Tucker Carlson Says Trump Assassination Attempt Made Him a “Tool” for Israel After Heated Feud Over “Low IQ” Remark

In a recent conversation, former Fox News host Tucker Carlson criticized President Donald Trump over his stance on Iran and accused him of abandoning his earlier opposition to regime change war. Carlson said Trump had spent years, including his 2024 campaign, arguing against military intervention in Iran and attacking supporters of such policies, but then changed course and supported action that Carlson described as aligned with the interests of the Israeli government.

Carlson made the remarks while speaking with HeadlineUSA’s Ken Silva. He argued that Trump’s shift could not easily be explained as a simple change of mind, saying Trump had previously been explicit in opposing a regime change war with Iran for roughly a decade. According to Carlson, the change in Trump’s position was especially notable because it appeared to reverse one of the central arguments Trump had used during the campaign.

Carlson suggested that Trump not only launched a war effort, but also became, in Carlson’s words, an “enthusiastic tool” of the Israeli government. He implied that Trump’s policy shift happened without a clear public explanation and pointed to the July 2024 shooting as a possible turning point. Carlson said the “demarcation” or pivot seemed to come after that incident, though he did not provide evidence that directly linked the shooting to Trump’s later decisions.

The comments are part of Carlson’s broader criticism of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and of American support for Israel. Carlson has previously argued that Israel exercises major influence over the United States and has said the war with Iran was being fought on Israel’s behalf. Those claims have drawn attention because they reflect a more aggressive version of criticism that Carlson has voiced about interventionist policy and foreign alliances.

Trump’s position on Iran has been a recurring issue in U.S. politics, especially among voters skeptical of another Middle East war. During the 2024 campaign, Trump frequently presented himself as an opponent of endless foreign conflicts and as someone who would avoid new wars. Carlson’s criticism centers on the view that Trump’s later actions conflicted with that message.

The remarks also highlight continuing divisions among conservative commentators over U.S. policy toward Iran and Israel. Supporters of a more restrained foreign policy have often accused political leaders of ignoring campaign promises once in office, while others argue that changes in policy can reflect new intelligence, security concerns, or evolving geopolitical circumstances.

Carlson did not offer a detailed explanation for how Trump’s views might have changed, and his remarks were framed more as a criticism than a factual account of policy decisions. Still, the comments add to the ongoing debate over whether Trump’s approach to foreign policy remains consistent with the anti-war image he promoted on the campaign trail.