Tucker Carlson Talks With Vivek Ramaswamy On Avoiding WWIII

Last week, we talked to Vivek Ramaswamy, who is running for president, about how the United States should respond to the Hamas attacks in Israel. Of all the candidates in the race, Ramaswamy seemed the most interested in thinking through the long-term effects of what's happening in the Middle East on the United States. And that struck us as a very good thing. We're Americans. We've got families here. We care what happens to our country. Why wouldn't we care? And yet in Washington, Ramaswamy's question qualified as a scandal. The usual chorus of liars, many of them on the so-called right, unfortunately, immediately denounced him as a dangerous bigot. They claimed he was pro-Hamas, which is ridiculous. And then they suggested that he doesn't believe in Israel's right to self-defense, which if anything is even dumber. It was a thoroughly disgraceful display and a revealing one. But none of it answered the question that he had raised. What is the best path forward here for the United States, as well as for Israel and the rest of the world? It's worth thinking about that. The stakes are higher than many Americans understand. It's easy to imagine several other nations getting pulled into the conflict between Israel and Hamas. Those countries would include Russia, Iran, Turkey, China, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and possibly many more. Some of those countries might take our side aligned with Israel, but most of them would not. And that would be a problem. The U.S. military is weaker than it's been in at least 50 years since the end of Vietnam. Exhausted by two pointless conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, internally divided by identity politics, mismanaged by buffoonish hacks at the Pentagon, our services are in obvious disarray. Check the enlistment numbers. Nobody wants to join. But it's worse than that. The government that funds our army is bankrupt. The man who leads it is senile. Now is not the time for a world war. We would lose. But our commander in chief has no idea. Watch this tape from Sunday as he smirks while bragging that America is so rich there is no limit to our power. We can wage as many wars as we want. The United States of America, for God's sake, the most powerful nation in the history of not in the war, in the history of the world, the history of the world. We can take care of both of these and still maintain our overall international defense. We have the capacity to do this and we have an obligation to. We are the essential nation to Paris, for instance, the former secretary of state. And if we don't, who does? The most powerful nation in the history of the world. You can imagine the Roman Senate issuing a statement just like that on the morning the Visigoths sacked their city. Pride goes before destruction. That has always been true. It always will be true. How do we keep our country from being destroyed? Vivek Ramaswamy has been thinking about that all week. He joins us on set now. Vivek, thanks so much for joining us. So what do you think the potential for disaster looks like here? I should preface by saying nobody disputes Israel's interest in pursuing a conflict with Hamas, punishing those responsible, defending itself, of course. Absolutely. But from an American perspective, how could this go wrong? So I think that one of the things we ought to do is remember the mistakes we have made in our own recent past in the last 20 to 25 years. After 9-11, how did we end up in $6 trillion plus of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, thousands of American lives that we won't get back? Part of how we ended up there was in the era after 9-11. The tolerance for debate was very limited. Shut up, sit down, do as you're told, go along with the plan. I am worried, Tucker, that's the beginning of the environment I'm seeing right now as it relates to the current conflicts. We seem deep into that right now. We do seem deep into that, and it's in the modern West as we know it. I mean, even Bibi's former national security advisor was quoted in an article earlier today when he was asked the question of, well, what happens after Hamas? His exact words were, I don't give a damn. I used to think, think first, act later. I don't think that way in light of last weekend. And I understand, as I did in this country, the pain of what people have gone through. You respond with emotion. But the thing I worry about, Tucker, right now is what I see is the left-wing criticism of Israel's what looks like to be soon to be ground invasion of Gaza is about proportionality and about injustice and humanitarian aid, even if you just put all that to one side. From a U.S. perspective, from an Israel perspective, how is this actually going to achieve a good result? And my concern right now, and as we're having this conversation, it appears imminent that Israel is going to mount a ground invasion into Gaza. I'm concerned that a ground invasion into Gaza without clearly defined objectives is going to be the start of another no-win war that is not good for Israel and not good for the United States. And so one of the things I've been thinking about just in recent days, you hear a lot of histrionics here, a lot of bloodthirsty neocons, in fact, far less reasonable than even many Israelis that are far more rational about this than some here in the United States is, how could this play out, right? So if we just think about one reasonable scenario, let's just go step by step in terms of where we are. Israel mounts a ground invasion into Gaza, OK? Doesn't have a clearly defined goal, but they've mounted that ground invasion. That crosses a red line that Hezbollah has previously identified, saying that that's their red line for attacking Israel. And this might be exactly when Israel is mired in a ground conflict in Gaza, which I worry could be a trap, networks, kilometers upon kilometers of tunnels, a lot of traps that they could walk into. That could be a moment that's