I know a lot about this topic, because it's domestic American politics and I read the polling every day. [00:09:09] Speaker 1: And we're going to come on to that. [00:09:10] Speaker 2: Well, I'm just going to say it now, which is support for Israel and the United States has collapsed. [00:09:14] Speaker 1: Absolutely. But, but this is. [00:09:15] Speaker 2: No, let me, let me finish. It's collapsed. And the Israelis who are acting in what they perceive to be their own interest are very serious about this question. And I'm not guessing, but let me just say, I, I'm not guessing about this. And they understand that this is the last generation of American leaders who will support them financially and with defense guarantees uncritically, which is to say, without really constraining their territorial ambitions. They know that because they're not dumb and it's coming to an end. And that's one of the reasons that the prime minister of Israel went to the White House seven times in one year and was pretty open about what he was doing there. I'm advocating for a regime change war against Iran. Now, if you were hoping to continue the relationship unto the generations, you probably wouldn't say that in public. But if you decided this is coming to and there's nothing we can do, let's get what we can while we can, you would do that. [00:10:04] Speaker 1: Well, you could also conclude that you thought Iran posed an existential risk to you as a country. You may disagree with that, but you might think that. And then you'd think, actually, I want to bring— Do you believe the Israelis believe that? I do, actually. [00:10:15] Speaker 2: Existential in what sense? [00:10:16] Speaker 1: In the sense that you have a regime in Iran that has called for death to Israel, has never believed in Israel as a Jewish homeland country, and would rather not have Israel there. Yeah, I think that is reasonable. That's really your analysis? I do think that that is part of it, yes. And I think that—I think it is a reasonable feeling for a lot of people in Israel to have, not just people in Likud or Bibi Netanyahu. I don't think that justifies or makes sensible an attack on Iran, but I think that is a reasonable— And also, for me, then, you would therefore not—you would want to continue to have the support of your biggest ally for as long as you could. [00:10:49] Speaker 2: If you were planning this war, and if you were pushing your patron to embark on this war, to use its military to achieve your ends, which is exactly what's happened, you would think through, what are the consequences of this? And the first thing you would understand is there's no support for this in the United States. Zero. And there was just public polling on this, so we know that. There's no support for Americans dying. This country, you know, the debt-to-GDP ratio is so out of whack, we're totally out of money. We can't afford it. And so, you would know that if this actually happened, people in the United States would be mad at you. And there would be, ultimately, calls to get out of the Middle East entirely. It would not be sustainable, our presence in the Middle East, over time, if you did this. You would also know that we had an operation in June, which they also forced, Bibi called on Monday and said to the President of the United States, I'm doing this this week, that's why we did it. And you could say that you can constrain. You can constrain Iran. You could live with this thing that you fear. But instead, we're going to embark on a war whose most likely outcome is chaos in Iran. [00:11:55] Speaker 1: Well, can I just stop you there? Because you are predicating this on the war being a failure. And you could perfectly well reframe your argument as being, Prime Minister Netanyahu has long wanted, we know this, he said this in public, he said this to everyone, long wanted to have regime change in Iran, but certainly to get rid of Iran's nuclear capability. Absolutely pushed for that, it is possible that he thought and thinks that that can be done and that he convinced the President that it could be done. And let's just move on and let's just move on to this now, because I think just, can I just, can I just, can I just ask this? Because this is really important, I think. [00:12:31] Speaker 2: You, in your explanations, you're making excuses for Israel and then say, but another question. [00:12:37] Speaker 1: No, I'm not, I'm not making excuses. Of course you are. Yes, you are. Because you started this by saying that. I'm trying to see the world through the rise. We're both, we're both trying to do that. We're both trying to analyze, I think, where, where things are going. And key to your analysis is that Israel, in your view, an expansionist Israel, pushed America into a war whose consequence would be America leaving the region. That's, I think, a reasonable summary of what you've been saying to me. [00:13:00] Speaker 2: And the destruction of the Gulf states. Well, I think that's a critical part of it. [00:13:03] Speaker 1: So, so, so, so, so, this is, that's your analysis. [00:13:05] Speaker 2: Israel just bombed Qatar's gas field today, this morning. That, that's your analysis. [00:13:08] Speaker 1: Can we just talk about the focus of Israel and Israel driving the decision in the United States? Because I think that's a key part of it. I know a lot about it. I know, I know you do. That's why I want to ask you about it. And you have argued to me just now, and you've argued a lot, that Israel essentially hoodwinked or persuaded or told President Trump what to do against President Trump's better interests. And you know the President very well. You went to see him, as I understand, several times before this. Do you really believe President Trump would be bullied or pushed into doing something he didn't want to do by Prime Minister Netanyahu? [00:13:46] Speaker 2: I love how you've constrained the question. Let me tell you what I do know, and then you can characterize it as you wish. I don't fully understand the President's thinking, as I don't understand any other person's thinking fully. How could you? I can only tell you what I know to be true, which is in June, at the outset of the 12-day war, the Prime Minister of Israel called the White House on secure video conferencing into the Situation Room, and said, we are moving this week against Iran's nuclear facilities. And by the end of the week, by Thursday, he had, and that was followed shortly after by U.S. backup, which was inevitable, right? Because we have a defense guarantee, implied, with Israel, and we also have a lot. [00:14:31] Speaker 1: Was it inevitable? I mean, previous presidents have said, no. [00:14:36] Speaker 2: That's a very smart point. No, it was not inevitable. Once Israel began its attacks on Iran, that American involvement was, yes, inevitable. [00:14:44] Speaker 1: But at the end of the 12 days, the President