conflict
‘We Are In A Hot War With Russia’: Tucker Carlson Is Back In Moscow With A Terrifying Revelation

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Hailey Gomez
Daily Caller News Foundation co-founder Tucker Carlson released a video on social media Tuesday from Moscow, revealing how the U.S. government has not only severed all communication ties with Russia but also prevented Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy from interviewing with Carlson and his team.
Tensions between Russia and Ukraine escalated last month after President Joe Biden authorized Ukraine to use U.S.-supplied long-range missiles on Nov. 17 for strikes inside Russia. In a video posted to X, Carlson told viewers how U.S. involvement in the conflict has brought everyone closer to a nuclear confrontation since he last interviewed Russian President Vladimir Putin in February.
“In that time, just a few weeks ago, the Biden administration, American military personnel launched missiles into mainland Russia and killed at least a dozen Russian soldiers. So we are, unbeknownst to most Americans, in a hot war with Russia, an undeclared war, a war you did not vote for and that most Americans don’t want, but it is ongoing,” Carlson said. “Because of that war, because of the fact that the U.S. military is killing Russians in Russia right now, we are closer to nuclear war than at any time in history, far closer than we were during the Cuban Missile Crisis.”
Carlson went on to highlight how, despite believing that someone in Washington, D.C., was behind the push toward nuclear war, he had uncovered that U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken had cut off “all contact” between Russia and the United States.
“We felt there must be someone behind the scenes in Washington working to make sure that this conflict doesn’t become a nuclear holocaust. But we found out that no, in fact, there is nobody. Tony Blinken, the current secretary of state, cut off all contact between the U.S. and Russian governments. There is no back channel. There is no conversation. There hasn’t been for more than two years,” Carlson said.
WATCH:
“Meanwhile, most Americans have no access to any perspective other than that granted to them by NBC News and The New York Times. They don’t know how close we are. They don’t know the Russian perspective,” Carlson said. “We’ve been trying for over a year to get that perspective out to American news consumers.”
Carlson also noted that he had been attempting for over a year to interview Zelenskyy but had been “thwarted” by the U.S. government’s involvement.
“The American embassy in Kiev, which our tax dollars pay for, told the Zelenskyy government, ‘No, you may not do the interview.’ You can talk to CNN. You can’t talk to us. So we’ve been unable to speak to him,” Carlson said.
“So we came back to Moscow yesterday to interview the foreign minister of Russia, Sergei Lavrov, the longest serving foreign minister in the world … and ask him, where exactly are we? Are we headed toward an unprecedented conflict between Russia and the United States? Is there any way to peel Russia back from the east, from the sphere of China, back in to the west? Is that alliance permanent? Does the election of Donald Trump mean an end to this war, which is reshaping the world, the U.S. economy, the global economy and risking the life of every person on this planet? Is that possible? We just walked out of that interview,” Carlson added. “It’s absolutely fascinating.”
Talks of nuclear war surfaced after Biden authorized the use of U.S. long-range missiles for Ukraine, with Putin warning Ukraine about the potential use of new hypersonic missiles to target government or official buildings in Kyiv. Despite the signaling from Putin, U.S. intelligence sources allegedly told Reuters in late November that the decision to allow Ukraine the use of U.S. missiles has not increased the risk of nuclear war.
On Monday, Blinken headed back to Europe for what is likely his final high-level NATO meeting to discuss “priorities for transatlantic security, including supporting Ukraine’s fight against Russia’s invasion, deepening cooperation with NATO’s southern partners in the Middle East, North Africa, and Sahel regions, and preparing for the upcoming summit at The Hague,” the Associated Press reported.
conflict
Victor Davis Hanson Makes a Disturbing Prediction About What Happens If Iran Survives