perfectly appropriate, unfortunately, for Hezbollah to decide to go after Israel. Israel's then in a two-front war, both in the north and the south in Gaza. Now you're talking about real risk of there's no way that you're really going to avoid some level of U.S. involvement there. Now look at what the Iranian-backed militias and other places like Iraq, like, you know, the Barre, the Barre group in Iraq. You talk about the Houthis in Yemen. What have they said? This is also going to be their red line for involvement. So now you have broader regional conflict at a time when you have civilian casualties in Gaza that turns the rest of the world's back on Israel, by the way, even in the case of success, ending up with what fills the vacuum, Hamas 2.0, with a bunch of radicalized Palestinians. So I don't think that that, I think that's a real, unfortunately, a reasonable way for how this could play out. Wait, can I just ask you to pause, a sincere question. What is the plan? I mean, this is something the United States has preemptively endorsed and is paying for, so I think it's fair to ask that question. What is the plan? Well, I think that that's the elephant in the room that's missing, is that we don't have, from Israel, a clear sense of what the objectives are. And the United States, we should be reasonably helping our partner who is struck in the case of really a devastating and inhumane hit to their country, was barbaric. I think our job is to tell them these are the mistakes we made in the wake of 9-11. When that happened to us here, this is a time to have a clearly defined objective. Instead we get histrionics from the likes of Lindsey Graham or Nikki Haley or Mike Pence offering histrionics at a time when you actually could use rational strategy. It's amazing to get a moral lecture from people who've so diminished our country and who are responsible for the deaths of so many Americans lecturing you from some high horse. It's interesting. They cite their foreign policy experience, which I don't have, but they wear it as a badge of honor. I think that their foreign policy experience unfortunately shows in terms of the results that they have delivered for this country. My view is, look, a lot of neocons here are far more bloodthirsty than even some more realistic minds in Israel. What's a better alternative to the plan as it currently exists, which is a non-plan, an invasion of Gaza without a clear objective, and I think there's a real cascade of events following Hezbollah, following likely then U.S. involvement, following Iranian militias in Iraq to, in Yemen to come in and strike back. And U.S. involvement would almost, I mean, especially if it's involvement in Lebanon or against Hezbollah, you could see how that could become a much larger conflict very, very fast. Absolutely. Israel's ability to fight Hezbollah, the last time they were in a war with Hezbollah was 2006. It didn't go very well. I was there. You were? Yes. In Beirut, yeah. Oh, I didn't, okay. Well, you would know even better than I how well that one front war didn't go. Now imagine if they're mired in conflict to the south in Gaza at the same time. And by the way, some of those groups in Iraq, Iranian-backed militias, they have said that they would strike back and U.S. involvement here, strike U.S. assets in the area in the case of U.S. involvement. Well think about where we have our biggest embassy, biggest embassies in Baghdad, where by the way, as of when we're having this conversation, it's a little bit chaotic out of Baghdad. I don't think it's crazy for the Baghdad, for the U.S. embassy in Baghdad even to be evacuated. So against those circumstances, I am worried that this is going to lead to a war that is not good for Israel with poorly defined objectives and isn't good for the United States. Now, there are other questions we could be asking, which are what might be a more productive path. So there's got to be a response. Hamas did this. The people who did it obviously need to be punished. Yes. Killed. Yes. So what do you think a wiser course for the United States and for Israel would be? So I'm running for U.S. president. My job is to look at this through the prism of U.S. interests. But if we're talking to Israel, one of the things we need is what is your actual objective? Here's one sensible version that the U.S. could fully support. Israel is going to define its objective. And it's up to the U.S. to say, here's what we can support and here's what we can't. But here's one version of it that if I were U.S. president, I would support all the way through. And I happen to think it's among the best answers for Israel itself. Think about a world in which Israel has a clearly defined objective, say the top hundred in Hamas. OK. We want their heads on stakes, line that southern border of Israel and Gaza with those heads as you build a new border defense, there's your deterrence. Top hundred people, whatever it is, a clearly defined objective, achieve the actual retribution and justice that needs to be exacted in this situation. So kill the people who did it. Kill the people who did it. Absolutely. And is that the top hundred? But who are the people in Hamas that's an achievable objective? Go in and get that done. And I think the U.S. should help from an intelligence perspective with this. I think the U.S. can be helpful with what we might call the diplomatic iron dome. Let Israel do this to fully defend itself without the U.N. or anybody else in the rest of the world getting in the way. Get U.S. allies. Intelligence sharing, the kinds of things that don't get the U.S. involved militarily. Israel is capable of doing this. The Mossad is capable of doing this. Think about Munich Olympics 2.0. The version of this. This is an achievable goal. It is proper. It is just. It is morally justified. And anybody from the left in this country or Europe or anywhere who rejects that, no. This is Israel defending itself as it has the right to do. And punishing the people. Punishing the people who