said, bring those jets back. So President Trump has had agency over Prime Minister Netanyahu. [00:14:52] Speaker 2: That is exactly what happened. Now, some of us argued this is preparatory to a much larger effort that will attempt to achieve what they sought to achieve the first time, which is regime change. And the President, I believe, was fully aware, and you've said it yourself, Israel wanted a different regime in Tehran. Okay? Why wouldn't they? They had no plan for what that regime would be. That's a fact. I don't think they've claimed they had a plan. They just want chaos. They just don't want the people in charge. And if it breaks into a bunch, a constellation of countries and devolves into a permanent ethnic civil war, that's fine with them. By the way, you can do it with the refugee crisis. Good luck. But that is all true, what I've just said. Then we fast forward to this winter and several more trips to Washington by Benjamin Netanyahu. And once again, Benjamin Netanyahu said to the White House, we are going. Now, I happen to know this is true, but you don't need to take my word for it, because the President of the United States said it. The Secretary of State said it. And then he went on to say, on camera, we have all these assets in the Gulf. There are hundreds of thousands of Americans in the region. We have all these military bases, and we have energy. And then the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, also said it on camera. It's all available on the Internet. And this just happened in the last two weeks. [00:16:07] Speaker 1: But do you not think the President of the United States could have chosen to say, no, you're not? [00:16:11] Speaker 2: You know, and that is the question, and I cannot answer that question. But clearly... [00:16:15] Speaker 1: That's important, because the argument that you are making is that somehow this was foisted on the United States. I'm not making an argument. You are. You've said this again and again. [00:16:26] Speaker 2: It's not an argument. It's an observation. I'm repeating what the President, the Secretary of State, and the Speaker of the House, the three most powerful people in the United States, have all said on camera. [00:16:34] Speaker 1: But there are plenty of things that the President of the United States says that do not merit being taken at face value. I don't understand. [00:16:41] Speaker 2: The President and the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, and the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, have all said Israel was going first, and so we went in. Because we have critical interest in protecting Israel. We have a critical interest in the Gulf. We have critical interest in our bases. [00:16:55] Speaker 1: But this was a decision by the President of the United States. It certainly was. And the President of the United States could have made a different decision. And let me suggest to you that there are other reasons why the President of the United States made this. One might have been hubris after the success of the operation to remove. I'm not sure what we're arguing about. Because the way you present this and the way it is presented by many people is that somehow a very powerful Israel and a very powerful Jewish and Israeli lobby is pushing policies in this administration that are against America's national interest. [00:17:28] Speaker 2: Israel will say, I'm telling you what I saw, and what the President and Attorney General, Secretary of State, and the Speaker have all said publicly. And what everyone who's followed this knows, because it's all out there. It's a public source. Israel said, we're going to move. And the United States reacted by joining them. And then engaging in a partnership, a military partnership. I think it's the first time it's happened since the Second World War. And there are all kinds of problems that have come down from that. But you raised the correct question. That's not a slander. That's not anti-Semitism. That's what actually happened. And so I don't know what to say. I don't write the script. [00:18:06] Speaker 1: No, but do you think the President of the United States had agency in it? Well, of course the President of the United States had agency. The President of the United States made a mistake, in your view, in doing this? [00:18:18] Speaker 2: Well, of course I think that. I've said that repeatedly. And it wasn't? Let me just restate it. I'm not making an argument that Israel said to the United States, we will go whether you want to or not. Okay? That's been confirmed. That's an argument. I'm repeating what our leaders have already told us. Your question is, well, isn't it still Trump's fault because he made the decision to go along with this? He allowed himself to go along with this. Of course. He's the Commander-in-Chief. And my argument would be, and has been, to him and to anyone else who will listen, that's the moment when you constrain your ally and you say, no. We pay for everything. I've said this a hundred times. And that's considered anti-Semitic. I haven't said anything about anti-Semitism. Well, I've certainly been accused of that when I'm not in any sense anti-Semitic. I'm not even anti-Israel. I'm pro-America. And you cannot allow, as I've said a hundred times, let me say it again, you cannot allow a country of nine million to make decisions that are critical to a country of 350 million. That would be us. That's against nature. It's wrong. And it's against America's interests, as this war is. And so, of course, it's incumbent on Trump. [00:19:21] Speaker 1: Can I just stop you there? Because you said you cannot allow a country of nine million to make decisions for a country. Correct. But you are implying then that Israel did make decisions for the United States. And my point is simply that there is much more agency in the United States and in the Trump administration. I understand this is going to be a very important point for you. [00:19:39] Speaker 2: And let me just say it again. Trump made the decision. And I have said, I said then, I said before it happened to him, and I'll say it again now with him not in the room, I think you have to say no. Okay? I think you have to say no. You have to say no. [00:19:54] Speaker 1: What did he say to you? [00:19:56] Speaker 2: You know, I'm not, it's not up to, you know, I'm not going to characterize what he said. [00:20:00] Speaker 1: Why do you think he didn't say no? [00:20:01] Speaker 2: For sure, I don't know. And if I did know, I would just say so. [00:20:05] Speaker 1: In your copious podcasting about this in the last two weeks, you have made the argument very strongly that the United States has been pushed into something not in its own national interest by pressure from Israel and the lobbying power of Israel. [00:20:23] Speaker 2: Well, it has been. The question is whether the person who makes the ultimate decision, who