Tucker Carlson: An Iran War Would Destroy Trump’s Presidency

Last night Tucker Carlson warned against a war with Iran, one of his best segments I’ve ever seen. He finishes with an interview with Col. Douglas MacGregor warning against a likely false flag against Iran.

20 thoughts on “Tucker Carlson: An Iran War Would Destroy Trump’s Presidency”

  1. Great show on Tucker Carlson last night. If Trump is dumb enough to get led into a war with Iran, he deserves to lose his presidency.

  2. The bastard loses the bow-tie and becomes Bill goddamn Hicks.

    Strange times, man….

    Good stuff. But Tucker neglects to mention that Trump has been fairly consistent in his hostility to Iran. That’s what Sheldon Adelson paid for.

    1. Begs the question then who did Bill Hicks become, but I wouldn’t want to be accused of spreading baseless conspiracy theory.

      But Tucker, you know he’s the same bow tie wearing bastard he always was. Just has a new role to play.

  3. The U.S. public would be unlikely to support a war with Iran. Democrats may, however, may support a war with Russia, because Democrats have stated that the election interference was equivalent to Pearl Harbor.

    1. I seriously doubt the Democrats would be on board for an attack on a nuclear armed behemoth like Russia. If they lost their coastal cities to nukes, who would vote for them?

  4. I dispute that the US can defeat Iran in a war. He referenced the Millennium Challenge, 2002 war game and the extremely high casualties the US suffered in it. What happened was that the Iranians swarmed the Fifth Fleet in the Strait of Hormuz and sank 16 ships, including an aircraft carrier. There is no way the US could occupy Iran given its size, terrain, and population. And victory to Iran doesn’t mean coming over here and occupying the US. As history has shown countless times, victory to Iran means expelling foreign influence and intervention. Short of a wholesale strategic nuclear strike, Iran will win.

    1. Defining victory/defeat in a war comes down to what each side’s objectives are, whether or not those objectives are accomplished, and at what cost. There probably wouldn’t be a winner in a US/Iran war. Any objectives the US managed to accomplish would come at a much higher than anticipated cost, and the likelihood of Iran achieving the objectives you mention for it is precisely zero.

      1. Defining victory/defeat in a war comes down to what each side’s objectives are,

        Well
        yeah, that’s what I said. For Iran, victory would be expelling foreign
        invaders. This they will do, as they have for thousands of years. I’m
        confused by you saying that “the likelihood of Iran achieving the
        objections you mention for it is precisely zero.”… Which objectives?
        Repulsing a foreign invasion? They will do that. Sinking a sizable
        portion of the FIfth Fleet? Well, look up the Millennium Challenge 2002
        and see how hopeless the situation is for the US Navy in that scenario.

        1. “For Iran, victory would be expelling foreign invaders.”

          OK, so now you’re moving the goalposts. Your definition of Iranian victory in the comment I responded to was “expelling foreign influence and intervention.” The next time Iran does that will be the first time it ever has, going back to Old Testament times.

          1. What are you talking about moving the goalposts? “”For Iran, victory would be expelling foreign invaders.”” and “”expelling foreign influence and intervention.” were meant as equivalent statements. Point is: they will win their country back.

            The next time Iran does that will be the first time it ever has, going back to Old Testament times.

            Umm… they expelled the Arab invaders, taking Islam as their own, as British scholar of Islam the late Bernard Lewis explains:
            “Iran was indeed Islamized, but it was not Arabized. Persians remained Persians. And after an interval of silence, Iran reemerged as a separate, different and distinctive element within Islam, eventually adding a new element even to Islam itself. Culturally, politically, and most remarkable of all even religiously, the Iranian contribution to this new Islamic civilization is of immense importance. The work of Iranians can be seen in every field of cultural endeavor, including Arabic poetry, to which poets of Iranian origin composing their poems in Arabic made a very significant contribution. In a sense, Iranian Islam is a second advent of Islam itself, a new Islam sometimes referred to as Islam-i Ajam. It was this Persian Islam, rather than the original Arab Islam, that was brought to new areas and new peoples: to the Turks, first in Central Asia and then in the Middle East in the country which came to be called Turkey, and India. The Ottoman Turks brought a form of Iranian civilization to the walls of Vienna…”
            In 1942, the Soviets and British invaded Iran to open up a supply route to the Soviet Union during the war. This led to the creation of the Anglo-Iranan Oil Company (which we now know as BP). In the early 1950s, Iran took its oil fields back from the British, who whined to the Eisenhower about a Communist takeover threat, leading to Operation Ajax and the installation of the brutal Shah… the direct consequence of which was the most recent example of Iran asserting its independence, the Islamic Revolution.
            I refuse to believe someone like you were ignorant of any of this. Did you just not consider it?
            And in any case, today’s issue that I brought up, the vulnerability of the Fifth Fleet in the Strait of Hormuz, remains unacknowledged.

