Transcript [00:00] So, Tucker Carlson has a newsletter and [00:02] in his one of his recent newsletters, he [00:04] actually made the argument that it would [00:06] be a good thing if the Iranian regime, [00:09] that's right, the Islamic regime in [00:11] Thran had nuclear weapons. That's right, [00:14] you heard me correctly. And Anakasparian [00:16] of the Young Turks went on a monologue [00:20] to talk about how wonderful Tucker [00:23] Carlson's theory was and to again make [00:26] the argument that it would be good for [00:27] Iran to get nuclear weapons. So, let's [00:29] listen to Anakasparian and then we'll [00:31] come back and we can talk about [00:33] everything wrong with the argument that [00:34] she's making. [00:35] >> Tucker Carlson's recent newsletter asks [00:38] a pretty provocative question that's [00:40] sure to draw the wrath of uh Mark [00:43] Leavvin and the rest of the neocon [00:45] establishment, which means I'm all over [00:48] it. I love it. I want to talk about it. [00:50] So, his latest morning newsletter is [00:52] titled, "Could a nuclear Iran stabilize [00:55] the Middle East?" [00:57] And you should know that privately I've [01:00] been raising this question [01:02] because there is a political theory in [01:05] the world of political science known as [01:07] the political peace theory and we're [01:09] going to visit that and discuss it in [01:11] just a moment. Um but first I want to [01:14] kind of go through the arguments made in [01:16] this newsletter and uh you can decide [01:19] for yourselves if you think it makes any [01:20] sense. So [01:23] Tucker Carlson notes that there are all [01:26] sorts of countries now that have nuclear [01:27] weapons, right? Unhinged genocidal [01:30] regimes for instance like Israel. Um now [01:32] they have a clandestine nuclear program [01:34] that uh they have not entered into the [01:37] non-prololiferation treaty because [01:38] they're above the law and apparently uh [01:40] we operate in a global double standard [01:43] where they get to do whatever they want. [01:44] Their treachery is never punished. Um [01:46] but there are other countries like North [01:48] Korea for instance. North Korea has [01:51] nuclear weapons and has had nuclear [01:53] weapons since about 2006. [01:55] Is anyone up at night like or rocking [01:58] themselves in fetal position in bed [02:00] every night uh over North Korea using a [02:03] nuclear weapon against us? No. And [02:05] that's kind of the point that was made [02:07] in this newsletter. So Tucker cites [02:10] warnings that presidents and cabinet [02:12] members gave in the early 2000s about [02:15] how Kim Jong- so that's Kim Jong-un's [02:18] father Kim Jong- you know he obtains a [02:22] nuclear weapon it's so dangerous the [02:23] world's going to end well that included [02:26] William Perry who happened to be Bill [02:28] Clinton's defense secretary and here's [02:29] what he said in 2003 years prior to [02:32] North Korea obtaining a nuclear weapon [02:34] the nuclear program now underway in [02:36] North Korea poses an imminent danger of [02:39] nuclear weapons being detonated in [02:42] American cities. Detonated. Okay. So, [02:45] just simply having access to the nuclear [02:49] weapons, you know, the North Koreans, [02:51] they're so barbaric that they'll [02:52] immediately use it against American [02:54] cities. Okay. Now, uh Tucker writes that [02:59] those warnings sound pretty scary, [03:00] right? But the past 20 years have proven [03:04] them unwarranted. North Korea became a [03:06] known nuclear nation in October of 2006 [03:09] and its proliferation has yielded a [03:13] total of zero nuclear strikes on [03:15] America, the West, or any other country. [03:18] The fear-mongering was for nothing. [03:20] Well, if um [03:24] the political establishment in the [03:25] United States isn't engaging in [03:26] fear-mongering, like what else would [03:28] they do? I mean, yes, fundraising, I get [03:30] that. But other than that, literally, [03:32] like, what else would they do with their [03:33] time? So, Tucker then connects that [03:36] history with uh the very similar [03:39] warnings that were that we are hearing [03:41] today, especially in regard to Iran from [03:43] people like Benjamin Netanyahu, who says [03:45] that there is only one difference [03:48] between Nazi Germany and Israel. I'm [03:51] sorry, Nazi Germany and the Islamic [03:54] Republic of Iran. Iran is first seeking [03:56] atomic weapons and once it has them will [04:00] then start a world war. But Tucker asks [04:04] America's leaders, you know, to maybe [04:06] maybe consider some, you know, important [04:09] questions before engaging in a regime [04:11] change war with Iran in order to prevent [04:13] them from accessing or obtaining nuclear [04:14] weapons. First, he asks, "What are the [04:17] chances Iran would actually launch a [04:20] nuclear attack?" And I think that's a [04:21] legitimate question, of course, but he [04:24] argues it's unlikely. No country in the [04:28] so-called access of evil, that's Iraq, [04:31] Iran, and North Korea, has ever deployed [04:34] a nuke because doing so would be an act [04:37] of suicide. [04:38] Yes. Mutually assured destruction. [04:42] Right. You launch a nuke, there will be [04:44] retaliation from another nuclear power [04:48] and the world ends. like it's just [04:51] Armageddon. [04:54] And it's not of course Western countries [04:56] only that have nuclear weapons. Pakistan [04:58] has nuclear weapons. North Korea has [05:00] nuclear weapons. I'm not up at night [05:02] worrying about them. But you know there [05:05] is one thing that nuclear weapons have [05:07] afforded the countries who have managed [05:10] to obtain them and that tends to be u [05:13] the US leaving them alone for the most [05:15] part. For the most part. [05:17] So, uh, the next controversial question [05:19] he asks is, uh, could the could Iran [05:23] obtaining the bomb wind up being a good [05:26] thing? Whether anyone in the foreign [05:28] policy establishment admits it, North [05:30] Korea's nuclearization [05:32] has undeniably stabilized the Korea [05:35] Korean peninsula. The region has seen no [05:38] wars, coups, or interventionist forced [05:42] regime changes since 2006. [05:45] Then he asks, "Would uh Iran becoming a [05:48] nuclear power have the same effect on [05:50] its region? Could it finally prompt [05:52] America to leave the area alone and [05:55] incentivize Israel to drop its stated [05:57] goal of controlling the Gaza Strip and [05:59] the West Bank? Would it make the Iranian [06:02] government less oppressive because it [06:04] wouldn't have to worry about the West's [06:07] constant decapitation ambitions?" [06:11] I think that's a legitimate question. [06:14] I'll give you another example. I mean, [06:17] why is it that the US isn't allowing [06:21] Ukraine to go balls to the wall in [06:24] regard to Russia? Well, because it's a [06:26] delicate matter. Russia has nuclear [06:27] weapons, which it has threatened to use [06:29] time and time again. Now, do I think [06:30] Russia is actually going to use nuclear [06:31] weapons? Honestly, I don't. Um, [06:35] but [06:37] it has kind of restrained the US and I [06:41] think in certain instances, especially [06:43] when you have a president who's drunk [06:44] off military power as Trump is at the [06:47] moment, you know, you want to have some [06:48] brakes on the car and um I actually do [06:53] think Iran having nuclear weapons would [06:56] prevent the US from invading and pushing [07:00] for a regime change. not not for us [07:02] obviously but on behalf of Israel and I [07:05] would I would like to prevent that from [07:06] happening actually to be honest. Now [07:09] some might disagree with this whole [07:11] theory but I want to give you um [07:15] one more statement or one more excerpt [07:18] from the newsletter in which Carlson [07:20] writes that defending the Iranian [07:22] government is not the purpose of raising [07:24] these points. And I believe him on that. [07:25] I I've got no love for the Iranian [07:27] regime. All we want to do is introduce [07:29] America's national conversation to a [07:32] different point of view. Maybe the [07:34] premise of why the US must bomb the [07:36] Islamic Republic's physics facilities is [07:39] false. Maybe other parts of the official [07:42] narrative on the Middle East aren't true [07:45] either. So, let's talk a little