would be President Trump, should have pushed back. That's it. Of course, of course, Trump should have pushed back. As previous presidents have done. To some extent, some very limited extent, George W. Bush didn't push back. We wound up in the Iraq war and now everyone pretends, oh, that had nothing to do with Israel. I was there. I was talking to Bush. That's not true. That's a lie. And that's why it's so important from my perspective to say out loud what is true before history is rewritten and disappears. It's very clear. And it's lying that gets us here because we say, oh, no, no, no, lobbying efforts had no effect. Really? We say that about our pharmaceutical policy? No. Everybody understands that every policy a large government makes, including ours, is influenced by various stakeholders who were affected by the policy. But this is the one area we have to be like, no, it had nothing to do with the fact that his biggest donors were pushing him to do this or the BB visited seven times in one year. Are you joking? I'm not going to play along with the lies anymore. I don't hate Jews. I don't hate Israel. I love my country. I love my country. This has happened yet again. I can give you a whole list of previous times where it's happened. And I think we need to know what happened so we don't hurt ourselves further. [00:21:40] Speaker 1: I am not saying don't blame Israel. I think Israel has its own national interests and Israel was certainly pushing for things. But I think there is more agency and therefore more responsibility with the president of the United States and the Trump administration. I wouldn't disagree. [00:21:51] Speaker 2: He represents me. I live here. [00:21:53] Speaker 1: But that's important because in the way you described it is... [00:21:55] Speaker 2: But Israel pushed him into this. Now, he shouldn't have gone along with it. He should have pushed back. But to pretend that Trump woke up one morning is like... [00:22:03] Speaker 1: I'm not suggesting that, to be clear. [00:22:05] Speaker 2: Israel pushed him. The prime minister... And by the way, it's not even just... It's not Israel. There are a lot of people who disagree in Israel. I know some of them. It was the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, who pushed our president into doing this. And I hope this is the last time that Netanyahu or any foreign head of state will ever push an American president to do something that hurts America. [00:22:27] Speaker 1: Well, let's talk about that because I think we may be, as you yourself said earlier, at a tipping point in terms of the rapid decline within the United States for support for Israel. And you see it huge. I mean, you've seen it for several years on the Democratic side. You're now seeing it on the conservative side. And you're seeing a collapse amongst younger people. I'm not telling you anything you don't know. How is that... How quickly is that going to change the politics of Israel in the United States? [00:22:53] Speaker 2: I mean, it's hard to know. There doesn't seem to be a direct connection, not just on Israel or foreign policy, but on almost any issue between what our leaders believe and do and what the public thinks and wants. The public begins to believe in their frustration at their declining standard of living, for example, or declining birth rates, or whatever it is that's getting worse, and a lot is, that there's no way to use legitimate means to change it. Voting doesn't work. If they believe that, then they will, by definition, find other ways. And those ways are destructive. And I don't want that. So I think it's very important that a government, even a non-democracy, even a monarchy, respond to the concerns of the population. You can ignore them for a while. If you ignore them for too long, you get overthrown. [00:23:36] Speaker 1: Let's talk, though, a little bit more about how this declining support for Israel, which I think is one of the most significant political shifts in the United States in recent years. How is that shaping the MAGA movement? I mean, are you now seeing, I mean, when I look at the opinion polls, I'm told that there's 100% support amongst MAGA or 95% support for the war. On the other hand, you're clearly a man with a large number of followers who is making a very, very different argument. [00:24:04] Speaker 2: I was standing next to Trump at his house when he got elected. I've known him a long time. I talked to him a lot. So, you know, I don't fully understand what MAGA is, but I know that the core promise of the Trump political movement, Make America Great Again, was America First. And it was articulated by him repeatedly at every campaign stop for 10 years. So everyone in America knows this. I think everyone globally knows this. The core of this movement was the idea that you would, and we can debate about how you do it, but you would try to put the interest of your country at the center of every calculation about how you manage your country and how you interact with the world. It's the single most obvious and single most popular political concept ever devised. [00:24:46] Speaker 1: Do you think Donald Trump has betrayed America First? [00:24:50] Speaker 2: I think that this war is something that he promised he wouldn't do, not once, but countless times, and until YouTube is banned, we'll be able to prove that. And the idea behind it is not only contrary to America First, it may be its inverse. There's no argument that changing the regime in Iran helps the United States. And if there is an argument, I'd love to hear it. And by the way, if that argument is sensible and convincing, I will support it. All I care about is the United States. But I haven't heard that argument a single time. All I've heard is the kind of tiresome fear-mongering about nuclear weapons, which Iran did not have. It's insulting, actually, even to make that argument to me, that Iran's nuclear program posed such a threat to the United States three weeks ago that we had to launch a full-scale war against them. No one's even arguing that because it's stupid and the facts don't support it. So why did we do this when we did it? Because Israel wanted to do it. They chose the timing here. No one disputes that. And timing in war, as in life, is a lot of it. And it determines outcome. And they hadn't thought through what was going to happen next. The Israelis hadn't, and we hadn't, because we didn't have time to. [00:26:09] Speaker 1: It sounds to me like you think he has betrayed it. [00:26:13] Speaker 2: This war is clearly contrary to what he promised and contrary to the idea that your leaders should put your interests before those who are foreigners, period. We put Israel's interests before ours. Trump did that. Bibi wasn't elected president of my country. My president was. I supported him, obviously, voted for him. But, yeah, no one wants to talk about how it happened