Trump means to stand by Israel

Dear Reader,

Because the Jews of the world are the REAL indigenous people of Israel, not its “settler-colonists,” I added a new section to this newsletter called REAL Israel & Palestine Report, whose aim is to present a R(realistic) E(evidential) A (authentic) L(logical) analysis of the current conflict between Israel and its many regional and international foes.

REAL Indigenous Report is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribers who don’t want to receive posts about this issue can unsubscribe from this new section in either of two ways:

1. Click "unsubscribe" at the bottom of any newsletter email sent to you, which will take you to a page where you can choose what sections in my newsletter to subscribe to.

2. Log into your Substack account, head to your account Settings, select your subscription and choose which newsletters to receive.

Many thanks!

---

According to Brian Giesbrecht, Donald Trump’s recent spat with Tucker Carlson highlights differing interpretations of Trump’s “America First” policy. While Carlson advocates for isolationism, Trump emphasizes “Peace Through Strength,” rejecting Carlson’s advice to abandon Israel. Trump’s support for Israel, including approving its attack on Iran, underscores his commitment to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, a stance that resonates with the majority of Americans.

Trump’s likely destruction of Iran’s entire nuclear bomb programme on June 22 may well show that “Peace through Strength” is a winning formula in the Middle East.

Trump means to stand by Israel

​'Trump's spat with 'Kooky' Tucker Carlson signals America First doesn't mean isolationist America.'

Brian Giesbrecht

Western Standard

June 20, 2025

Tucker Carlson in Calgary. Western Standard files

“Somebody please explain to kooky Tucker Carlson that IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON!” Thus, US President Donald J. Trump in a post on Truth Social.

In the post, Trump appears to be explaining to important MAGA influencers like Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon, that “Peace Through Strength” does not mean American isolationism. While it remains to be seen exactly what role America will play in the ongoing war between Israel and Iran, Trump has made it abundantly clear that he is firmly rejecting Carlson’s plea to “drop Israel.”

Instead, it is equally clear that Trump knew about — and approved — Israel’s attack on Iran, and that Israel has been receiving significant American materiel and intelligence support in its air campaign to neuter Iran’s nuclear facilities, and to depose the mullahs. While it remains to be seen whether or not Trump will go further, and send in his B-2 Stealth bombers with their 30,000 pound GBU-57A/B MOP bombs (Massive Ordnance Penetrator) necessary to take out the deeply buried nuclear sites, like Fordo, Trump has already assured the world that “dropping” Israel is not something he is going to do.

Trump’s Carlson insult came as a surprise to many, as Carlson had been one of Trump’s high profile supporters in Trump’s successful presidential campaign. But it shouldn’t be a surprise, because it came after Carlson accused Trump of “being complicit in the war,” and gave Trump his “drop Israel” advice. Trump doesn’t ignore attacks — he attacks back even harder.

In the case of Carlson going after Trump, it was like a mosquito attacking a tyrannosaurus. True to form, the always interesting Carlson made light of Trump’s “kooky Carlson” jibe to a Spectator writer with: “I’m a little kooky, I concede that.”

This is an interesting fight, for a lot of reasons — the most important of which involves the true meaning of Trump’s “Peace Through Strength” policy.

I’ll start with Tucker Carlson.

My own experience with him might be similar to that of some other Western Standard readers. I enjoyed listening to Carlson when he was with Fox News. His monologues, particularly during the lockdown days, when he recognized so clearly how our freedoms were being trampled by faceless bureaucrats for political reasons, were brilliant.

But when he left Fox and became an independent, he changed. As Trump said, Carlson started getting “kooky.Carlson became increasingly strident on some issues, and claimed a status as a foreign affairs expert that he is clearly unqualified for.

He also went down some strange rabbit holes. In his interview with the pseudo-historian, Darryl Cooper for example, he nodded along with Cooper, as Cooper essentially claimed that Winston Churchill was the villain of World War II, while Hitler was just misunderstood. Cooper also suggested, only half in jest, that America should bomb Israel.

In his famous interview with Vladimir Putin, Carlson didn’t bat an eye when Putin made outrageous claims, such as claiming Poland had started WWII, and that Ukraine had started the current war. On Israel he veered dangerously close to classic antisemitic tropes that the Jews controlled America, and that Netanyahu and the Jews controlled Trump.