actually did it. Right. That's exactly right. That seems like a pretty obvious solution and it seems within the capabilities of the state of Israel. And it seems like we could help with that. And it's an achievable win. Right. And I would sort of even think about now one step further. Against the backdrop of achieving that, I don't think it's crazy, Tucker, for Israel to think about some unconventional approaches here. I think Israel would. Wait. Can I ask you a question real quick? Has anyone suggested that? That seems like such an obvious solution. Not that I've heard. Tucker. I think that there's a culture of fear right now in the United States. I'm not speaking for Israel. I'm speaking for the culture here in the U.S. where, yes, all of us, I'm sure you and I included, share an emotionally visceral reaction to what happened with Israel being that wrong. But I think that emotional, visceral reaction has everybody looking to each other to talk about the periphery of the issue. Right. Everybody's so eager to talk about whether you're going to condemn the college student groups that are making silly statements over here or the $100 million of humanitarian aid over there. I see Republicans rushing to analyze the mosquitoes on the elephant's tail without talking about the actual elephant in the room, which is what we should do. If we believe someone committed murder, we find that person and we punish them. That's right. So that would seem like the most obvious solution. Well, I think that there are some in the U.S. that are so bloodthirsty and have been rooting for outcomes that have really, from their standpoint, nothing to do with this conflict that might want to use this conflict as an excuse to do what they otherwise might have wanted to do anyway, which is reopen broad-scale regional war in the Middle East, which we haven't had since Iraq and Afghanistan came to a close. These are cynical forces that exist in some wings of the U.S. But I can't speak for why others aren't really clear-headedly asking what exactly is our plan of action, what advances U.S. interests, what exactly should we tell Israel we will and won't support, and how could that possibly positively influence Israel to make the right decisions here. But I think there's first principle, go after the people who are responsible for this in an achievable goal in a way, and I would say metaphorically or literally, put their heads on stakes, make sure that we actually have a clear deterrence that something like this never happens again. And then I think there are ways that Israel could really turn the tables here. So you're not arguing on behalf of Hamas? Of course not. I mean, the things that people will say on the internet appalled me, but Hamas is a terrorist group and deserves to be held accountable for the dastardly acts. I mean, this was barbaric. It was medieval. And I think a direct response to exact justice from Hamas is 100% morally justified. And as U.S. president, if I were in that office, I would provide every bit of diplomatic air cover to Israel to do what it needs to do, because I'm also looking after the U.S. interest here. I'm looking after the U.S. military involved in some tripwire of a war in the Middle East that we sleepwalk ourselves into, which isn't good for the U.S., but isn't even likely good for Israel. Now, I think there are some broader regional issues that we need to deal with, too. I mean, one of the lurking issues here is the nuclear capabilities of Iran. And if I had the clear answers, if any of us had the clear answers to exactly how you would keep Iran from becoming nuclear weapon equipped, we wouldn't be talking about this right now. I don't think a maximum pressure campaign against Iran, economically speaking, until they actually fully phase out their nuclear weapons is a reasonable discussion and debate to have. I think we can avoid doing some really stupid things that we've done along the way, though. In the meantime, this year, think about the discussion around transferring nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia. Now, why would you ever want, and Saudi Arabia, which got some of the deepest energy reserves in the world, clearly doesn't need nuclear plants. So that technology would be used for nuclear weapons. Why would you ever want the Saudi king to have nuclear weapons? Well, it's even one step worse than that, right? We've done civilian nuclear technology transfers. I think we've done something like 27 deals with 43 countries. Saudi Arabia did not want the terms of those traditional civilian nuclear technology transfers because they require oversight and monitoring to make sure you're not using them for military purposes. So the idiocy of this, and it's not just Biden, I mean, Biden's idiocy is high, but there's Republicans going along with him to say that as a condition for getting Saudi Arabia into some type of expanded diplomatic deal with Israel, we were going to offer security guarantees to Saudi Arabia. And furthermore, that we were going to offer this nuclear transfer on terms that were different than the historical civilian nuclear transfers that we've done. So the idea is to counterbalance Iran, I assume. But actually, if you look at it the other way, we've had a, I'm not saying it's a comfortable balance of power, but there has been something resembling a balance of power. This is this summer we're talking about it, Tucker, and this is an uncomfortable topic, but we can't just dismiss the possibility that these two things are entirely unrelated. I mean, right when we have inserted our noses in to this, what I think is a terrible idea of a deal with Saudi Arabia. And I think many in Israel and otherwise agreed with me too, that transferring nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia on these differential terms and security guarantees, that shouldn't be necessarily what's required to drive Saudi Arabia into a peaceful deal with Israel. In some ways, we're the ones that just stuck our noses and tipped the scales in