bit [07:47] about nuclear peace theory. I learned [07:49] about it in grad school. I thought it [07:51] was really interesting. Yes, [07:52] provocative, but honestly, it made a lot [07:54] of sense to me. And one of the political [07:57] scholars who's kind of known for his [08:00] work on this theory is a political [08:02] scholar by the name of Kenneth Waltz. [08:04] He's the founder of structural realism. [08:08] So uh real quick, what is the nucle uh [08:10] nuclear peace theory? It's also known as [08:13] um nuclear deterrence. So nuclear [08:15] deterrence refers to a principle in [08:17] international relations where the [08:19] retaliatory potential and destructive [08:22] force of nuclear weapons prevents [08:25] nations from launching a nuclear attack. [08:29] Again, the thought of mutually assured [08:32] destruction [08:33] prevents rational actors [08:37] from actually using those weapons, [08:39] right? Using the nuclear bombs. So if [08:42] you know a country has the ability to [08:44] destroy you, you are less likely to [08:46] attack or at least reconsider or think [08:49] carefully through the possibility of [08:51] attacking. So the theory's roots are in [08:53] the cold war era uh when a third world [08:56] war was averted despite tensions between [08:59] the United States and the Soviets, [09:01] right? The USSR. So one of its main [09:05] proponents, one of the main proponents [09:06] of the nuclear peace theory is Kenneth [09:08] Waltz, the founder of structural [09:09] realism. And according to a 2011 article [09:12] from the Georgetown Journal of [09:14] International Affairs, [09:16] as a structural realist, Waltz's beliefs [09:20] are centered on the conception of [09:22] states, meaning countries, as unitary [09:25] rational actors. He argues that states [09:28] seek survival above all else. This [09:31] interest in survival leads policymakers [09:33] and military officials to avoid nuclear [09:35] war at all costs. As Waltz sees it, no [09:39] regime can honestly believe it will [09:42] survive a nuclear war. So mutually [09:44] assured destruction creates a more [09:46] secure environment. [09:48] The reason why Israel does not want Iran [09:51] to obtain a nuclear weapon isn't because [09:53] they're worried Iran's going to use a [09:55] nuclear weapon against Israel. They're [09:57] worried that by the mere fact that Iran [10:00] has nuclear weapons, Israel will no [10:02] longer be successful in its push to get [10:06] the US to carry out a regime change war [10:08] in Iran. And as we know, the Israelis [10:12] want full dominance of that region. That [10:14] that much is clear. Some because they [10:17] believe in the Greater Israel project, [10:19] meaning stealing more land in the [10:20] region. [10:22] Others because they want to be more [10:24] powerful than Iran. and uh they want to [10:27] prevent them from obtaining the nuclear [10:29] weapons because uh that deterrence is [10:31] power. It is that ensures that your [10:35] country is going to survive. I mean [10:37] another perfect example is Ukraine [10:39] actually in that they gave up their [10:41] nuclear weapons uh through negotiations [10:43] with the United States back in the [10:45] 1990s. Now if Ukraine had nuclear [10:48] weapons, [10:50] would Russia invade? Would Putin invite [10:53] in invade the way that he has? I mean, [10:56] look, we're guessing it's speculation, [10:58] but I would guess not. I would guess [11:00] not, because at that point, you have two [11:01] nuclear powers, and maybe you reconsider [11:04] invading a sovereign country and [11:06] annexing their land. [11:08] Uh, here are some examples, by the way, [11:10] that Waltz uh has [clears throat] given [11:13] to back up his arguments. [11:15] Although American officials claimed [11:16] Saddam Hussein was irrational, [11:19] Hussein did not strike Israel with [11:21] lethal warheads during the Gulf War, [11:24] displaying an instinct for [11:25] self-preservation. [11:27] Waltz also points out that although the [11:30] Kim dynasty in North Korea has long been [11:33] derided for unpredictability and [11:35] irrationality, Kim Jong- and Kim Ilsung [11:40] have always stopped short of attacks [11:42] that would risk the