because everyone, apparently including you, is so afraid to criticize Israel. [00:26:39] Speaker 1: I'm very happy to criticize. As I said, I have had a very robust conversation with Prime Minister Netanyahu. I think I've had many, much criticism of the way Israel has behaved over the last few years, particularly in Gaza. And we've come out very, very strongly against this war. I think where we agree is that this was clearly a very bad idea. And where I think we agree is that the president of the United States made this decision. That's why you've essentially said that he betrayed the America First movement. But I guess my view is that there are other factors weighing in on why he did it, like the hubris that came after the Venezuela crisis, like the fact that his foreign policy is not strategic and non-serious. And I think those things played a fart in addition to, very clearly, is it's from Prime Minister Netanyahu. What I think is interesting then is- [00:27:28] Speaker 2: His foreign policy is non-serious? You tell me. Oh, I think it's been really serious. Much more serious. I mean, if you're non-serious, I would look at- [00:27:37] Speaker 1: Non-strategically serious? [00:27:39] Speaker 2: Please. No, I think- [00:27:41] Speaker 1: You think it's serious? You think there's a serious strategy behind- [00:27:44] Speaker 2: I know there is. I've talked to him about it endlessly. Tell me what it is. [00:27:47] Speaker 1: I think the world would love to know what that is. [00:27:50] Speaker 2: What his pre-Iran strategy was. This is inconsistent with everything that he's ever said in public or to me in private. So I just want to be clear about that. But it's in public. He hasn't said a lot to me in private that he doesn't say in public. The famously loquacious Donald Trump kind of lets it all out all the time. And it's interesting, though, that I can't answer your, I think, most important question, which is then why did he do it? And I don't know the answer. But I will say that advocates of this war funded the last election. I mean, the numbers are really- The biggest donors pushed for this war. And they would include, like, literally an Israeli citizen. So we have a problem with the way campaigns are funded. And that is exactly why our entire Senate, obviously, that's why our entire Senate goes along with stuff like this. And if you actually talk to them, and I've tried, famously with Ted Cruz, like, hey, what's the thinking here? Shut up, anti-Semite. Our politics is funded by a foreign lobby. By many lobbies. By the pharma lobby, healthcare lobby, mineral extraction lobby. But the biggest and most effective and important lobby, Donald Trump has said this many times, in public is a foreign lobby. And so it bore its fruit right here. I mean, I don't know why that's not complicated. [00:29:01] Speaker 1: The reason I think that, I'm willing to go along with quite a lot of that, but it seems to me to be a very strategically short-sighted view of Israel. Because at the same time, on Israel's behalf, if Israel wants to lobby for the continued support that will guarantee its security, which has, you know, presumably underpinned this for many decades, then it's doing a pretty poor job since public opinion has collapsed. And actually, one thing- [00:29:28] Speaker 2: I totally agree. Prime Minister Netanyahu is- I think Israel could be destroyed over this. I believe that we're actually getting to it. One of the reasons that you need to constrain Israel right now is because it's a very small country facing a much larger country. And they've talked themselves into the state of crazed kind of hubris, as you said, motivated in part by the eschatology of some of their coalition, where they think that they can, like, rule Persia, they could get crushed. And at that point, they will have no option. And I'll understand it, but to use nuclear weapons against Iran. And then we just have a much worse world and a lot of people dead. So I think you need to constrain Israel for its own benefit, because you can see this getting super radical. [00:30:08] Speaker 1: Let's talk about the way the debate develops in this country, because I think you're right. There is- it's extremely difficult to talk about the subject that you and I have just spent the last half hour talking about, because- Why is it difficult? Because there is a conflation very often. Anybody who criticizes Israel is vulnerable to being called anti-Zionist or anti-Semitic, and there's conflation, by the exact people you've just been talking about, in the kind of firmament of political discussion? [00:30:36] Speaker 2: Do you think that's a good faith response or a tactic? [00:30:39] Speaker 1: I'm about to ask you that question. Clearly, I think you and I agree, we have both been critical of the Israeli government. I just want to kind of clarify terms a bit here. [00:30:48] Speaker 2: Well, I've really been critical of the Israeli government. [00:30:50] Speaker 1: I've been plenty critical of the Israeli government. I've told you at the beginning that we were against this war. [00:30:54] Speaker 2: What do you think of Gaza? [00:30:56] Speaker 1: What do I think of Gaza? Yeah. I think the war in Gaza, to start with, was a perfectly reasonable response in response to the horrors of October 7th. I think now the places- I mean, I've been there. Have you been to Gaza? I've been to Gaza since the war started. [00:31:09] Speaker 2: They would not let me into Gaza. It's catastrophic. Trust me, very few journalists get into Gaza. [00:31:13] Speaker 1: Yeah, no, I went with the IDF. It's the only way that you can go in, but nonetheless, you go in and you see a flat in place. I think it is a disaster, a disaster for the future of Israel, a disaster for the Palestinian people, a horror, 70,000 people dead. [00:31:26] Speaker 2: Why would you describe it first as a disaster for the future of Israel? You've got tens of thousands of civilians murdered, but it's foremost a disaster for the future of Israel? No, I didn't say foremost. No, it's foremost a disaster for the families of the dead kids. [00:31:37] Speaker 1: I made, absolutely, I made three points. [00:31:39] Speaker 2: Because everybody sucks up to Israel in this way that suggests they're afraid, and everyone is afraid, and you know that. Everyone's like, the real problem is calling people anti-Semites allows real anti-Semites to flourish. It's like, no, actually, the real problem with calling people anti-Semites who aren't is accusing the innocent of a crime they didn't commit, and the real crime in Gaza is killing people who did nothing wrong. So those are the real problems, I would say, but no one can say it, because you have to be like, oh, no, but really, October 7th is that. [00:32:05] Speaker 1: I don't know what you're talking about, Gaza. We're having a problem. [00:32:08] Speaker 2: Everyone watching this knows what I'm