Carlson accuses the CIA of almost every crime imaginable, including murdering J.F.K. And on Ukraine, he went from legitimate complaints about Ukrainian corruption, to an almost pathological hatred of Zelenskyy, and an open admiration for Putin. Carlson refuses to even acknowledge that Ukraine is a sovereign nation entitled to defend itself.

And now he has chosen to not only oppose Trump on a major foreign policy issue, but essentially accuse Trump of being a war criminal.

Carlson has more than shown himself to be “kooky.” He has started a fight that he will lose. Badly.

In our Trumpian world this spat between two famous people is highly entertaining. But, just as in the case of Trump’s much publicized spat with Elon Musk, it puts a spotlight on some of the fracture lines in the Trump coalition. It also helps the world understand what foreign policy might look like for the remainder of Trump’s four year term (and possibly for many years after that, if those policies are successful.) Therefore, the spat is worth analyzing for more than just its entertainment content.

Carlson and his ideological twin, Steve Bannon, are now predicting the “end of MAGA” and actively plotting to undermine not only the president’s decisions about Iran, but on all his future foreign policies, unless those decisions meet their approval. They seem determined to drive a wedge through the MAGA movement.

So, this rift has the potential to seriously disrupt Trump’s very ambitious agenda. That could hurt the Republicans in the crucial 2026 midterms. Carlson and Bannon, who see themselves as major players, are determined to make the president change course. Meanwhile, the legacy media sees this as an opportunity to weaken Trump. Much is being said and much is being written.

But I suggest that it is much ado about nothing. Trump is simply doing what the great majority of Americans want to see happen — namely to support Israel. While university students, academics, and assorted leftists support Hamas, Iran and other enemies of Israel, the vast majority of Americans understand that the current regime in Iran is their enemy, and that Israel is their friend. They are solidly behind Trump in his steadfast support of Israel.

Carlson and Bannon don’t get that. They are fringe players, now on the same side as radical leftists, like AOC and Bernie Sanders. But Carlson, Bannon, Sanders, and the legacy media will not get the major fracturing in Trumpworld that they want. Simply put, Trump will win this fight.

I’ll elaborate: As mentioned, the immediate question is what further support will Trump give Israel in Iran. Most importantly, will he send in American bombers to take out Iran’s deeply buried Fordo nuclear facility? It is generally conceded that Israel can’t do this job from the air. Its airforce, which consists mainly of missile-equipped fighter jets, does not have the capacity to do so. Short of launching some kind of ground-based operation, Israel is stuck. They need U.S. help. Will Trump give it to them?

His ominous Truth Social post: “Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran” might be a clue.

He has also ordered major American military assets, including an aircraft carrier group to move into the area.

In short, Trump is explaining to the world that “Peace Through Strength” can’t be achieved if the mullahs of Iran get a nuclear bomb. The ayatollah and his mullahs are fanatic leaders of a death cult. They keep their own people in what is essentially a prison, and they would not hesitate to threaten — and even use — a nuclear bomb on the “big Satan”, the “little Satan” or any other “infidel” nation (basically everyone except those in their cult).

Trump and Netanyahu understand this clearly. So does the American public.

But regardless of how things turn out on this issue, the rift between important MAGA influencers, like Carlson, Bannon and others is significant.

The Carlson/Bannon wing of MAGA has a literal interpretation of Trump’s campaign promises of “America First” and “No more forever wars,” that comes close to American isolationism.

Short of a direct attack on America, or American assets, they believe that America should not involve itself in a conflict. To them, Israel’s attack on Iran is the business of Israel and Iran only, and the U.S. should stay completely out of the conflict.

But they ignore the fact that Trump has made it clear hundreds of times over many years that Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb, and that he will employ his policy of “Peace Through Strength” to ensure that Iran doesn’t get one. He gave Iran 60 days to agree to get rid of its nuclear facilities, and it refused. Israel attacked on Day 61.

So, how does Trump’s “Peace Through Strength” fit together with his more isolationist -sounding policies, such as “No more forever wars”?

The answer to that question will have important consequences for current conflicts, such as the Ukraine/Russia war but even more importantly, for the China/Taiwan war that China is always planning. Those realities are always on Trump’s mind. He doesn’t have the luxury of catering to just one of the many wings that make up the Trump coalition.

He, more than any other single person on the planet, has the responsibility of keeping a fractious world from falling apart.

