It’s gotten ugly. Tucker Carlson and Mark Levin have been firing broadsides at one another like they’re remaking Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World. There’s no point getting into all the gory details. Suffice it to say, Carlson has charged Levin, Sean Hannity, and Ruppert Murdoch with pushing President Trump into direct war with Iran. In turn, on X, Levin has unleashed fusillades of vitriol at Carlson. Both men -- and Hannity -- have huge audiences. Trump’s following eclipses them all. It’s awfully counterproductive to have prominent conservative media folk circle up and fire at one another.
The hope is that Carlson and Levin cease fire. There’s a debate worth having. Whoever started this fracas, who cares? Stop it. Perhaps these guys aren’t going to kiss and make up anytime soon, but they can get back to focusing on their arguments for and against. Their audiences will be better served.
There’s no sides-taking here in this Battle of Big Time Media Personalities. Instead, let’s discuss why direct American military intervention in the Iranian-Israeli fracas is a nonstarter. Let’s draw a critical distinction first.
Eliminating or crippling Iran’s nuclear weapons development infrastructure is vital. President Trump says that Iran is nearing nuclear weapons capability. Coordinating with the Israelis in removing or diminishing that threat serves both countries’ national security interests. Morphing that limited aim into a regime change war isn’t in America’s interest. It appears that the president agrees.
As relayed by Charlie Kirk at Truth Social, according to Post Millennial (PM.), under the headline: “Trump has no plans to take US into war with Iran: report,” June 14:
One White House official told the outlet, "Whatever happens today cannot be prevented," in reference to Israel's attacks on Iran. "But we have the ability to negotiate a successful peaceful resolution to this conflict if Iran is willing. The fastest way for Iran to accomplish peace is to give up its nuclear weapons program."
Let’s underscore President Trump’s intentions. In a Truth Social post, Trump discusses how he’s brought peace to other conflicts. He’ll do the same between the Iranians and Israelis. From the post, June 15:
Likewise, we will have PEACE, soon, between Israel and Iran! Many calls and meetings now taking place. I do a lot, and never get credit for anything, but that’s OK, the PEOPLE understand. MAKE THE MIDDLE EAST GREAT AGAIN!
Per the lede in a June 14 Axios report, the Israelis lobbied Trump “to join the war with Iran in order to eliminate its nuclear program, according to two Israeli officials.” Israeli prime minister Netanyahu would have made the request. He has the peer-to-peer relationship with the president. Maybe Netanyahu made the ask. Maybe he didn’t.
This from Just the News, June 15:
President Trump reportedly rejected an Israeli plan to kill Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, according to reports on Sunday citing sources.
Netanyahu deflected in an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier, circular filing the purported request under “false reports.”
Just the News cited a Reuters’ report claiming that a “senior administration official” as having said: “Have the Iranians killed an American yet? No. Until they do we're not even talking about going after the political leadership[.]”
Perhaps it isn’t clear to some people, though it seems obvious what’s going on here. Trump and Netanyahu are playing good cop/bad cop. Trump gave the Iranians 60 days to negotiate an end to their nuclear weapons ambitions or… well, the Israelis would do something about it should the Iranians proved stubborn. And, by golly, the Israelis are very effectively doing something about it.
Does anyone believe that Netanyahu acted without Trump’s go-ahead? Israel leans on the U.S. economically and militarily, and Trump is the best friend the Israelis have ever had in the White House. Greenlighting the Israeli attacks on Iran is aimed at getting the mullahs to cry, “Allah!” It’s not, to Trump’s thinking, the opening act in a regime change war.
Trump’s opposition to direct U.S. military intervention chagrins neocons and some Israel boosters, but Trump has been many times adamant: He opposes the Washington establishment’s eagerness for color revolutions, regime change wars, nation-building exercises, and whatever else in the past the State Department and CIA have concocted and Lindsey Graham has rah-rahed. Trump’s opposition is sound. Not coincidently, he’s in full step with most Americans.
Trump, the consummate dealmaker, has a well-defined goal in confronting the Iranians: end their nuclear weapons ambition. It’s that specific. Trump isn’t looking to topple the mullahs, though he wouldn’t mind if they came tumbling down. He definitely isn’t going to give thumbs up to assassinating Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Murdering the Iranian head of state -- moreover a religious leader -- would be an act of war. Trump isn’t going there.
The Israelis have cause for wanting to end to the Iranian regime. Iran’s threat to Israel is more imminent. Israelis are currently on the brunt end of Iranian missile strikes. A nuclear-armed Iran would be a mortal threat to the Jewish state. So, the Israelis’ national interest differs in that sense.
Iran, possessing nuclear arms, threatens U.S. interests overseas and here at home. But let’s venture to say that any use of nuclear weapons -- including dirty bombs -- by Iran or its surrogates against the U.S. homeland would be met with overwhelming force. Iranian leaders wouldn’t be decapitated. They’d be eviscerated. With Trump in the White House, you can bet the mullahs have weighed the risk.
Neocons and supporters of Israel tend to conflate American and Israeli interests. Indeed, there are intersections, but not always. The Israelis are allies. The U.S. has and is working to make Israel more secure. Trump’s first term Abraham Accords are a prime example. Yet, the U.S. agenda in the Middle East is broader than Israelis’ agenda.
Trump came in for a firestorm of criticism when he engaged with Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The president cited, in part, the economic benefits to the U.S. by doing so. Reports are that the Israelis felt “blindsided” by Trump for lifting sanctions on Syria and negotiating with Hamas. At the time, Trump responded that “the U.S. having a strong relationship with Arab leaders is ‘very good for Israel.’”
The point here is that U.S. and Israeli interests don’t always coincide.
In the main, Americans favor ending Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions even if that requires limited military action. They prefer negotiations to work, though. But they don’t want another regime change war. Not in Iran, not anywhere. No more occupations. They’ve seen enough blood spilled and treasure squandered in Iraq, Afghanistan, and long distant Vietnam -- all fruitless and costly ventures.
Posted Auron MacIntyre, a host and contributor at the Blaze, at X, June 16:
“Regime change” never works because a foreign people don't magically transform when you hand them the US Constitution[.]
At this writing, Trump has a dilemma. The Israelis don’t possess the bunker-busting bombs or aircraft necessary to destroy Iranian underground nuclear weapons development facilities. Are there any workarounds to direct U.S. military action? Would an attack by U.S. bombers be a one and done, or would that prove a door leading toward full war with Iran?
Trump’s years-long stances and pronouncements against endless wars and his mandate last November shouts that he won’t embroil the U.S. in what neocons crave: full-scale war with Iran. How he threads the needle is the art of it.
J. Robert Smith can be found at X. His handle is @JRobertSmith1. At Gab, @JRobertSmith. He blogs occasionally at Flyover
Image: PickPik