talking about. [00:32:10] Speaker 1: Well, let's get on to that right now. [00:32:12] Speaker 2: Yeah. [00:32:12] Speaker 1: Because you are critical of the government of Israel. Do you believe in Israel's right to exist? Would you consider yourself a Zionist in that narrow definition? What does that mean, a right to exist? The existence of the political state of Israel as it has existed. But it has a right. [00:32:26] Speaker 2: What does that mean? [00:32:26] Speaker 1: That you don't, you think it should continue in its existence as a state right now. So you are the, you do not agree with Iran, for example. [00:32:33] Speaker 2: Let me just ask, since you asked me the question, it's fair for me to get you to define the term so I can answer it. You've asked two questions. The first was, do you believe Israel has a right to exist? And the second question was, do you believe Israel should continue to go on as a nation state? And those are very different questions. So I often hear the phrase- [00:32:52] Speaker 1: Having been created as a political entity in 1948, does that state- [00:32:55] Speaker 2: Does it have a right to exist? Is that what you're asking? [00:33:00] Speaker 1: I don't want to get hung up on the right to exist. No, no. Should it continue to exist? That's how I define narrowly the Zionism. [00:33:06] Speaker 2: Because the phrase you used was devised by the Israeli government, of course. Does it have a right to exist? And so my question to you would be, what does that mean? [00:33:19] Speaker 1: Why don't you answer my question? It's a very simple question. I don't know what your question is. Are you asking, does it have a right to exist? [00:33:23] Speaker 2: Or do I want it to exist? Do I seek its destruction? [00:33:26] Speaker 1: Fine. Answer it that way. [00:33:28] Speaker 2: Well, of course I don't seek its destruction. I've already said, as you know, because I said it to you, I don't want Israel to be destroyed or have to use nuclear weapons. [00:33:36] Speaker 1: We've established that you are in that narrow terms of Zionist. [00:33:39] Speaker 2: I'm in no sense a Zionist. I don't want any country to be destroyed at all. And I don't want people to die, particularly ones who committed no crime, because I don't believe in killing innocents, period. That's the basis of Western civilization. Eastern civilization, it's a whole different view. They believe in collective punishment. I don't. [00:33:54] Speaker 1: So you're in no sense a Zionist. [00:33:56] Speaker 2: I don't even know what that means. Why don't you define the term and then I'll tell you whether I am. I just defined it. What's a Zionist? [00:34:01] Speaker 1: That a Zionist, in my narrow term, this definition is that the state of Israel, the political state of Israel, has the right to continue existing. The right? Where does that right come from? [00:34:12] Speaker 2: What do you mean? These are like, I'm not being a lawyer about it. I just want to know what you're asking me. [00:34:16] Speaker 1: Who is it to answer the question? [00:34:17] Speaker 2: Because I don't know what you're asking me. [00:34:18] Speaker 1: Let's go to the third. [00:34:19] Speaker 2: You don't want to define your question and I don't know why. I don't know what you're asking me. I've already said, I don't want Israel to be destroyed. I don't want anyone to be killed. And you've said, does Israel have a right to exist? Does it have a right? And my question is, what right are you talking about? Does Britain have a right to exist? Does the United States have a right to exist? [00:34:42] Speaker 1: There was a world order built up after 1945, which suggested that aggression should not be condoned into countries, that countries with borders have the right to continue existing. [00:34:51] Speaker 2: I totally agree with that. Okay. Which is why the first thing that Israel did within two weeks of this war starting, which is supposedly existential for them, was take southern Lebanon, take someone else's country, as they have done repeatedly. And no one even mentions that. And so I guess I would be opposed to that because I guess I think Lebanon has a right to exist. I thought Gaza had a right to exist. But I noticed that as soon as we started portioning rights, only one country gets that. [00:35:17] Speaker 1: I did not say that. You're absolutely putting words into my mind. [00:35:20] Speaker 2: Because I believe, here's what I do believe, since you asked. I believe in universally applicable standards. And if they're not universally applicable, they're not standards, they're preferences. That's why I believe in human rights, not ethnic rights. I don't think Jews have more rights or less rights than anyone else. I don't think Christians have more rights or less rights. Blacks, Filipinos. I believe in human rights that derive from the creation of people by God. [00:35:44] Speaker 1: Let's just quickly do a little detour and go to Ukraine. [00:35:48] Speaker 2: I'm totally happy to do that. [00:35:49] Speaker 1: And Ukraine, an independent country, was invaded. [00:35:54] Speaker 2: Independent country in what sense? [00:35:56] Speaker 1: An independent country recognized by other countries since the early 1990s. [00:36:00] Speaker 2: But independent in what way? [00:36:02] Speaker 1: With a sovereign country. [00:36:04] Speaker 2: Oh, a sovereign? [00:36:05] Speaker ?: Yeah. [00:36:05] Speaker 2: What did you think of the U.S. installing new leadership in 2014? Was that an expression of sovereignty? A coup? I mean, let's stop. Look, if you're asking, am I for Russia rolling over the border? No. But I wouldn't call Ukraine a sovereign country. That's not an honest description of what it was or is now or will be, unfortunately. I will beg to differ there. [00:36:25] Speaker 1: It is and will be. But you have a, the reason I ask it, because you say you're not against, you now just said you are not against Russia invading Ukraine. But at the time, you said it was a border dispute. You were very, you've always been extremely critical of the Ukrainians. You've been very sympathetic to Vladimir Putin. [00:36:44] Speaker 2: I have not been critical of the Ukrainians a single time in my life. [00:36:46] Speaker 1: Absolutely have. You've been massively critical of the Ukrainian government. Yes, of President Zelensky. [00:36:50] Speaker 2: Well, I would say the president, I would say that the unelected president of Ukraine, who has no moral authority. [00:36:57] Speaker 1: Why is he unelected? [00:36:58] Speaker 2: Well, because he canceled the elections. Did that not, that news didn't filter down to The Economist? Yeah, he's supposed to have elections. They haven't had them. [00:37:04] Speaker 1: They have, he, he, they are, there is a, under the Ukrainian constitution, you cannot have an election in wartime. Oh, okay. [00:37:11] Speaker 2: Does that set up a perverse, so you, there's