          2. Expelling foreign invaders is wildly different from expelling foreign influence and intervention.

            As far as the vulnerability of the Fifth Fleet in the Strait of Hormuz, I’m not sure what you want me to acknowledge. There’s definitely a vulnerability there. Whether or not the Iranians can exploit that vulnerability is something I hope we don’t end up having to find out.

          3. Expelling foreign invaders is wildly different from expelling foreign influence and intervention.

            OK. Bottom line: if we invade them, they will repel that invasion.

            As
            far as the vulnerability of the Fifth Fleet in the Strait of Hormuz,
            I’m not sure what you want me to acknowledge. There’s definitely a
            vulnerability there. Whether or not the Iranians can exploit that
            vulnerability is something I hope we don’t end up having to find out.

            On that we agree.

    2. That is total BS, Trump would use nuclear weapons, and Iran would be completely incinerated in a war. The real disaster would be what comes afterward, since the Sunni forces would gain total geopolitical dominance over Islam once Iran is out of the way. The US would not invade Iran with its own troops, but would get its regional “allies” to send in huge legions of Sunni terrorists to finish the job, and Iran would become like the Syrian Civil War on a grander scale, with lots of radioactive areas. But we all know that Sunni terrorists cannot be contained to a geographic area (example of ISIS). All the wannabee Caliphate builders will have their interests advanced over the long term by the elimination of Iran.

      1. That is total BS, Trump would use nuclear weapons, and Iran would be completely incinerated in a war.
        ….
        You are certainly free to look into the Millennium Challenge 2002 and learn the vulnerabilities of the Fifth Fleet. Regarding nuclear weapons, you are also free to read the last sentence of my post: “Short of a wholesale strategic nuclear strike, Iran will win.”

        Yet even then you are not killing every Shia Muslim, or even most of them. You know that Iraq is a majority Shia nation right? You know the Shia are a sizeable minority in Lebanon right? There is no country in the Middle East that is capable of invading Iran, which is a mountainous region four times the size of Iraq. Hell, all the Saudis can do in Yemen is terror bomb.

        Also, how did those “huge legions” of Sunni fighters fare against a military backed by Russia?

  5. I just saw this awhile ago tonight. not good news at all…

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-26/australian-defense-officials-say-trump-prepared-bomb-iran

    US Preparing To Bomb Iran’s Nuclear Capabilities As Soon As Next Month: Report

    As the White House convenes a policy meeting on Iran Thursday involving senior Pentagon officials and cabinet advisers under national security adviser John Bolton, and after a week of intense saber-rattling by President Donald Trump and his Iranian counterpart Hassan Rouhani, a new bombshell report by Australia’s ABC says the White House is drawing up plans to strike Iran’s alleged nuclear facilities as early as next month.

    Senior figures in the Australia’s Turnbull government have told the
    ABC they believe the US is prepared to bomb Iran’s nuclear capability.
    The bombing could be as early as next month. —ABC report

    Crucially, Australia is part of the so-called “Five Eyes” global intelligence partners which includes the US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, and plays in a key role in hosting top-secret facilities that guide American spy satellites…..

    1. Stories like this should not be taken too seriously. Someone is either selectively leaking to thwart what they think (probably wrongly) is a US planned attack, or as is more likely, the US is leaking to provoke Iran into taking some kind of action. It could be merely a ploy to get Iran to move some of its assets so we can observe those movements by satellite.

  6. It depends on how it starts. If Iran shuts the Straits of Hormuz, which they threatened to do, I don’t think the war will destroy Trump. It is Iran that will be destroyed – literally. Of course, the Iranians know this, and this makes such an action unlikely. Unlikely is not impossible, though.

Comments are closed.