Tucker Carlson's a Trump-coddling coward
The online meltdown over Tucker Carlson's evisceration of Ted Cruz was predictably theatrical.
Social media buzzed with the usual suspects declaring it a must-see affair, praising Carlson's surgical dismantling of the Texas senator's Iran hawks routine. And yes, watching Cruz squirm like a pinned beetle was wildly entertaining. The man's capacity for public humiliation remains genuinely impressive.
Cruz, a man-shaped lobbyist pamphlet, was an easy target, though. Carlson's takedown wasn't brave—it was bloodsport for clicks. He used Cruz as a stand-in to criticize US policy on Iran while conveniently dodging the one person actually responsible: Donald Trump. The man who greenlit the military aid to Israel. The man Carlson won't touch.
This is the sleight of hand. Carlson postures as a dissident, but his crosshairs never rise above the Senate floor. He talks like an outsider, but never punches up. The result is cowardice—calculated avoidance dressed up as defiance, monetized for maximum clicks.
Carlson isn't challenging power; he's cackling all the way to the bank, turning selective outrage into a subscription model.
And in many ways, that's worse than the naked sycophants. At least Cruz grovels openly. Carlson misleads his audience into thinking he's rebelling against the machine, when in truth he's guarding its king. He lashes out at the foot soldiers and spares the general. This is not journalism. Not the respectable kind, anyway.
When Israel began pounding Iran, Carlson didn't question the president's role in approving support—he attacked Cruz's rhetoric. Trump got a pass. He always does from Carlson. From the entire pseudo-revolutionary right. They all know who signs the checks, who pulls the strings, and who might one day hand them a podium or a pardon. That's why the silence is deafening.
Steve Bannon, that other supposed voice of anti-establishment fire, falls into the same craven category. The architect of MAGA is perfectly willing to criticize the decision to assist Israel's Iranian adventures—but only in the abstract, never with Trump's name attached.
For all his blue-collar cosplay and populist posturing, Bannon knows exactly which side his bread is buttered on. Without Trump, he's just another uber-wealthy ex-Goldman Sachs banker playing dress-up in work shirts and five o'clock shadow.
But this isn't harmless. If Iran falls, the region doesn't get freer—it gets bloodier. The Islamic Republic is brutal, yes—but it's also a geopolitical keystone. Remove it, and the arch collapses. The aftermath wouldn't be democratic reform or some Instagram-filtered 'Persian Spring.'
It would be tribal fragmentation, religious warfare, and the violent settling of decades-old scores. Hezbollah would spin even looser in Lebanon. Israel would face attacks on multiple fronts. ISIS remnants would resurface in the chaos, feeding off the vacuum like parasites in open wounds.
Iraq would fracture again. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states would pour in money, weapons, and jihadist mercenaries to counterbalance rising Shia influence. Iran's Revolutionary Guard wouldn't simply vanish—it would splinter, with rogue commanders forming warlord fiefdoms across the region.
Russia and China, already circling, would seize the chance to claim strategic energy corridors and military influence. Western embassies would go dark. Diplomacy would give way to drone strikes.
And Europe? It would face a second refugee crisis, exponentially worse than 2015. Millions of displaced Iranians, Afghans, Iraqis, and Syrians, fleeing instability, starvation, or sectarian cleansing, would flood the Mediterranean and Balkans.
Greece and Italy, already on the brink, would snap. France and Germany would fracture internally. The EU itself might not survive another wave. What falls in Tehran doesn't stay in Tehran.
And yet no one on the right with any real influence is willing to say the obvious: Trump bears responsibility. Not Ted Cruz. President Trump, a man whose decisions, backroom deals, vanity, and erratic instincts bring us closer to World War III.
Carlson won't say it. He can't. His son, Buckley, works for Vice President J D Vance. His livelihood depends on proximity to Trump's orbit. He'll hurl rocks at Congress but never at the throne. The result is a pathetic parody of journalism, where everything is questioned except the one man most responsible.