no dictator in the world. [00:37:14] Speaker 1: Have you been to Ukraine since the war started? [00:37:16] Speaker 2: Are you kidding? No. Okay. [00:37:17] Speaker 1: I have several times. I can explain to you why you cannot have an election in a country which is under occupation. [00:37:23] Speaker 2: You're just making excuses for tyranny. I don't know why. I thought we were for freedom. Why wouldn't you have? I'm not making excuses for tyranny. Of course, it's tyranny. [00:37:29] Speaker 1: Tucker, this is, this is exactly the kind of way that you argue, which makes for very good podcasting, but makes for ultimately incredibly fruitless conversations. Because you, you, you answer one question by saying, oh, so you're for tyranny. Of course, I'm not for tyranny. I'm trying. [00:37:45] Speaker 2: So why is it okay for him to cancel elections? [00:37:47] Speaker 1: Yes, okay. The Ukrainian constitution doesn't allow elections under martial law. And so it's not possible to have elections unless you change things. Does Zelensky have any... Do you think it right now makes sense to have an election when you have a large amount of the country, 20% of the country occupied, a huge number of Ukrainians outside the country? Why wouldn't you let them vote on it? Why wouldn't you let them vote on it? [00:38:07] Speaker 2: Then we'll find out. Is Russia a tyranny? Well, by that, by that standard, it certainly is. You get, you get the government in place and you don't get to change it. [00:38:14] Speaker 1: So Russia is a tyranny, which invaded an independent country that had to go back to our earlier conversation under modern law, the right to exist in its current borders. [00:38:25] Speaker 2: Okay. Let me, I will characterize what I think if that's okay. I'm against Russia rolling across the border. I think it destabilized the world. I think it, the American response to it gravely hurt the United States and Europe. And I'm really sad about that. And I'm not against the Ukrainian people at all. Never have been. I think its leadership is terrible, horrible. I think they would lose an election tomorrow. And I think you know that. But that's not the point. The point is it was bad for the United States to push Ukraine to join NATO. That was my number one point. And when the vice president of the United States, Kamala Harris, went to the Munich Security conference in February of 2022 and said on camera at a press conference to Zelensky, we want you in NATO. That's the moment at which you knew this war was inevitable because that's too threatening to Russian interests. Obviously, to have NATO missiles on your eastern or western border, like, are you joking? So I said, the second that happened, we're going to get a war if we don't pull back. [00:39:25] Speaker 1: When you had your very interesting and very long interview with Vladimir Putin, he explained to you that large parts of western Ukraine were inherently part of Russia. So the notion that this was because of NATO expansion was belied by what the rule of Russia said to you. [00:39:43] Speaker 2: You don't think NATO expansion had a role in that? [00:39:45] Speaker 1: I think it would have happened anyway, because I think when you listen to Vladimir Putin, he has a view that Ukraine doesn't have a right to exist and that it is part of broader Russia. But the more important point is... So that was irrelevant. [00:39:56] Speaker 2: NATO expansion was irrelevant to the war. Is that what you're saying? [00:39:59] Speaker 1: I think it is a much less important thing than Vladimir Putin's overall sense of wanting to recreate the czarist empire. [00:40:06] Speaker 2: Do you think... [00:40:06] Speaker 1: Putin said to you when you asked him... In fact, you started that interview by asking about NATO and he gave you a very long history lesson where he explained at great length that Russia, that what belonged to Russia included large parts of Ukraine. And I remember your face, you were looking rather quizzical as the sort of half hour went on. And by the end of it, it was very clear that he was not answering your question by saying it was anything about NATO. He was giving a much broader historical argument. Then the invasion did happen. And this is important. The invasion having happened, you think it was a very bad idea for the United States to support Ukraine in its defense. That's what you just said. [00:40:46] Speaker 2: The United States, the Biden administration wanted this conflict. There's no question in my mind that the United States wanted this conflict. And if there's one, and I hate to say this as an American, but if there's one true villain in the story, it's not Zelensky, who's a hapless figure. It's not even Putin. It's the U.S. government. And that's not even, it's not even Joe Biden. It's the entire U.S. government, the State Department, CIA. It's the permanent agencies. And it's the orientation of the U.S. government since August of 1991 that could not come to terms with what was happening there and sought to constrain and control Russia. [00:41:26] Speaker 1: But just to be clear, several hundred thousand troops rolled across the border in the biggest, you know, land invasion in Europe since 1945. And you think it was a mistake for the United States to say to the Ukrainians, we will come to your support. [00:41:44] Speaker 2: In this specific case, the United States, the Biden administration wanted conflict with Russia. I don't think they quite understood what they were going to get, but they provoked Putin. The real problem I had was, to be blunt, since you asked, was not the military aid at first. It was the sanctions, and it was kicking Russia out of swift. That, to me, was the most reckless and destructive thing you could do. [00:42:07] Speaker 1: I want to get and put these together and try and understand what then an American first, post-Iran war, an American first policy agenda looks like, that, to you, is not betraying what the voters who voted for America first are. And you, in Ukraine's case, you've argued that it was a bad idea to support Ukraine. From that, you know... [00:42:31] Speaker 2: I didn't quite argue that, but... Yes, you did. [00:42:33] Speaker 1: Yes, you did. No, I think I just explained... Over many years, you were the loudest voice who was against this. For many years! [00:42:39] Speaker 2: All right. I think I just explained what my core problem was, and I felt that the sanctions were the most destructive thing that we could do. [00:42:46] Speaker 1: For the record, there isn't any US aid going to Ukraine. It is all being paid for by Europeans. There are some US weapons that have been bought by Europeans going to Ukraine. I know, it's so sad. You're watching my interview with Tucker Carlson from March 2026. If you want to get access to other interviews, subscribe to The Economist by clicking the link above. Now, back to the interview. [00:43:09] Speaker 