regime's survival. [11:44] So, let's take a look at Iran real [11:45] quick. Let's just revisit Iran's [11:47] response to the United States bombing [11:49] its nuclear sites. What did Iran do? [11:53] Gave the United States fair warning. US [11:57] was able to evacuate nearby military [11:59] bases. [12:01] And then Iran engaged in honestly [12:04] theater to pay lip service to their own [12:06] people so they can say, "Hey, we did [12:09] respond to these US and Israeli strikes [12:11] against our country. [12:14] But no US troops were killed because uh [12:17] they were restrained. We didn't get [12:19] dragged into a regime change war in the [12:22] summer because Iran was restrained. So, [12:26] if you ask me, when it comes to which [12:29] country I'm more concerned about as it [12:31] pertains to obtaining nuclear weapons, [12:35] am I worried about the country that has [12:37] shown its restraint on the international [12:39] stage? Or am I worried about the country [12:41] that has a clandestine nuclear program [12:44] that is not part of the [12:46] non-prololiferation treaty and has [12:49] threatened on multiple occasions to uh [12:52] engage in nuclear war if they don't get [12:54] anything and everything that they want? [12:56] And of of course I'm talking about [12:57] Israel. Yeah, I'm more worried about [12:59] Israel, but they've got the nukes. [13:00] There's nothing you can do about it at [13:01] this point. [13:03] So, do I think Iran obtaining nukes [13:05] would potentially stabilize that region? [13:08] I do, actually. I do. [13:12] Do I think that Israel might reconsider [13:15] uh the atrocities it's committing in the [13:17] region if they didn't have the [13:19] protection of the Iron Dome? I do. [13:23] We're talking about human beings and [13:24] they're motivated by incentives and [13:26] disincentives. That's how this works. [13:28] And honestly, when it comes to [13:30] rationality, I would argue we've seen [13:33] more rationality and more restraint from [13:35] Iran than we have from Israel. [13:38] Just tell me. I mean, if you disagree, [13:40] let me know. [13:41] >> All righty. So, there you have it, [13:42] folks. There's Anaka Kasparian telling [13:44] us why it is a good thing for Iran to [13:47] achieve nuclear weapons. Basically what [13:50] she's saying is that nuclear deterrence [13:52] works because states are rational actors [13:56] who fear extinction. Great. Then explain [14:00] why Iran's leaders constantly talk about [14:03] and work towards destroying Israel who [14:05] they know has nukes. Why aren't they [14:08] afraid of that? The Supreme Leader calls [14:11] Israel a cancerous tumor that must be [14:14] eliminated. Right? Former presidents of [14:16] Iran talked openly about wiping it off [14:18] the map. people like Ahmed Najad. But [14:21] here's the part that Anna and Tucker [14:23] never touch because it ruins their [14:25] entire theory. Iran doesn't fight wars [14:28] directly. And you notice that she never [14:30] ever mentioned that Iran is actually [14:34] constantly attacking not only Israel but [14:37] the West, right? Through its proxies. [14:39] Iran fights always through proxies where [14:42] whenever they can. A nuclear Iran does [14:45] not just mean nukes in Thran. This is a [14:48] key point. She did not address this at [14:50] all. It means nuclear cover [14:54] forbah kamas, the Houthis, and whoever [14:56] else Iran arms next. That includes in [15:00] Paraguay, in Venezuela, Iran is Iran [15:03] operates its proxies all over the world. [15:05] And once Iran crosses the nuclear [15:07] threshold, the question isn't would Iran [15:10] launch a nuke, which was the way she put [15:12] it, where you just picture that the only [15:14] option is a large ballistic missile. The [15:16] real question is would Iran then share [15:19] this nuclear material, this technology [15:23] or even tactical devices with proxies? [15:26] That threat does not exist with any [15:29] other nuclear state. North Korea and [15:30] Pakistan don't have terrorist proxies [15:32] that are actively trying to attack other [15:36] other nations and are actually carrying [15:38] out attacks all over the world. They [15:40] don't. So, uh, you know, Anna, Anna's [15:44] North Korea comparison, here's the major [15:46] difference she ignores between North [15:48] Korea and Iran. Okay? Again, it's the [15:50] proxies. North Korea does not arm terror [15:53] groups across the globe. Iran does. Got [15:55] that? Good. Now, North Korea also [15:58] doesn't embed itself in civilian [16:01] populations using human shields. Iran [16:04] does. Rational actors don't usually do [16:06] that to their own people, but Islamic [16:09] jihadists do. Okay, so Iran does this [16:12] throughbellah and kamas. North Korea [16:15] does not fire rockets at civilians [16:17] through third parties while pretending [16:19] to be uninvolved. Iran does that. Now [16:21] imagine that model with tactical nuclear [16:25] weapons. I'm not talking again again [16:27] about the large ballistic missile. Will [16:28] Iran launch a nuke? Nuclear weapons are [16:31] not only the big missiles, [16:34] okay? We're talking about small portable [16:37] battlefield or terror use nuclear [16:39] devices. You don't need a state for [16:41] that. You don't need a state to launch [16:44] that. [16:46] Iran is the only nuclear aspirant whose [16:50] entire strategy is built on deniability. [16:53] That's how they operate. That's what the [16:55] proxies are all about. Iran didn't do [16:57] it. It was kamas. It was it was the [16:59] Houthis etc. [17:01] That alone makes this whole nuclear [17:03] peace theory argument, this geopolitical [17:06] argument completely irrelevant to the [17:08] Iran situation. But then Anna goes ahead [17:10] and frames this as Israel being [17:12] irrational and Iran being restrained. [17:16] Iran's the one who's restrained. Israel [17:17] is an irrational actor. Now that [17:19] requires ignoring reality completely. [17:21] You see, Iran, as I said, they arm the [17:24] all these proxies. They operate across [17:26] borders. They target civilians as a [17:28] strategy. [17:30] Okay? And they avoid accountability. [17:33] Now add nuclear weapons to that whole [17:35] system. Every other nuclear power keeps [17:38] their nukes under centralized state [17:40] control. Iran's doctrine is all about [17:43] decentralizing their military activity [17:46] about outsourcing it to non-state [17:48] actors. Okay? Again, that means that a [17:51] nuclear Iran is not doesn't deter war. [17:55] It lowers the threshold for nuclear [17:57] terror all over the place because once [18:00] Iran has nukes, every proxy war becomes [18:02] a question. Are you willing to risk [18:04] escalation with a nuclear power? Because [18:07] every war with one of Iran's proxies is [18:09] essentially a war with a potentially [18:11] nuclear armed uh military [18:17] and Iran knows how to exploit fear. [18:19] Okay, so Israel's objection to Iran [18:21] getting nukes isn't paranoia, okay? It's [18:23] pattern recognition. How about that? [18:26] They're dealing with a regime. Israel is [18:28] dealing with a regime that calls for our [18:30] destruction. It arms terror proxies [18:32] globally. It specializes in deniability. [18:36] It can't be allowed nuclear weapons. [18:38] Okay? This is strategic sanity. This [18:40] isn't this isn't Israel, the greater [18:42] Israel project, whatever that means. [18:44] Now, bottom line is this. Nuclear [18:47] deterrence assumes that nuclear weapons [18:50] stay in the hands of states. Iran is the [18:53] only regime on earth that has built its [18:55] power by outsourcing to terror groups. A [18:59] nuclear Iran does not stabilize the [19:01] Middle East. It destabilizes the entire [19:05] world. That's the argument that Tucker [19:08] Carlson made and Anakasparian made. It's [19:09] just look, it's also underlying the [19:12] argument is this moral equivalency [19:15] between Israel and these jihadist [19:18] Muslims who vow to destroy America and [19:21] destroy Israel and wipe every Jew off [19:23] the face of the earth. I I don't think I [19:24] need to go on further with this. Thanks [19:26] for watching. Please make sure to check [19:28] out all the other content that we're [19:30] putting up at Israel 365 as well. And [19:32] make sure to like and share these videos [19:34] if you are finding them interesting and [19:36] helpful. Thanks for watching.