We are ruled by strongmen and served by courtiers. Carlson's job is to entertain the peasants while never threatening the king. And as long as this charade continues, the real culprits walk free, while the world inches closer to complete carnage.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Asia Times
6 hours ago
- Asia Times
Tucker Carlson's a Trump-coddling coward
The online meltdown over Tucker Carlson's evisceration of Ted Cruz was predictably theatrical. Social media buzzed with the usual suspects declaring it a must-see affair, praising Carlson's surgical dismantling of the Texas senator's Iran hawks routine. And yes, watching Cruz squirm like a pinned beetle was wildly entertaining. The man's capacity for public humiliation remains genuinely impressive. Cruz, a man-shaped lobbyist pamphlet, was an easy target, though. Carlson's takedown wasn't brave—it was bloodsport for clicks. He used Cruz as a stand-in to criticize US policy on Iran while conveniently dodging the one person actually responsible: Donald Trump. The man who greenlit the military aid to Israel. The man Carlson won't touch. This is the sleight of hand. Carlson postures as a dissident, but his crosshairs never rise above the Senate floor. He talks like an outsider, but never punches up. The result is cowardice—calculated avoidance dressed up as defiance, monetized for maximum clicks. Carlson isn't challenging power; he's cackling all the way to the bank, turning selective outrage into a subscription model. And in many ways, that's worse than the naked sycophants. At least Cruz grovels openly. Carlson misleads his audience into thinking he's rebelling against the machine, when in truth he's guarding its king. He lashes out at the foot soldiers and spares the general. This is not journalism. Not the respectable kind, anyway. When Israel began pounding Iran, Carlson didn't question the president's role in approving support—he attacked Cruz's rhetoric. Trump got a pass. He always does from Carlson. From the entire pseudo-revolutionary right. They all know who signs the checks, who pulls the strings, and who might one day hand them a podium or a pardon. That's why the silence is deafening. Steve Bannon, that other supposed voice of anti-establishment fire, falls into the same craven category. The architect of MAGA is perfectly willing to criticize the decision to assist Israel's Iranian adventures—but only in the abstract, never with Trump's name attached. For all his blue-collar cosplay and populist posturing, Bannon knows exactly which side his bread is buttered on. Without Trump, he's just another uber-wealthy ex-Goldman Sachs banker playing dress-up in work shirts and five o'clock shadow. But this isn't harmless. If Iran falls, the region doesn't get freer—it gets bloodier. The Islamic Republic is brutal, yes—but it's also a geopolitical keystone. Remove it, and the arch collapses. The aftermath wouldn't be democratic reform or some Instagram-filtered 'Persian Spring.' It would be tribal fragmentation, religious warfare, and the violent settling of decades-old scores. Hezbollah would spin even looser in Lebanon. Israel would face attacks on multiple fronts. ISIS remnants would resurface in the chaos, feeding off the vacuum like parasites in open wounds. Iraq would fracture again. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states would pour in money, weapons, and jihadist mercenaries to counterbalance rising Shia influence. Iran's Revolutionary Guard wouldn't simply vanish—it would splinter, with rogue commanders forming warlord fiefdoms across the region. Russia and China, already circling, would seize the chance to claim strategic energy corridors and military influence. Western embassies would go dark. Diplomacy would give way to drone strikes. And Europe? It would face a second refugee crisis, exponentially worse than 2015. Millions of displaced Iranians, Afghans, Iraqis, and Syrians, fleeing instability, starvation, or sectarian cleansing, would flood the Mediterranean and Balkans. Greece and Italy, already on the brink, would snap. France and Germany would fracture internally. The EU itself might not survive another wave. What falls in Tehran doesn't stay in Tehran. And yet no one on the right with any real influence is willing to say the obvious: Trump bears responsibility. Not Ted Cruz. President Trump, a man whose decisions, backroom deals, vanity, and erratic instincts bring us closer to World War III. Carlson won't say it. He can't. His son, Buckley, works for Vice President J D Vance. His livelihood depends on proximity to Trump's orbit. He'll hurl rocks at Congress but never at the throne. The result is a pathetic parody of journalism, where everything is questioned except the one man most responsible. We are ruled by strongmen and served by courtiers. Carlson's job is to entertain the peasants while never threatening the king. And as long as this charade continues, the real culprits walk free, while the world inches closer to complete carnage.