2: You guys are going to beat Russia. [00:43:11] Speaker 1: Good luck. I'm sorry. I think this is too important to have to kind of giggle over. [00:43:17] Speaker 2: I'm not giggling. I'm mad at your politicians. They're liars. They're liars. And when they stand up... When Keir Starmer stands up to distract attention, or Mertz to, or Macron to some extent, and stands up to divert attention from the disasters underway in their own countries to say, the real enemy is Russia, I see deception, and I see betrayal of their own people, and I have contempt for that. They're not going to go to war with Russia, and if they do, they're not going to win. That's just a fact. And so don't tell your people that, to take the attention away from you. That's my read. [00:43:46] Speaker 1: Let's talk about Americans, and your country's policy, and where you think, if you were, you know, in the White House, what would you put together as an America first policy platform, now that made sense to you? Because you've explained why President Trump has betrayed it. You've explained why, you know, what was going on in Ukraine was not the right approach. What is a foreign policy approach that is strategically coherent in America first? [00:44:14] Speaker 2: This is not, I'm not trying to dodge the question at all. I think it's hard to know exactly what the world's going to look like since we're right in the middle of this grand pivot. This is my read. I think this is weakening America's hand dramatically right now, but I think the orientation should never change, which is like, try to do the best for your country. Try to make wise decisions on behalf of your country, and that is not what this was at all. This was responding to an ally's demands, and that's just not the right way to do it. No two countries have this identical interest. Identical twins don't have identical interest, so like, that's just not conceptually real at all. And so you can never go into a war assuming that you both want the same outcome. Why would you want the same outcome? Israel wants a very different outcome from the outcome that helps the United States. So just don't do that again. I don't, but I don't know where we land. I mean, big picture, the United States, its policymakers need to understand that we now share the world with China because they have the world's largest economy. We don't want that to be true. It is true. Lots of reasons. It became true. It's stupid to even argue them at this point. That's the reality. So you have to have a power sharing agreement. And the most obvious one that I can think of is based like all good things on geography. Now that raises real questions about Japan. Taiwan, I think is already kind of not a real thing anymore. But South Korea, South Korea and Japan, like Philippines. [00:45:32] Speaker 1: What do you mean by Taiwan is not a real thing anymore? [00:45:36] Speaker 2: The U.S. is not going to defend and cannot defend Taiwan. [00:45:40] Speaker 1: And should not defend? [00:45:42] Speaker 2: I don't know, should. I don't, that's not the... I mean, [00:45:44] Speaker 1: I'm asking you to lay out what you think are coherent. I just don't think, [00:45:47] Speaker 2: I think we've reached the limits of our power and power has limits. Like, that's another thing just to keep in mind. Power is not infinite. You can squander it. And we're in the process of doing that. [00:45:58] Speaker 1: And what about Japan and South Korea? [00:45:59] Speaker 2: Oh man, it's hard. I don't understand exactly how that's going to go at all from an American perspective. But like, in the end, big powers want to and get to control their regions. We have something called the Monroe Doctrine. This was another problem I had with Russia. It's like, Russia, of course, is going to demand influence in Ukraine. And you could say, oh, it's a sovereign country. They can't have any influence there. Be real. A big power wants to control hopefully in a non-brutal enlightened way, but they want some influence over their neighbors. We have to, we can no longer be the sole author of terms, of commerce, of anything. We have to share power. With China. Of course, because of their scale. And so there's got to be a non-destructive way to do this. And one of the things that bothers me most is the hostility that you feel in the United States among policymakers toward Europe and in Israel. The hostility the Israelis feel for Europe is just very, very obvious to me. So how does Europe [00:46:56] Speaker 1: fit into this festival? [00:46:57] Speaker 2: I mean, you've talked about... Europe has to be at the center of the West as Europe is the West. And I criticize Europe constantly. I'm also... Because I love them. [00:47:07] Speaker 1: Is Europe an ally of the United States? [00:47:09] Speaker 2: If Europe is not an ally of the United States, then China rules the world. Period. [00:47:16] Speaker 1: And having an ally means... [00:47:20] Speaker 2: Treating it like an ally in contrast to the way we're currently treating it. [00:47:24] Speaker 1: Okay. I would agree with that. [00:47:25] Speaker 2: Europe needs to be an ally. Now, you've got a whole crop of silly leaders and a lot of bad post-war attitudes, but fundamentally, Europe is our ally. Allied on the deepest, the deepest possible levels. And no one in the United States wants to admit that. [00:47:37] Speaker 1: So, if Europeans feel threatened by an aggressive, expansionist Russia, you would take that into account as an ally? Of course. [00:47:47] Speaker 2: And we did take it into account. But you were criticizing [00:47:50] Speaker 1: America for taking this into account. [00:47:52] Speaker 2: Look, America needs to create a hierarchy of concerns. And the first concern has to be its own citizens, of course. Every sovereign state has to have that hierarchy. But I am calling, in my heart, I never say this, but I think this a lot, for a reorientation of the way we in the U.S. think about the rest of the world, where Europe, from which we came, and our whole system was just imported wholesale pretty much. Basically, Europe produced us. [00:48:21] Speaker 1: You think America first means doubling down on Europe as an ally? Of course. Threatening to take Greenland part of that? [00:48:30] Speaker 2: I don't really understand that. I mean, I personally felt that that was counterproductive to our goals, our natural goals. I think there are people in the U.S. government who really, really hate Europe. And I don't really understand why, and I think there are deep reasons why that no one will say, but I don't know the answer, actually. But I know that that's real. [00:48:54] Speaker 1: What do you think those deep reasons could be? I don't know, [00:48:55] Speaker 2: but it's real. It's like the hatred of Europe. I get it's, you know, Macron's a buffoon, Merz's a buffoon, Stormer's totally a buffoon. Many buffoons. We have