Tucker’s Psyop to Shakedown Ambassador Huckabee? |
As in every psyop, there are primary targets and secondary objectives. Tucker Carlson’s interview with Ambassador Mike Huckabee appears to be no different. After the stream, a single line, literally one second taken from a five minute discussion on Israel’s borders within a two hour interview about “what Christian Zionism is,” sparked a media and geopolitical storm. That isolated moment is now treated as the centerpiece of the conversation, “Ambassador Huckabee believes Israel should take the ENTIRE Middle East,” despite representing only a literal second of the exchange, when discussing the Book of Genesis from the Bible.
Before the interview, Tucker had his usual introduction. But, within the first minute, Tucker framed the Ambassador as someone claiming to “represent Christians in the Middle East” as the reason he flew to Israel to interview him. That framing appeared deliberate and was a lie. Ambassador Huckabee challenged Tucker to an interview, after Tucker started attacking the Ambassador personally. The invitation started over X, when the Ambassador posted:
“Hey @TuckerCarlson instead of talking ABOUT me, why don’t you come talk TO me? You seem to be generating a lot of heat about the Middle East. Why be afraid of the light?”
Tucker appears to have distorted that invitation and planted the suggestion that Huckabee’s loyalty was theological. Implying the Ambassador was unfit to serve “because of his theology,” setting the tone before the conversation even began.
But even beyond that theological insinuation, Tucker appears to prime his audience with a different narrative, one designed to cast himself as the victim of institutional hostility and of dual loyalties by Ambassador Huckabee.
He opened by recounting the backstory of how he was supposedly mistreated at Ben Gurion Airport, describing how him and his team were “detained” at the VIP terminal, confronted by what he called “thuggish security guards,” and ultimately why he was forced to fly private at great cost, something he insisted he never does. Spoiler alert, he flies private ALL THE TIME.
He blamed the US Embassy in Jerusalem for failing to provide “basic services.”
But what were those “basic services”?
According to his own account, he wanted US sponsored private security while simultaneously refusing to accept local Israeli police protection that was offered to him. In other words, he rejected host nation security, which was already a courtesy extended due to his public profile, yet portrayed the embassy as negligent for not providing a fully customized American funded security detail.
He also suggested that the embassy deliberately put him in danger by not transmitting his private jet’s tail number to the IDF, and referring him to local police, instead of providing American funded security, implying malice from both Israel and the US Embassy in Jerusalem.
At every turn, the insinuation was clear. The US Embassy in Jerusalem might be polite, but it was not serving Americans. It was incompetent at best, or indifferent at worst.
That framing matters. Because once the audience accepts the premise that the embassy is failing Americans, the next step is obvious. Question the man leading it.
In this psyop, the Ambassador appears to have been the primary target. Everything else served that attack.
Tucker Carlson appear to be trying to suggest that Christian Zionists cannot serve in government because of their beliefs. When interrogating the Ambassador on the borders of Israel, and at the same time attempting to push Ambassador Huckabee into a corner, one line reveals his motives, he told Ambassador Mike Huckabee:
“I want to understand the implications of your THEOLOGY in geopolitics”
That sounds reasonable. But what followed was not. No matter how many times Huckabee explained that neither his, nor Israel’s policy is dictated by a literal reading of Genesis, and that Israel simply wanted to exist in its current borders in peace. Tucker kept returning to the same line. “But why not take it all? It’s written in the Bible.”
For five straight minutes he tried to corner the Ambassador into endorsing territorial maximalism based on scripture. Five minutes. Same premise. Same push. It failed.
When Huckabee would not walk into the trap, Tucker abruptly pivoted to claiming that “Israel harbors pedophiles” and that he is “entitled to safety in America too.” WHAT? The shift was disconnected and revealing. The Genesis trap did not land, so the topic had to change. And of course, it had to be one of collective and national defamation against Israel.
The line of inquiry forced Ambassador Huckabee to release a statement. “If Tucker was really a ‘journalist,’ he could have found out what I easily did later,” In response to one false claim by Tucker that Israel had sheltered accused sex offender Tom Alexandrovich. Ambassador Huckabee posted “Tucker’s question wasn’t because he was concerned about a child being solicited for sex. He was playing ‘gotcha.'”
That is why the media coverage isolates literally only one seconds of an entire two hour exchange. The full interview tells a different story. It was not an exposure of extremism or disloyalty. It was an attempted disqualification on theological and personal levels that did not work in reality, but for Tucker’s propaganda, that one second was enough to create a media and geopolitical storm.
The secondary objective appears broader and a continuation of his usual stuff. It was about elevating delegitimization narratives about Israel and the Jewish people into mainstream discourse. Tucker did not simply raise policy disagreements. He introduced lines of thinking that have circulated for years on the fringes, including the idea that Jews should undergo DNA testing to determine who the “real” Jews are because “we have the science,” and expressing a “burning desire” to figure out “who these people are.”
These are not mainstream geopolitical arguments. Rather than debate those ideas with openly controversial figures like Nick Fuentes, Tucker attempted to attach them to Ambassador Huckabee, effectively attempting to launder fringe narratives through Ambassador Huckabee’s credibility. The goal wasn’t to figure out the borders of Israel, it was attaching those ideas to Ambassador Huckabee.
What Tucker did not expect was that he was not interviewing a novice. Ambassador Huckabee is a seasoned pastor, politician, and media expert. And from the outset, he flipped the frame with a simple question while defining terms.
Do Jews have the right to live in Israel?