that balance of power if that Saudi Arabian deal were going to proceed. And then what do you get two months later, this disastrous attack. So I think that there are complicated factors at work here that we can take our own goals that we have scored in this process off the table. And then all of those savings from a war that we would have avoided, you know what Israel and US can use it for? Protecting our own respective borders. I mean, that was a border crisis of historic proportions. That was a national defense failure. I agree completely. And if it can happen in Israel, it can happen here too, by the way. And it is. And it is on the regular. Yes. So, but just to back up for one click, the idea that we would in any way abet a nuclear program in any country, particularly in Saudi Arabia, is so destabilizing and crazy. It suggests that people have lost their awe of their fear of nuclear weapons. I'm watching people on television, on the internet, sort of blithely talk about the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons in this conflict. I watched it five times yesterday. Can we agree that anyone who sort of throws out, maybe they'll use nukes, is insane? You'd have to be a mental patient to say something like that. Who are these people? I mean, either that or so profoundly ill-informed about what the consequences would be for the United States. And so I really can't speak for the mental state of some of these people, Tucker, who were viewing the expansion and nuclear proliferation to Saudi Arabia or the consequences of using them. People were saying, oh, this could go nuclear. If pushed, we'll go nuclear. They'll go nuclear. Go nuclear. Yeah. Think about the consequences of what that would be. Millions died. I mean, and the consequences of it are impossible to foresee, but we can guess. Yeah. So this is what frustrates me about where we are in this. And, you know, the views I'm adopting here, I think from a political perspective, a lot of people have advised me, you know, this isn't really where you want to go. I think we got, somebody has to step up and actually ask the questions that other people are too afraid to ask. What are the consequences of the biggest thing that's about to happen? If Israel mounts that ground war in Gaza, appears to be the next step in this conflict, and there's no clearly identified objective, what are the consequences for Israel? We asked that as a friend. What are the consequences for the United States? We should ask as Americans. And I think there's a better way. There may be multiple better ways to do this, but we're not going to get there unless we have actual unfettered debate on the merits. And I think there's something, particularly in the Republican Party, actually, around the culture of this issue that has really stifled that debate. The experience I've had, I mean, the first time you and I met was, I don't know if you remember this, was after when I was writing my first book. It was in the context of I'd been a biotech CEO and George Floyd died and this country started acting crazy and there were certain debates you couldn't have on questions relating to race and whatever back in 2020. I remember what that felt like. It was a speech suppressive environment where there were certain debates you weren't allowed to have. And many on the left would call me racist as a way of silencing open debate and believing in colorblind meritocracy. It feels really similar. It feels really similar in a different way right now where isolationist has become the new racist, a new label to use as a substitute. Calling you a bigot, saying that you hate Israel. Yeah, exactly. Or whatever. You could fill in the blank for whatever the silencing label would be. You know, I mean, pro-Hamas, ridiculous, anti-Israel, ridiculous. But to use that to silence debate on the merits and whether that comes from the left, the right, it doesn't much matter. That's, I think, the ultimate form of anti-Americanism. Yeah, I mean, I have to say, if you're attacked for asking what's good for the United States and asking that as an American who's trying to lead the country, if that's considered out of bounds, if you're being denounced by Republicans for saying that, then the whole America first thing was just a lie. Yeah, I think it wasn't a lie when it comes to the people of this country. I think a lot of the people in the leadership, though, would like to believe it was a lie, like to believe that it was a passing phase, an attachment to one man where this is a broader vision that goes beyond any individual. But if you live here and you've got children... Put this country first. That's your job. Yeah, it's a moral obligation. It's a little weird that, you know, people are picking sides and the Capitol got invaded by these lunatics, pro-Hamas lunatics, and then, you know, people are taking the pro-Israel side. But I haven't heard anybody say, well, you know, I have views on all this and I like Israel better than Hamas, but ultimately I'm for America. That seems like the natural position for Americans to take. I think it's the more trustworthy position for Americans to take, not only with people at home. That's the moral obligation of an American leader. It's also more credible. I mean, if you're one of America's friends abroad and you say that I irrespectively and unconditionally stand with you regardless of my national interest, even if I'm sitting as somebody in Israel listening to an American say that, that's not credible. That's obviously fake. We said that to Ukraine. They don't believe us when we say that. It doesn't make any sense. And our adversaries, I think we can draw clearer red lines when we're just honest about the fact that U.S. leaders should act in the U.S. national interest. And the fact that that's become controversial, I think, shows how far our, you know, mistaken foreign policy establishment has come. But there's a better way to do this. Vivek, thanks so much. And apologies in advance for all the trouble this will cause you.