Iran's Nuclear Threat
The War on Terror Part II, thanks to the Heritage Foundation
At the center of political discourse is a growing divide over Iran’s nuclear intentions, with Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard initially stating that Iran is not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon—only to be publicly contradicted by President Trump and pressured into revising her position. Figures like Senator Ted Cruz and Tucker Carlson have weighed in controversially, questioning the motivations behind potential U.S. military involvement with remarks like, "You don’t know anything about the people you want to bomb." The Heritage Foundation and its influential Mandate for Leadership 2016 policy agenda helped shape the Trump administration’s hardline stance against the Iran nuclear deal. Additionally, it highlights disturbing claims from watchdog group A New Policy that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may be leveraging up to 700,000 American citizens living or stationed abroad as strategic assets to pressure the U.S. into military engagement, highlighting the influence the Israel Lobby has over the military decisions of the United States. Tensions peaked amid a ceasefire between Israel and Iran that collapsed in just two hours—an ominous sign of how fragile and volatile the path to peace has become, with many Trump supporters still believing that the ceasefire has held up.
Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, said Iran is not making a nuke, Trump said she was wrong, and she later walked back her statement.
President Donald Trump publicly dismissed an intelligence assessment by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, declaring "She's wrong" after she testified in March 2025 that Iran was not actively building a nuclear weapon. Following political pressure and Israeli assertions that Tehran was nearing nuclear capability, Gabbard later revised her stance on social media, claiming Iran could assemble a bomb within weeks or months and stating her earlier remarks were taken “out of context.” Despite her reversal, U.S. intelligence agencies continue to stand by their original assessment that Iran is not currently constructing a deliverable warhead and remains 1 to 3 years away from such a capability, while independent experts like former UN inspector David Albright estimate the timeline to be between 6 months and 2 years.
Tucker Carlson to Ted Cruz - You don't know anything about the people you want to bomb?
Cruz Knew Nothing About Iran
Senator Ted Cruz is caught in a political identity crisis, torn between his traditional pro-Israel, hawkish conservatism and the "America First" isolationism that now defines much of the MAGA movement. Once a conventional Republican, Cruz has adapted to Trump-era politics, but his recent clash with Tucker Carlson over U.S. involvement in Israel’s offensive against Iran exposed deep contradictions in his stance. In a viral two-hour interview on Carlson’s podcast, Cruz struggled to justify military support for Israel, appearing uninformed about basic facts—such as Iran’s population—and failing to convincingly align his interventionist foreign policy with the anti-war populism gaining traction among GOP voters. Carlson relentlessly pressed Cruz on his positions, ultimately humiliating him and casting doubt on his credibility as a representative of the “new right.”
Cruz' Political Relevance is at Risk
Carlson, who has increasingly flirted with antisemitic-adjacent rhetoric, used the interview not only to critique Cruz’s policy but to challenge his political relevance. Cruz’s close ties to AIPAC and dramatic claims—such as Iran plotting to assassinate Trump—only further alienated him from the MAGA base. The interview also highlighted that just 16% of Americans support U.S. military involvement in Iran, underscoring how out of step Cruz’s agenda has become. The broader takeaway is that Cruz is losing political ground within a movement he once helped shape, while isolationist voices like Carlson’s continue to gain power. Although Democrats could exploit this divide, many remain cautiously aligned with pro-Israel positions, leaving a frustrated public with few clear alternatives to avoid deeper Middle East entanglements.