Here is how one anonymous White House official described the current tension between the more isolationist MAGA view, and where the president seems to be going on the Iran war.

“They’re tired of throwing billions of dollars down the drain to fight a war that doesn’t benefit them in any material way,” the White House official said. “The president was elected to advance an aggressive domestic agenda, not fight wars on behalf of another nation.”

But, the official added, anyone saying Iran wouldn’t use a nuclear weapon against the U.S. if it developed one is “naive.” The official said, “The president has made clear he will stop this from happening.”

Here is how Fox News host, Mark Levin puts it: “America First means peace through strength, it means trying to avoid war. That does not mean pacifism, appeasement, and isolationism — which history makes abundantly clear provokes war. Foreign policy is about prudence based on principle. It’s not about ideology. This is exactly what Donald Trump does when it comes to foreign policy and all policies. He believes in common sense. He’s exactly the man we need now.”

On the surface, Trump’s spat with Carlson sounds trivial.

It is not.

It is the first major foreign policy decision that Trump has been required to make. If he had refused to help Israel or had forced Israel to desist from an attack (as the Biden administration would have done) it would have been a very clear signal that he was siding with the isolationist wing of MAGA.

He didn’t. He has clearly signalled that “Peace Through Strength” means intervening internationally when he believes American interests are at stake — even where there is no direct attack on America, or on American forces.

How will this play out in Trump’s current attempts to end the Ukraine/Russia war? How will it play out if China attacks Taiwan?

So, does what Trump has done in the current Israel/Iran war give us a better understanding of what his “Peace through strength” policy will look like during his term?

Yes. And I suggest that it is evidence that Trump’s foreign policy is not likely to be radically different from most of the presidents who came before him. Ronald Reagan, for example, would probably have handled the current Iran situation in a similar way. JFK or FDR too, for that matter. Pragmatism and common sense would be the key words, and only getting involved when American interests are involved — which is definitely the case where the future of the Middle East is at stake.

No two situations are the same, and can’t be dealt with by the ideologically rigid approach advocated by Tucker Carlson.

Trump first tried to resolve the Iran problem with diplomacy, and only signed off on Israel’s more aggressive plan when Iran’s leadership was intransigent, and refused to budge on the nuclear issue. This was exactly the classic leadership expected of an American president.

It was Theodore Roosevelt who famously advocated that an American president should “Walk softly and carry a big stick.” While it is hard to imagine Donald Trump doing anything “softly,” I suggest that his method of dealing with this current war is strong evidence that he will continue to take Teddy’s advice. Common sense and pragmatism, rather than ideological dogma will guide him.

As for the spat between Carlson and Trump, it will probably be short-lived. As happened with Musk, Carlson will come to understand that he is just one person, entitled to his personal opinions. He will probably apologize, and continue to be popular with a certain audience. But he has lost his place as a major influencer in Trumpworld. The “kooky” moniker bequeathed to him by Trump is permanent.

But Trump doesn’t have Carlson's luxury of playing to only one audience. As the U.S. president, his audience is not only all of America, but the seven billion other people who also live on the planet. The decisions he is required to make affect everyone. Trump is right to distance himself from Carlson, just as he distanced himself from Bannon in his last term.

At the time of writing this, the war continues. Israel is destroying missile sites, while Iranian missiles hit civilian centres, including a hospital, in Israel. According to the Epoch Times Trump decided on June 20, 2025, to give Iran two weeks to agree on terms.

“I have a message directly from the president, and I quote: ‘Based on the fact that there’s a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks,’” said Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt at a White House press briefing.

It is impossible to predict what the final result will be, although it is hard to see how the current Iranian regime can continue — even for the two weeks Trump is now giving what is left of them.

But, regardless of what transpires, Donald Trump has emphatically made the point that “Peace Through Strength” does not mean American isolationism.

And, if the mullahs do fall, his “Peace Though Strength” decision to support Israel in their campaign to bring about the mullah’s departure might turn out to be one of the most consequential decisions of the century. If the Persian people are finally unshackled from a deadly 45-year thugocracy, the entire Middle East could be transformed. Even if that odious regime hangs on to power, their ability to make a nuclear bomb has probably been set back by many years.

On the other hand, if Trump had chosen to listen to Tucker Carlson, Iran would still be a prison, and that bomb would be closer than ever.

Brian Giesbrecht is a retired judge and a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.