America stands at a familiar crossroads, one we have approached before with catastrophic results. The drumbeats of war with Iran grow louder each day, echoing the same dangerous rhetoric that led us into the quagmire of Iraq two decades ago. Tucker Carlson's stark warning to Steve Bannon should serve as a wake-up call: a war with Iran would not only devastate American interests but could end Trump's presidency and accelerate the decline of American global influence.
The parallels to 2003 are chilling, yet it seems we've learned nothing from that disaster.
Twenty-one years ago, America was sold a war based on flawed intelligence, geopolitical hubris, and the belief that military force could quickly reshape the Middle East. The results speak for themselves: hundreds of thousands dead, trillions of dollars wasted, regional instability that persists today, and a profound loss of American credibility worldwide.
Now we hear eerily similar arguments about Iran. The same think tanks, many of the same voices, and the same dangerous assumption that American military might can solve complex geopolitical problems with surgical precision. The demand for Iran's "unconditional surrender" is particularly ominous, it's the language of total war, not diplomacy.
Iran is not Iraq circa 2003. It's a significantly more powerful adversary with a larger population, more sophisticated military capabilities, extensive regional proxy networks, and strategic alliances with Russia and China. Unlike Saddam Hussein's isolated regime, Iran has spent decades preparing for exactly this confrontation.
Trump's reported demand for unconditional Iranian surrender represents the kind of all-or-nothing thinking that historically leads to unnecessary wars. No sovereign nation, especially one with Iran's history of resistance to foreign pressure, will simply capitulate to such demands. The Iranian regime, whatever its flaws, understands that survival is at stake.
This maximalist approach closes off diplomatic offramps and makes conflict almost inevitable. It's a strategy that works in real estate negotiations, but proves disastrous in international relations, where miscalculation can lead to decades of bloodshed.
The tragedy is that there are genuine grievances and security concerns on multiple sides that could potentially be addressed through patient diplomacy. Iran's nuclear program, regional influence operations, and support for various proxy groups are legitimate concerns. But so too are Iranian concerns about American military presence in the region, economic sanctions, and what they perceive as existential threats to their regime.
Carlson raises a crucial point that Washington's war hawks consistently ignore: America's military readiness for a major conflict. Despite spending more on defence than the next ten countries combined, the U.S. military has struggled with relatively minor adversaries in recent years. The inability to definitively defeat the Houthis, a rebel group in one of the world's poorest countries, should be a sobering reminder of the limits of American military power.
Iran represents a fundamentally different challenge. It has a population of 85 million, mountainous terrain that favours defenders, and has spent decades developing asymmetric warfare capabilities specifically designed to counter American military advantages. Any conflict would likely involve:
Closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of global oil passes.
Attacks on American allies and interests throughout the region.
Activation of proxy forces from Lebanon to Yemen to Iraq.
Potential escalation involving Russia and China.
Massive refugee flows destabilising neighbouring countries.
Economic disruption that could trigger a global recession.
This isn't fear-mongering; it's basic strategic analysis that any competent military planner would acknowledge.
Perhaps most troubling is Carlson's observation that this could represent the final chapter in American global dominance. The United States today is not the unipolar hegemon it was in 2003. China has emerged as a peer competitor, Russia has demonstrated its willingness to challenge American interests, and much of the Global South has grown sceptical of American leadership.
A disastrous war with Iran could accelerate American decline in several ways:
Economic Devastation: The costs would be enormous, potentially exceeding the $2-3 trillion spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. With national debt already at dangerous levels, another massive military expenditure could trigger a fiscal crisis.
Alliance Erosion: Many American allies are already sceptical of further Middle Eastern adventures. A unilateral war with Iran could fracture NATO and other partnerships just when America needs them most to compete with China.
Regional Chaos: Iran's collapse or even severe weakening could create a power vacuum that benefits neither American interests nor regional stability. The lesson of Iraq is that removing a regime is far easier than building something better in its place.
Strategic Distraction: While America becomes mired in another Middle Eastern conflict, China continues its economic and military expansion in Asia, the true centre of 21st-century geopolitical competition.
For Trump personally, the stakes couldn't be higher. His appeal to voters has always been rooted in his promise to end "forever wars" and focus on American interests at home. A major conflict with Iran would betray that promise and likely define his presidency just as Iraq defined Bush's.
The political mathematics are brutal. American voters, across party lines, have grown weary of Middle Eastern interventions. A war that drags on, produces significant casualties, or triggers economic disruption would quickly erode Trump's support base. The same voters who elected him to avoid such conflicts would likely abandon him if he leads them into another one.
Moreover, the opportunity costs are enormous. Trump's domestic agenda, whether on immigration, trade, or economic policy, would be overshadowed by war management. The media attention, political capital, and fiscal resources consumed by conflict would leave little room for the transformative policies his supporters expect.
There are alternatives to this dangerous trajectory, but they require abandoning the maximalist rhetoric and embracing the patient work of diplomacy. This doesn't mean accepting Iranian behaviour that threatens American interests, but it does mean recognizing that war should be the last resort, not the first option.
Effective Iran policy might include:
Targeted sanctions that don't harm ordinary Iranians.
Diplomatic engagement with clear, achievable objectives.
Regional security arrangements that address legitimate concerns of all parties.
Economic incentives for Iranian moderation.
Counter-proliferation measures that don't require regime change.
