If the mullahs take him up on that, good. If they don’t, and he blasts them, no one, not even the French, not even the Russians, can say he acted imperiously.

Carlson’s position seems to be that, as the preeminent military and economic power in the world, we should just shrug off these attacks by Iran and others—these comparative pinpricks—which we don’t really need to respond to, especially with military force.

The problem is, we now live in an age in which advances in technology have ushered in the age of “asymmetric warfare”; an age in which a handful of tech, computer, or biology savvy guys in a garage, basement, or abandoned factory somewhere can develop destructive computer programs, chemical, or biological weapons, perhaps even dirty bombs to spread nuclear materials, which can to some—perhaps to a great—extent, negate our overwhelming superiority in manpower and equipment.

Our superiority no longer provides the protection it once did.

(We also face the additional problem that, given all of the “cutouts” available, given all of the possible ways to disguise just who or what “state actor” might be behind such attacks, given the sophistication and the effectiveness of “disinformation” operations to spread false information, confusion, and doubt, it may be very hard to pinpoint the actual culprit behind such attacks mounted ostensibly by just a few “rogue” individuals, and/or to convince others of the accuracy of our accusations.)

Thus, we are now forced to be on constant guard, to develop extremely sophisticated surveillance and analytical systems, and to respond to, and to often use military power to respond to, virtually each and every one of such attacks, in the hope of discouraging more, and perhaps much more effective attacks in the future.

The problem is, tempting as it is, the strategy of forting up, of withdrawing from a messy and violent world, just doesn’t work.

In today’s world of commonplace international travel, expanding land and sea transportation routes, and widely available, relatively quick modes of transportation, ICBMs, satellites, computers, and the Internet—the constant movement of ideas, people, and things—we are no longer isolated from and protected against events outside our country by the barrier the oceans provide, by the vastness of our territory, or—as we’ve seen in recent days—by our borders; those days are long over.

Becoming, in effect, a hedgehog, or a turtle is no longer an option.

In the interests of our survival as a nation, we have to be— however reluctantly—involved in the World, so as to be able to take note of events that might effect us that are occurring “out there.”

Depending on what is happening “out there,” sometimes we are forced by events to step in to counter those developments, as the saying goes,”over there, before we have to counter them here, on our soil. “

Have our efforts to counter hostile forces and actions always worked out well?

Obviously not.

But that doesn’t mean we can just pull back from playing the “great game,” because such a retreat behind our walls has no real chance of assuring our safety.

To quote Trotsky, “You may not be interested in War, but War is interested in you.”

Tucker is verging on being an isolationist. He is right to question the results of the Global War On Terror (GWOT). But he seems to believe we didn’t need to do anything to defend ourselves from Islamic terror or care about the extent of Iran’s funding of terrorist activities against Israel and the U.S. Has he not seen the videos of huge crowds in Iran chanting Death to America, the Great Satan? You would think not from the way he opposes doing anything militarily in the Middle East and especially Iran. He blames the “Neocons” (Kristol, Stephenson, Bolton, etc.) for the poor results of the GWOT to date. I think it’s okay to question the strategy of the GWOT because it hasn’t achieved the results we need or hoped for. To completely back away from military options because of the disappointing results of the war effort so far is not the right answer. Looking for a more effective way to prosecute the GWOT is what is needed. IMO, a lot of the blame for poor results can be laid on the doorstep of the Pentagon and the Congress because they keep thinking in terms of conventional warfare and have failed to understand the nature of Islam, especially Wahhabism.

Anyway, no opinion show host has all the answers or is right all the time. Carlson has his moments, but he also has opinions I don’t agree with. We all have to think for ourselves and not let ourselves get carried away with Fox or any other network’s opinion shows.

* * *
Since there was no tension between the Mullahs and Obama, It is not hard to escalate from zero.

I had seen those events at the time they happened, and the rest of the timeline matches the news as I know it.
I’ve looked at Vox a couple of times lately, and although it certainly spins left, it’s not a sewer drain like some other sites.
Which may or may not be a problem..
As Snow said about Carlson: if you find a source to be credible, you tend to stick with it until it proves otherwise, which may be some time past its actual credibility fall-off.
So, conversely, finding Vox credible in part tends to give the spun portion more credibility as well.

I didn’t know this had happened, for instance:

May 2, 2019: The administration ends waivers that allowed countries to import Iranian oil. Without those waivers, countries that purchased oil from Iran, including China, India, and Japan, could also be subject to US sanctions. If those countries choose to stop buying Iranian oil, it would hurt Iran’s economy even further.

or this:

June 17, 2019: Iran says it is just 10 days away from surpassing the limits set by the nuclear deal on its stockpile of low-enriched uranium. This is intended to pressure the Europeans (France, Germany, and the UK) to give Iran economic relief from sanctions. Tehran says, if the Europeans step up, it will go back to following the terms of the deal.

But then, to quote Mae West, Beck “drifted,” started to take–based on his prior viewpoint and statements–uncharacteristically odd positions, said odd and radically different things, sounded–to use a term much in use these days–more and more “unhinged,” became discredited in my eyes, until I finally stopped watching and listening to him.

Well, I’m afraid that the same sort of “drift” is starting to occur in the case of Tucker Carlson, whose hatred of National Security Advisor John Bolton is starting to decrease my confidence in Carlson’s viewpoint, ideas, and analyses, as last night Carlson heatedly–all but frothing at the mouth–called Bolton a “bureaucratic tapeworm,” and went on from there.

Carlson’s fixation on Bolton, his personal attacks against Bolton, and Carlson’s evidently volcanic hatred of Bolton is, it seems to me, starting to make me wonder about Carlson’s ability to make calm, objective, and reasoned judgments about other issues, and whether Carslon’s intense, apparently uncontrollable personal animus isn’t warping Carlson’s analytical abilities.

Actually, last night Carlson played a clip of Bolton being interviewed by Carlson, in which Carlson scoffed at Bolton’s ability to Bolton’s face, and Bolton laughingly returned the favor.

Is that incident (and perhaps other similar confrontations over the years) what this is all about?

I’m starting to edge away from Carlson a little.

Trump has used military force against Syria.

And here he is saying to Iran that he will use force if they kill an American with some sort of attack.