Asia Times
6 hours ago
- Asia Times
US applause for Israel's Iran strikes courts wider disaster
The eruption of war between Israel and Iran is no longer a hypothetical flashpoint—it is a live, unfolding campaign whose implications could shake the foundations of the international order and move the world closer to World War III. More worrying than the precision of the Israeli strikes is the exuberant endorsement they have received from the United States. Washington, under the Trump administration's second term, appears not merely supportive but almost intoxicated by Israel's early military successes. In doing so, the United States risks accelerating a conflict that could spiral beyond containment with long-term consequences for the Middle East and the wider international system. What was initially sold to the world as a narrow preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear infrastructure has been rapidly reframed—mostly by Israeli and U.S. officials—as the first stage of a broader strategic takedown. The language from Washington has become celebratory, even triumphalist. American defense officials have praised the 'surgical precision' of Israeli operations, lauding the effectiveness of cyberwarfare and air dominance in taking down Iran's air defense systems. Behind the scenes, it is clear that US logistical support—intelligence sharing, satellite coverage, and mid-air refueling—has been essential to the success of Israel's campaign. Two US aircraft carriers—the USS Gerald R. Ford and USS Theodore Roosevelt—now patrol the Arabian Gulf, not simply to deter Iranian retaliation, but to demonstrate the American imprimatur on Israel's escalation. Therein lies the danger: Washington has moved from tacit support to strategic infatuation. The language of deterrence has been replaced by the logic of regime degradation. The tactical euphoria within the US national security establishment—particularly among hardliners and Trump loyalists—is pushing the conflict away from proportionality and toward maximalism. There are already murmurs of a 'three-phase doctrine,' aimed first at blinding Iran's surveillance systems, then destroying its nuclear facilities, and finally dismantling its conventional military capabilities and command structures. This shift is not occurring in a vacuum. Israel's leadership has long viewed Iran as an existential threat, and the opportunity to degrade Tehran's deterrent capabilities—particularly in light of the October 7 attacks and subsequent regional tensions—has presented itself with strategic clarity. But it is America's uncritical embrace of this campaign that is turning an already dangerous conflict into a potentially catastrophic overreach. The US is not just enabling Israel; it is emboldening it. What should have remained a limited strike is evolving into a doctrine of total war. Meanwhile, Iran's ability to absorb pressure is being dangerously underestimated. While its traditional proxy network—Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis—has been weakened through sustained military pressure, this does not equate to strategic collapse. Hamas has been battered in Gaza and has lost significant leadership, while Hezbollah faces constraints from Lebanon's economic and political decay, and the Houthis are operating under constant threat of Western preemptive strikes. Yet Iran, a state with decades of experience under sanctions, internal suppression, and international isolation, is no stranger to endurance warfare. It has built redundancy into its security architecture, cultivated asymmetric retaliatory capabilities across the region, and maintained domestic cohesion even amid hardship. The belief, especially in Washington, that sustained bombardment will produce internal dissent or collapse within the Islamic Republic is not only naive—it is historically disproven. If anything, foreign aggression often strengthens the ideological cohesion of its ruling elite. Moreover, should Iran fall into greater chaos, the likely outcome will not be regime change with Western-friendly overtones, but fragmentation, insurgency and the emergence of more radical, uncontrollable actors—much like post-invasion Iraq or Libya. Equally troubling is the global perception of this unfolding campaign. Germany, having historically aligned itself with Israel for obvious historical reasons, has expressed full support. The United Kingdom and Italy have also shown quiet approval. But others within the G7—such as Japan and France—are growing increasingly uneasy. Their silence may stem from diplomatic caution, but their hesitation reflects deeper concerns about the legality, proportionality, and wisdom of such an escalation. France's Macron has emphasized the importance of returning to diplomatic avenues, even if his remarks have been quickly drowned out by Washington's rhetoric. Across the Global South, the reaction is even more pronounced. Within ASEAN, the African Union, and Latin American capitals, the war is viewed as a unilateral venture—another instance of Western military force bypassing international norms. The absence of a United Nations mandate, or even an attempt at multilateral conflict resolution, reinforces the perception that global security is increasingly shaped by power, not principle. The rhetoric of democracy and international law rings hollow when overwhelming force is deployed without broad-based legitimacy. This moment reflects a wider crisis in