That was the core issue behind the semantic maze about Zionism. Tucker’s response was telling. Instead of answering directly, he said he had “a million questions about what all those terms actually mean.” Did Tucker all of the sudden lose all understanding of the English language, or did answering that basic question dismantle the entire grift? Clearly not a difficult question to answer, yet Tucker had “a million questions.”
By insisting on defining terms at their most basic level, Huckabee exposed the evasiveness and the moral rot of Tucker from the start. If someone cannot affirm that Jews have the right to live everywhere in the world, including Israel, without retreating into semantic fog, and playing ignorance of the English language, that reveals more than any soundbite or headline against the Ambassador ever could.
And Tucker did ask his million questions. He asked them rapidly. He layered them. He reframed them. Put words in the Ambassador’s mouth. He interrupted. He pivoted. He returned to them without allowing full answers. The goal was not clarity. The goal was entrapment.
The most shameful attack that came out against the Ambassador was that he was not loyal to America, and had taken a ‘stab’ at the US armed forces. Tucker wagged his finger at Ambassador Huckabee and implied disloyalty to America for stating a straightforward point. While the US military follows international law, Israel takes additional steps to minimize civilian casualties beyond what the United States itself requires, because Israel gets called a ‘war criminal,’ even for killing Yahya Sinwar.
But the hypocrisy of Tucker couldn’t be more absurd. At Turning Point USA, Tucker argued that criticizing your own government does not make you hateful or disloyal. It makes you a free man, not a slave. Yet during this interview, if we use Tucker’s own terms, he treated the Ambassador like a slave. That comment is not anti American. It is not disloyal. It is certainly not a stab at the United States or its armed forces. It is a comparative observation about military practice.
So the question for Tucker is: Which is it? If criticism equals freedom, then why is Huckabee suspect for making a factual comparison? Does Tucker believe inconvenient facts equals disloyalty? Or does freedom only apply when the criticism flows in one direction?
Tucker during his million questions kept to corner Ambassador Huckabee at every turn. But, when Ambassador Mike Huckabee raised the topic of Christian persecution in the Middle East, mentioning Qatar, became a “haram” subject to talk about. Why Tucker? Is there something to hide about Qatar?
Tucker did not want that comparison between Israel and Qatar made. The moment Qatar entered the discussion, Tucker shifted from questioning policy to portraying the Ambassador as ignorant of the region, telling him to “check Wikipedia” and as someone allegedly “lying for Israel.” Tucker was trying to claim that numbers alone, not conditions, is what matters, by insisting that Qatar had “more Christians.”
Yet the point Huckabee raised was straightforward.
In Israel, the Christian population is the only place in the Middle East where they are thriving. While in comparison, all Muslim states and even in the territories the Palestinian Authority controls, Christians are persecuted and are going extinct. What Tucker didn’t allow the Ambassador to say, Qatar has a tiny citizen population of roughly 300,000, all Muslim, while hundreds of thousands of foreign Christians live there as migrant laborers with severely restricted rights under the sponsorship system. According to US State Department reporting, these workers face conditions widely criticized by international observers, including limitations on religious freedom and labor protections.
Tucker reacted as if mentioning it was out of bounds. The implication was clear. Criticism of Israel is fair game. Criticism of Qatar is off limits. And when the Ambassador relied on publicly available sources, including US government reporting, to make his case, Tucker treated it not as factual rebuttal but, again, as disloyalty and lies.
But one of the most blatant and malicious lies during the interview, Tucker also falsely asserted a connection involving Isaac Herzog and Jeffrey Epstein, a claim serious enough and false that he later had to post a retraction video, removed the interview from the internet, and reposted it without that segment. That alone undercuts the moral high ground he tried to claim. Tucker attempted to question Ambassador Huckabee’s professional and personal integrity as a man, a father, and a Christian, for “not caring” over something he had never heard about, because it was a lie.
What became clear over two hours, the literal “million questions,” and Tucker’s lie after lie, is that Tucker was dealing with a professional at every level. The Ambassador is an ordained pastor with decades of study and ministry experience. Tucker is a recent convert, which is commendable, but he is not a trained theologian. Depth matters.
Tucker’s experience in geopolitics comes from reading a teleprompter. Ambassador Huckabee has spent an entire career in public service and politics. Huckabee has interviewed influential leaders for decades. He was conducting high level conversations when Tucker was just beginning his career in television news by probably making photocopies for the adults.
The Ambassador did not take the bait. This is why, out of a five minute exchange, only a single second could be weaponized into a headline. “Huckabee wants Israel to take over the Middle East. But, If the broader conversation supported the narrative Tucker was trying to build, more would have been used against him. It was not, because the Ambassador is in all levels, a total pro.
If media outlets were doing their job, they would focus on something else entirely. Why did Tucker repeatedly struggle with a simple question? Do Jews have the right to live in Israel? Why is Tucker suggesting DNA testing for all Jews, let alone to determine legitimacy? Among many other comments that only a lunatic or a literal Nazi would make.
Tucker has gone well past bigoted rhetoric into Eugenics and Nazi territory. I very rarely if ever invoke the worst demons in human history to make a comparison or a point, but his insinuation here isn’t part of normal political discourse. Its outrageous, unacceptable and condemnable.
Considering the close relationship between Tucker, Turning Point USA, and the Vice President, why has no one from TPUSA, the White House, or the Vice President personally come out to condemn Tucker’s comments? The silence is as telling as the statements themselves. But not only that, if Tucker was running an operation against a sitting Ambassador, the FBI must investigate the Tucker and understand on behalf of who and why.