Carlson grills Cruz on Iran but exposes deeper US media failure
6 Min Read
A viral clash between Carlson and Cruz underscores how US leaders push for war with Iran, echoing the same media failures seen before the Iraq invasion.
-
US President Donald Trump speaks with United States Senator Ted Cruz at AmericaFest, Sunday, Dec. 22, 2024, in Phoenix (AP)
In a widely circulated video clip, The Intercept columnist Natasha Lennard recounts a rare moment of on-air confrontation between Senator Ted Cruz and right-wing commentator Tucker Carlson. During the tense exchange, Carlson posed a question so basic it should have been unremarkable, yet it instantly exposed Cruz’s ignorance.
“How many people live in Iran?” Carlson asked bluntly.
Cruz, visibly flustered, failed to answer.
“You don’t know the population of the country you seek to topple?” Carlson pressed. “How could you not know that?”
Cruz stumbled, “I don’t sit around memorizing population tables.”
Carlson’s final blow landed hard, “You don’t know anything about Iran! You’re a senator who is calling for the overthrow of the government, and you don’t know anything about the country!”
It was a striking and widely shared moment. But as Lennard rightly argues, this does not mean one should “hand it to Tucker Carlson,” a figure long associated with one of the "most openly racist platforms" in cable news history. His sudden brush with accountability journalism doesn’t undo a legacy of promoting white nationalism and authoritarianism.
Ongoing structural failure of US mainstream media
What Carlson’s moment of clarity revealed was less about his own convictions and more about the structural failure of US media. Mainstream outlets have long failed to ask even the most basic questions of lawmakers advocating regime change, particularly when the targets are nations in the Global South.
Carlson simply did what journalists should do: challenge the premises of US war-making. Does a senator urging military action against a sovereign nation even understand its basic demographics, history, or politics?
The comparison to 2003 is unavoidable. The media’s failure then, to interrogate the Bush administration’s case for war in Iraq, has been well documented. Today, while outlets are slightly more cautious, they still largely avoid calling "Israel’s" ongoing strikes on Iran what they almost certainly are: illegal under international law. Preemptive strikes require a clear and imminent threat, evidence that simply does not exist.
Some outlets continue to recycle discredited talking points. The Daily Show, in a viral post, compiled decades of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s warnings that Iran was “weeks away” from a nuclear weapon, a line repeated since the 1990s.
Iran: Weeks away from having nuclear weapons since 1995 pic.twitter.com/16gvCfGF6l
— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) June 17, 2025
“Iran: Weeks away from having nuclear weapons since 1995,” the post read.
US at war with Iran
As journalist Mehdi Hasan told The Intercept, “Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons. Israel does.” He condemned the media’s reflexive framing of Israeli aggression as “self-defense", calling it out as “a nuclear double standard.” While Iran remains under constant scrutiny, "Israel", which possesses an estimated 90 to 400 nuclear warheads, has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Meanwhile, some of the same pro-war voices that cheered the Iraq invasion have returned to promote escalation with Iran. Historian Niall Ferguson, who once boasted about being “a fully paid-up member of the neoimperialist gang,” wrote in The Free Press that “Israel’s” recent attacks on Iran are “a blow for the good guys in Cold War II.”
Meanwhile, The New York Times' Bret Stephens praised the Israeli strikes as “courageous", depicting Iranian leaders as dangerously ideological, even “millenarian".
But outside elite opinion circles, the public appears unconvinced. A recent Economist/YouGov poll showed 60% of Americans oppose US military involvement in a war with Iran, with just 16% in support. Even among Republicans, a majority, 53%, oppose direct US strikes.
However, as Lennard notes, the framing of these polls masks reality. When respondents are asked if the US should “join” Israeli strikes, it implies a separation that doesn’t truly exist. The reality is that US weapons, intelligence, logistics, and political cover are deeply integrated into "Israel’s" military apparatus.
#US Senator #TedCruz wants regime change in Iran, but can't name its population, gets basic facts wrong, and backtracks live on air. #TuckerCarlson presses him: “You don’t know the population of the country you seek to topple?”
— Al Mayadeen English (@MayadeenEnglish) June 18, 2025
Cruz then said, “We’re carrying out military… pic.twitter.com/OKITTKDtNc
Carlson, to his credit in that moment, caught Cruz off guard when the senator said, “We are carrying out military strikes today.” Carlson asked, “Is the United States at war with Iran?” Cruz backpedaled, claiming the US was merely “supporting Israel", but the slip was telling. It underscored the fact that the US is a central actor in this war, whether or not it officially declares war.
Beyond the 'MAGA civil war' narrative lies a bipartisan push for war
Yet, much of the media ignored that revelation, choosing instead to sensationalize the encounter as a “MAGA civil war”, an internal spat between isolationists like Carlson and neoconservatives like Cruz. That framing misses the far more dangerous reality: US lawmakers are openly advocating for war against a nation of 90 million people, many with no understanding of its society, culture, or geopolitical role.
Meanwhile, Israeli aggression continues unabated. Just days before the Cruz-Carlson clash, Israeli occupation forces opened fire on starved Palestinians in Gaza, killing at least 70 people waiting for food aid. It was one of several mass killings at aid distribution sites, which many describe as part of a deliberate campaign of collective punishment and ethnic cleansing.
Carlson, for all his rhetorical flair, expressed no sympathy for the victims of Gaza, as per the piece. His critique of Cruz was rooted in American strategic incompetence, not humanitarian concern. Still, his brief interrogation exposed how low the bar has fallen for holding power accountable.
That exposure should serve as a wake-up call, not a moment of redemption for a demagogue, but a reminder of how thoroughly the US press has abdicated its duty. The problem isn't that Tucker Carlson asked a good question; the problem is that so few others ever do.
Read more: US citizens don't trust traditional media, still use them: WashPo