The goal should be managing the Iranian challenge, not eliminating it through force, which history suggests is both unlikely to succeed and certain to create new problems.
America faces a moment of truth. We can choose the path of restraint, diplomacy, and strategic patience, or we can once again bet everything on military force to solve complex political problems. The historical record strongly suggests which approach is more likely to serve American interests.
Tucker Carlson's warning deserves serious consideration not because of partisan politics, but because it reflects hard-learned lessons about the limits of military power and the dangers of geopolitical overreach. A war with Iran would not make America safer, stronger, or more prosperous, it would likely achieve the opposite.
The question is whether America's leaders will learn from past mistakes or repeat them on an even grander scale. The stakes, for Trump's presidency, American global standing, and the lives of countless people in the region, could not be higher.
The path to war is always easier to start than to finish. Once begun, conflicts develop their own momentum, create their own constituencies, and resist easy resolution. America has walked this path before, and it led to disaster. We should not walk it again.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/06/tucker-carlson-warns-war-iran-would-spell-end/
"Tucker Carlson sounded the alarm about the looming danger of a U.S. war with Iran under President Donald Trump's leadership, warning that such a move would not only devastate America's global standing but end Trump's presidency outright.
During an interview with Steve Bannon, Carlson laid bare the stakes, accusing globalist elites and war-hungry neocons of pushing America toward a disastrous conflict that could "scuttle" the nation on the "shores of Iran."
"I actually really love Trump. I think he's a deeply humane, kind person," Carlson said.
"I'm saying this because I'm really afraid that my country is going to be further weakened by this. I think we're going to see the end of the American Empire, obviously. Other nations would like to see that, and this is a perfect way to scuttle the U.S. on the shores of Iran. But it's also going to end, I believe, Trump's presidency—effectively end it. And so that's why I'm saying this."
Carlson reminded viewers of the Iraq disaster—a war launched under President George W. Bush, which he says defined the failure of that administration and decimated conservative credibility.
"Look, I knew Bush. I knew George W. Bush. We had family connections to Bush. I knew Bush personally. I still see Bush sometimes, and of course, he hates me—and he does—because I criticized him. I focused on Iraq, and that war is the sum total, from a historical perspective, of his administration. But I knew him, and he had all kinds of plans for things he wanted to do—domestically. Domestically, to improve the country. And you may agree or disagree, but in his mind, he wasn't just about the invasion of Iraq in March of 2003."
The Fox-turned-independent journalist drew a stark comparison between the current moment and the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq—arguing that many in Washington still haven't learned a thing.
"The second you get enmeshed in a real war—not a fake 'let's go bomb the villages and declare success'—we don't even have a good track record," Carlson said. "Why are the Houthis still there? There's a whole other question, which is: how prepared is the U.S. military for a real conflict? And the answer is—totally unprepared. Scary unprepared. I don't think people understand that. But anyway, the only reason I'm saying any of this is because I really, really care."
https://news.senatorbabet.com.au/p/will-the-iran-war-be-the-downfall
"Let me be blunt. If America gets dragged into a major shooting war with Iran, it won't just be another foreign policy blunder it will be the single greatest betrayal of the coalition Donald Trump built.
This coalition wasn't forged in the ivory towers of D.C. think tanks; it was built from the ground up by everyday Americans, working-class Hispanics in Texas, disillusioned industrial workers in the Rust Belt, economic nationalists, and border hawks. And they were all united by three things:
Ending the forever wars
Sealing the border and deporting illegal aliens
Bringing high value manufacturing jobs back to the U.S.
All three pillars are now under attack. But the push for war with Iran above all else, is the fastest way to blow the whole thing apart.
This isn't just about ideology, it's about power - who has it and who really runs the show. Because let's face it, whether it's Barack Obama or Donald Trump, the same permanent state - the intelligence community, Pentagon brass, defence contractors, and their media mouthpieces - call the shots.
These people never miss a war they don't like. And they'll do everything to shut down anyone who stands in the way.
Right now, they're trying to bait Trump and the American people into another catastrophic intervention. The military buildup is unmistakable:
Carrier battle groups are being redeployed to the Middle East
Bunker busting bombs have been requested by the Israelis
American air assets are already active in the region
If the Americans aren't already combatants, they're one "event" (false flag?) away from full scale involvement.
Let's not kid ourselves. The same people who told us Iraq would be quick and easy are running this playbook again. The "deep state" isn't a conspiracy - it's an entrenched apparatus serving Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and foreign interests.
They'll happily sacrifice American lives, treasure, and national focus if it means preserving their grip on power.
If MAGA is to survive, it must confront this machine head on. Trump's second term must be a wrecking ball aimed at the empire within. That means:
Mass deportations, not mass distractions
Defence of the Anglosphere, not global war
Economic nationalism, not Chinese dependence
The war with Iran isn't just another policy blunder in the making - it's the wedge that could split and destroy the first true populist movement the United States has seen in decades.
If this isn't stopped now - if there isn't a full, public debate before the bombs start falling - there may not be another chance.
And don't be fooled: where the United States goes, Australia usually follows.
That's why we must take a greater interest in the decisions being made in the halls of power in Washington, D.C. If we don't, we surrender our future to people who do not have our best interests at heart."
https://michaeltsnyder.substack.com/p/why-are-large-numbers-of-us-air-force