Tucker Confronts Ted Cruz on His Support for Regime Change in Iran

Cruz draws parallels to other countries with hostile regimes, such as Venezuela and Cuba, where the U.S. has tried various methods—sanctions, pressure, covert support for opposition—but regime change has proven difficult. He stresses the importance of distinguishing between the objective (regime change) and the means to achieve it, cautioning against military overreach. The senator advocates for a “non-interventionist hawk” approach, where military force is used only when it directly serves vital U.S. national security interests, not for nation-building or ideological crusades.

The Binary of Interventionism vs. Isolationism

A significant portion of the dialogue revolves around the traditional framing of U.S. foreign policy as a choice between interventionism and isolationism. Cruz rejects this binary, describing himself as a “non-interventionist hawk.” He criticizes interventionists for their eagerness to invade countries and isolationists for underestimating threats to America. Instead, he proposes a middle ground focused on “peace through strength,” a concept he attributes to Ronald Reagan and sees reflected in Donald Trump’s foreign policy.

Cruz argues that the best way to avoid war is to maintain a strong military deterrent, which discourages adversaries from aggression. He also points out that the labels “interventionist” and “isolationist” are often used as slurs to shut down debate rather than to foster nuanced discussion. This framing sets the stage for the rest of the conversation, where Cruz consistently returns to the principle that U.S. foreign policy decisions should be measured against their impact on American safety and interests.

Lessons from Syria, Iraq, and Libya

The discussion turns to past U.S. military interventions, with Cruz expressing regret over the Iraq War and skepticism about the outcomes of regime change efforts in the Middle East. He highlights the unintended consequences of toppling dictators like Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, which often led to power vacuums filled by radical Islamic terrorists who then posed greater threats to the U.S.

Cruz uses Syria as a case study, noting that the removal of Bashar Assad led to chaos and the rise of extremist groups like ISIS. He questions the logic of replacing a secular dictator with religious extremists who persecute minorities and destabilize the region. Cruz emphasizes the need for clear, achievable objectives in foreign interventions and criticizes past administrations for failing to articulate how such actions would make America safer.

The Cold War as a Model for Regime Change

Cruz points to the Cold War and the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union as a successful example of regime change influenced by the U.S., achieved without direct military invasion. He praises Ronald Reagan’s strategy of economic and military pressure combined with moral clarity, such as labeling the USSR an “evil empire” and calling for the Berlin Wall to be torn down.

He argues that this approach—using the “bully pulpit,” economic strength, and military deterrence—offers a blueprint for dealing with modern adversaries like China and Iran. Cruz stresses that shining a light on human rights abuses and supporting dissident groups can be powerful tools in undermining authoritarian regimes without resorting to costly and risky military occupations.

Domestic Priorities vs. Foreign Policy Focus

Throughout the conversation, there is a recurring tension between addressing America’s internal crises and engaging in foreign conflicts. Cruz acknowledges the severe problems facing U.S. cities, including crime, homelessness, and drug addiction, and criticizes local Democratic leadership for policies that he believes exacerbate these issues.

He expresses frustration that Congress, which governs Washington D.C., has not taken stronger action to address these problems, despite controlling the city’s governance under the Constitution. Cruz argues that while America must remain vigilant about foreign threats, it cannot neglect the well-being and safety of its own citizens. This theme underscores his broader “America First” philosophy, which prioritizes national interests both at home and abroad.

U.S. Support for Israel: Costs and Benefits

The conversation delves into the U.S.-Israel relationship, with Cruz defending the annual $3 billion military aid package as a strategic investment that benefits American national security. He highlights Israel’s intelligence-sharing capabilities and its role in combating mutual enemies like Iran and Hezbollah.

Cruz also addresses concerns about foreign influence, particularly the role of AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. He insists that AIPAC is an American organization advocating for a strong U.S.-Israel alliance, not a foreign lobby controlled by the Israeli government. While acknowledging that Israel, like all allies, engages in intelligence activities, Cruz dismisses the notion that this undermines U.S. sovereignty, framing it as a normal aspect of international relations.

The Role of Faith in Supporting Israel

Cruz reveals that his personal Christian faith motivates his support for Israel, citing biblical teachings that those who bless Israel will be blessed. He acknowledges that this is a personal conviction and not the official rationale for U.S. policy, which he grounds in strategic interests.

The discussion touches on the theological interpretation of “Israel” in the Bible, with Cruz affirming that he sees the modern state of Israel as the fulfillment of those scriptural references. This intertwining of faith and policy adds a layer of complexity to his advocacy for Israel, blending personal belief with geopolitical considerations.

Iran’s Threat: Nuclear Ambitions and Assassination Plots

A critical part of the dialogue focuses on the threat posed by Iran, particularly its pursuit of nuclear weapons and its hostility toward the U.S. and Israel. Cruz asserts that the Ayatollah’s regime is a religious zealot government that openly calls for America’s destruction and is actively trying to develop nuclear weapons.

He also claims that Iran has attempted to assassinate former President Donald Trump and other Trump administration officials by hiring hitmen, citing intelligence briefings and congressional testimony. While Cruz admits that no arrests have been made in connection with attempts on Trump’s life, he insists the threat is real and ongoing. Despite this, he stops short of calling for immediate U.S. military strikes, advocating instead for continued pressure and support for Israel’s efforts to degrade Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

The Complexity of Military Action Against Iran

Cruz expresses caution about direct U.S. military intervention in Iran, warning against the pitfalls of past wars in Iraq and Syria. He supports targeted actions that degrade Iran’s nuclear program and military leadership but opposes full-scale invasion or attempts to impose democracy by force.

He acknowledges the risks of regime change, including the potential for chaos, civil war, and humanitarian disasters similar to those seen in Syria and Libya. Cruz stresses the importance of weighing the costs and benefits carefully, advocating for a strategy that prioritizes American security without overextending U.S. military commitments.

The Ukraine Conflict and U.S. Policy

The conversation shifts to the war in Ukraine, with Cruz offering a detailed account of his role in sanctioning the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to weaken Russia’s energy leverage over Europe. He argues that the Biden administration’s reversal on these sanctions emboldened Russia and contributed to the invasion of Ukraine.

Cruz criticizes the administration’s handling of the war, including the massive financial aid packages sent to Ukraine, which he believes have been mismanaged and ineffective. He expresses skepticism about the long-term benefits of the conflict for the U.S. and Europe, warning that it has strengthened the Russia-China alliance and weakened Western economies.

Moral Considerations and American Exceptionalism

Throughout the discussion, Cruz emphasizes the moral foundations of American foreign policy, contrasting the U.S. with authoritarian regimes like Russia and China. He highlights America’s commitment to protecting individual rights and freedoms as a core value that distinguishes it from its adversaries.

At the same time, Cruz rejects moral relativism, insisting that while many world leaders engage in violence and oppression, the U.S. must maintain its principles and avoid becoming like those it opposes. He frames his foreign policy views as rooted in a desire to protect American interests and values, not in ideological crusades or moral posturing.