buffoons too. I get it. But like, blowing up Nord Stream? Getting into a conflict with Iran when you know it's going to shut off LNG to Britain and Europe? Gloating over the destruction of the German industrial base? What? Why would you want that? First of all, Europe is the global center of beauty, which is really meaningful to me. I care about that. Things that are beautiful are worth preserving. Sorry. And you can't, so gut level, like why would you want that to be destroyed? Second, the world is cleaving along hemispheres. Duh. We didn't choose that. It's just happening. So why would you want to accelerate the death of the people you have the most in common with who are part of your coalition in the end? But what we're doing is by pushing, basically creating the circumstances that created this war in Ukraine, which we did. Sorry. And then withdrawing and saying it's on you, Europe. And then standing back as European leaders to deflect attention from their own failures, gin up the threat of Russia. We are putting Europe, but of course Europe can't defend itself because they've relied on our security guarantees and allowed American troops on their soil for 80 years. They can't defend themselves, but that's because they've been dependent on us for defense. We are putting them into a position where they have no choice but to look for other alliances. And I don't know why. It's just inevitable. I don't know what those will be. I mean, I assume China, but I don't know. But they're going to have to look elsewhere. Why would we want that? [00:50:49] Speaker 1: Your America first foreign policy would put Europe much more at the center than it has been thus far. [00:50:56] Speaker 2: Of course. And by the way, that's not just out of sentimental love of Europe. [00:51:01] Speaker 1: Do you see any current potential successor to President Trump having a view that is close to yours that you think would be the right person to take on this mantle? [00:51:15] Speaker 2: I, you know, because I have said out loud what you've never been allowed to say, which is the president makes these decisions, but he's making so under duress because of the pressure applied to him by the state of Israel and its lobby in the United States. You're not allowed to say that. It's a fact. I've said it. I have been so slandered as a bigot, which I'm not, I would just say so. I'm not. That any time I use the name of any other person, I think to myself, especially who I admire and would like to see have more authority than he currently does, I think that might hurt him by saying so. So I'm going to take a pass on your question. Could it be you? Are you asking me if I'm going to run for president? Of course not. [00:52:00] Speaker 1: Are you trying to shape the outcome of the direction of the United States? Do you see that as your goal? As hard as I can. [00:52:07] Speaker 2: I live here. I live here. All journalists are trying to shape outcomes. That's why they're journalists. [00:52:11] Speaker 1: Do you consider yourself a journalist? [00:52:13] Speaker 2: I don't know. Now I call myself a podcaster, and it's with some pride that I say that. [00:52:19] Speaker 1: I think one of the reasons people attribute motives to you that you say are unreasonable, you know. They want to make me be quiet. Shut up! No, but I think there is also something, because I've been listening to a fair amount of your podcast, and you say you're poor anti-Semitism, and I have every reason to believe that. However, you do talk to and, you know, have on your podcast about anti-Semites, and let's talk about the Nick Fuentes podcaster. [00:52:47] Speaker 2: He denies he's an anti-Semite, but I scolded him for anti-Semitism in that interview. [00:52:51] Speaker 1: But you had a, what, two and a half hour conversation with him, which was, by your standards, an extraordinarily softball conversation. But my point is that you, you know, you're smart enough, very smart, clearly, we've seen it in this conversation. You consciously decided not to ask him about his Holocaust denialism. You consciously, there were lots of areas you didn't go on, go to. And I think it is reasonable for people to conclude from that, that you were sympathetic to his arguments. [00:53:22] Speaker 2: I've been asked this about a hundred times and I have given the same, I could give you the same boring answer, but about Nick Fuentes, my goal, as with Putin, was for people to hear what Nick Fuentes says because I think every person has a right to speak for himself. And I do think the function of the media, [00:53:39] Speaker 1: But on particular, you excluded particular topics. [00:53:41] Speaker 2: I think the function of the media, having been in it for 35 years, is very often to deny people that right and instead to characterize what people think and to tell them what they think. And I just, I just disagree with that. I think every person ought to be allowed the right to say, here's what I think. You don't have to believe them if you don't want, but I think you should, you should hear how people describe their own views. And so, but I did say in point of fact, I think anti-Semitism is immoral and I don't think it's immoral because it's unfashionable or Jews don't like it. Jesus doesn't like it. That's why I think it's wrong. [00:54:13] Speaker 1: Do you think it's on the rise in this country? [00:54:15] Speaker 2: Anti-Semitism is definitely on the rise in this country without question. [00:54:18] Speaker 1: And what is the best way to combat that? [00:54:21] Speaker 2: Well, the best way to combat anything is with truth, not with lies, not with attacks and hate. There's an effort now to make certain speech illegal in the United States, which is against our Constitution, as you know, and also counterproductive. I don't see how that helps. I don't think putting people in jail for having opinions you don't like is the answer. I would say that's tyranny. And now this is an area in which I am literally a liberal. I think the way is to refute it and to tell me how I'm wrong. And if you think, you know, it's outrageous that I think that, tell me where I'm wrong and convince me because I'm an adult. [00:55:01] Speaker 1: That we can agree. That's why we have these conversations. Tucker, there were many things I disagreed with you on, many that I did agree with you on. I think you secretly agreed. [00:55:09] Speaker 2: I can tell. [00:55:10] Speaker 1: I agreed with some of that. And I also think that, you masterfully combine something reasonable with a whole load of completely unreasonable non-sequiturs, which is why you're such a successful podcaster. Let's leave it at that. You know, the funny thing is, let me just... When it's my show, I get the last word. [00:55:26] Speaker ?: Tucker Carlson, [00:55:27] Speaker 1: very nice to see you. Thank you for joining me. [00:55:29] Speaker 2: Thank you very much. I appreciate it.