global governance. With the UN sidelined and the G7 increasingly aligned with Israeli and American imperatives, institutions designed to prevent exactly this kind of escalation are proving impotent. Worse, the United States appears to have abandoned even the veneer of strategic caution. In a domestic climate where 'winning' matters more than wisdom, and where foreign policy is often framed in transactional or electoral terms, the allure of quick military success is proving irresistible. Yet history is filled with examples of early triumphs that led to strategic ruin. The U.S. celebrated the fall of Baghdad in 2003, only to be mired in a decades-long insurgency that cost hundreds of thousands of lives and drained American credibility. Israel itself knows that the initial success of its 1982 Lebanon invasion quickly devolved into a quagmire that reshaped its military doctrine for years to come. In today's rapidly evolving scenario, the consequences of overreach could be far greater. The regional order, already fragile from the Abraham Accords to the Iran-Saudi détente, may unravel entirely. The risks to maritime trade, oil infrastructure, and regional stability are not abstract—they are immediate. A wider war involving Syria, Iraq, and possibly even Afghanistan would be difficult to contain. And while Iran does not yet possess nuclear weapons, its pathway to acquiring them would almost certainly accelerate if its leadership feels the only way to survive is through deterrence by annihilation. Ultimately, the United States must reconsider its role not as a cheerleader but as a stabilizer. Fawning over Israel's military effectiveness may generate short-term geopolitical leverage, but it undermines long-term strategic prudence. The goal cannot simply be Iran's military humiliation; it must be the preservation of a global order that avoids perpetual war. If the G7 allows Washington to continue down this path unchecked, then the next chapter of this conflict may be written not in Tel Aviv or Tehran but in the ashes of another failed war birthed by hubris and cheered on by those too enamored with victory to question its price. Phar Kim Beng, PhD, is professor of ASEAN Studies at the International Islamic University Malaysia. He was formerly head teaching fellow at Harvard University and a Cambridge Commonwealth Scholar.
RTHK
8 hours ago
- RTHK
Trump weighing military action against Iran
Trump weighing military action against Iran Protesters in New York send a message over Donald Trump's potentially joining Benjamin Netanyahu in military action against Iran. Photo: Reuters US President Donald Trump warned he was weighing military action against Iran as Israel launched fresh strikes against Tehran and sirens sounded across Israel early Thursday after detecting incoming missiles from Iran. As the war entered its seventh day, Israel's military said it was striking Tehran and other parts of Iran, but all eyes were on whether Washington would enter the fray. Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, meanwhile, rejected Trump's demand for an "unconditional surrender", despite claims from the US leader that "Iran's got a lot of trouble and they want to negotiate". Trump has left his intentions on joining the conflict deliberately ambiguous, saying on Wednesday: "I may do it, I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do." "The next week is going to be very big," he added. The White House said Trump would receive an intelligence briefing on Thursday, a US holiday. Top US diplomat Marco Rubio, meanwhile, will meet his UK counterpart for talks expected to focus on the conflict. "I have ideas as to what to do, but I haven't made a final [decision]," Trump said. "I like to make the final decision one second before it's due, because things change. Especially with war." The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump had told aides on Tuesday he had approved attack plans but was holding off to see if Iran would give up its nuclear programme. Trump has said Iranian officials "want to come to the White House", a claim denied by Tehran. The US president had favoured a diplomatic route to end Iran's nuclear programme, seeking a deal to replace the agreement he tore up in his first term. But since Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu unleashed the campaign against Iran one week ago, Trump has stood behind the key US ally. The United States is the only country with the "bunker buster" bombs needed to destroy Iran's Fordow nuclear plant, but US military action is deeply unpopular with parts of Trump's base. Khamenei on Wednesday insisted Iran "will never surrender," and called Trump's ultimatum "unacceptable". "America should know that any military intervention will undoubtedly result in irreparable damage," Khamenei added. A week of strikes has significantly degraded Iran's nuclear and military installations, including buildings making and testing centrifuge components in Karaj and Tehran. Centrifuges are vital for uranium enrichment, the sensitive process that can produce fuel for reactors or, in highly extended form, the core of a nuclear warhead. Iran theoretically has enough near-weapons-grade material, if further refined, for more than nine bombs, but it denies seeking nuclear weapons. Israel has maintained ambiguity on its own atomic activities, but the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute says it has 90 nuclear warheads. (AFP)