Amidst rough seas, you need a steady sailor.
Not just what’s happening, but what’s coming next.
“I think we’re going to see things that we haven’t seen in our lifetime in the Middle East,” he said.
This could go one of two ways, neither is small.
Victor Davis Hanson isn’t known for hyperbole. So when he opens with a warning like this, people pay attention:
“We are at an historic time in the Middle East,” he said.
“Never in our lifetimes have we been closer to a complete revolutionary fervor that gives promise of normalcy for the Middle East. And never have we been in more danger of seeing the entire region blow up.”
The paradox is striking.
Peace may be closer than ever, but so is total collapse.
And at the center of it all is the unfolding conflict between Iran and Israel, which Hanson called “surreal.”
Reflecting on the rapid collapse of Iran’s regional dominance, Hanson admitted that even a few years ago, this moment would have been unthinkable.
“If we had this conversation five years ago,” he said, “and I said to you, the Iranian nation that is huge compared to Israel, ten times the population, the Iranian nation has lost all control of the Houthi terrorists, and they are themselves neutered…”
He pointed to a chain reaction across the region: Iran’s proxy forces in Gaza and the West Bank have been neutralized. Hezbollah, once a feared military force, is now dormant.
“They’re gone as a Hamas, as a fighting force. The formidable, the terrifying Hezbollah cadres, they’re inert.”
The chaos in Syria, once a stronghold of Iranian influence, now seems to be working against Tehran.
“There is no more Syria, the Assad dynasty, the pro-Iranian, the Syria. It’s in chaos. But whatever the chaos is, seems to be anti-Iranian.”
The collapse is strategic, not just symbolic. Hanson noted that the so-called “Shia crescent” connecting Tehran to the Mediterranean is no longer intact.
“Lebanon is free of Iranian influence. So is Syria. Gaza, a de facto, will be.”
Even Russia, once a key ally, is no longer a player in the region.
“It’s tied down in Ukraine,” he said.
“Iran itself, the formidable powerhouse of the Middle East that evoked terror all over, has no defenses.”
Over the course of just five days, Israel has launched a targeted military campaign to dismantle Iran’s strategic infrastructure.
According to Hanson, the damage has been sweeping.
“They have dismantled all of the Iranian missile defenses. They have dismantled the terrorist hierarchy. They have dismantled the people who are responsible for the nuclear program.”
And yet, there’s risk.
“The Iranians have sent over 400 ballistic missiles and drones into Israel,” he said, “and 90 percent are stop. But that 10 percent gets through.”
Which brings us to the turning point.
All of this only matters if it ends with Iran’s theocracy on the brink of collapse.
If it doesn’t, everything that’s been gained could be erased.
“All of this chaos and all of this war will be for not if Iran’s theocracy emerges intact from this war.”
Even more dangerous, he added, would be a scenario in which the country’s nuclear infrastructure survives or can be quickly rebuilt.
That possibility has triggered one of the most urgent strategic questions on the table: Can Israel finish the job?
Or will it need help from the United States to strike Iran’s deeply buried nuclear facilities?
This is where things get complicated.
Under the “America First” foreign policy doctrine, Trump has been clear: no more forever wars, no more ground troops in the Middle East.
But Hanson argued that Trump’s actions tell a deeper story.
“I’m not an isolationist, I’m a Jacksonian,” he said, echoing what Trump might say.
“You should have known that when I took out Soleimani… when I took out Baghdadi… when I took out the Wagner Group.”
The message? Trump doesn’t go looking for wars. But when deterrence is at stake, he’s not afraid to act decisively.
Still, Hanson posed a chilling question: what if the Iranian regime survives?
“If this war should end with the Iranian regime intact and the elements of its nuclear program recoverable,” he warned, “then in some ways it will be all for naught.”
Despite Iran’s military losses, its media destruction and its isolated position, surviving such a coordinated strike could give it something even more powerful than weapons: perceived invincibility.
“It will be more like, oh my gosh, Iran survived everything that Israel, and by association the United States, threw at it.”
“It’s indestructible.”
And that, Hanson suggested, would be the real danger.
Not just a return to the status quo, but a shift in perception that emboldens the regime and reshapes the balance of power across the region.
Now the question hanging over the entire conflict is this: does the world play it safe and allow remnants of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure to survive?
Or risk a final strike that could eliminate the threat for good, but possibly trigger even greater instability?
“Do you risk more danger by taking out and eliminating the nuclear threat for good,” Hanson asked, “and by association, you humiliate the theocracy to the point it can be overthrown?”
That’s the gamble.
He didn’t shy away from his own discomfort with war.
“I don’t like forever wars,” he added.
“I don’t like preemptive wars. I do not like the United States intervening anywhere in that godforsaken area. But if the war ends with the regime intact and a recoverable nuclear program, it won’t just be back to square one. It will be a disaster.”
That’s when he dropped a bombshell prediction of the future in the area after the dust settles in the desert.
Whether this ends in collapse or resurgence, Hanson believes the next phase of the war could reshape the entire region and the world’s understanding of power in the Middle East.
“So we’ll see what happens,” he said.
“And hold on, everybody. I think we’re going to see things that we haven’t seen in our lifetime in the Middle East. And it could turn out very bad.”
“But it could also turn out to be quite revolutionary and remake the map of the entire region.”
This story was made possible with the help of Overton —I couldn’t have done it without him.
If you’d like to support his growing network, consider subscribing for the month or the year. Your support helps him expand his team and cover more stories like this one.
We both truly appreciate your support!
Subscribe to The Vigilant Fox
conflict
Trump dismisses US intelligence that Iran wasn’t pursuing nuclear bomb before Israeli attack

From LifeSiteNews
By Dave DeCamp
When asked about Tulsi Gabbard’s assessment, President Trump said, ‘I don’t care what she said. I think they’re very close to having [a nuclear weapon].’
Ahead of Israel’s attacks on Iran, U.S. intelligence assessed that Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons and that even if it chose to do so, it would take up to three years for Tehran to be able to produce and deliver a nuclear bomb against a target of its choosing, CNN reported on Tuesday, citing people familiar with the intelligence.
The U.S. assessment goes against the claims from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who launched the war under the pretext of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. But President Trump appears to be taking Israel’s word over his own intelligence agencies, as he told reporters that he didn’t care about his director of national intelligence’s assessment on the issue.
In March, DNI Tulsi Gabbard said that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Her assessment was reflected in the Intelligence Community’s annual threat assessment.
When asked about this assessment, President Trump said, “I don’t care what she said. I think they’re very close to having [a nuclear weapon].”
Netanyahu claimed in an interview on Sunday that he shared intelligence with the U.S. that Iran could have developed a nuclear weapon within months or a year, although that was not the conclusion of U.S. intelligence agencies, based on the CNN report. But even based on Netanyahu’s own timeline, the U.S. would have had time to continue negotiations with Iran.
Israel attacked Iran two days before another round of negotiations between the U.S. and Iran was set to be held. Trump had been demanding that Iran eliminate its nuclear enrichment program, which was a non-starter for Tehran. Despite the apparent impasse, Iran was set to present a counter-proposal to the U.S., but the talks were canceled after Israel launched its war.
Reprinted with permission from Antiwar.com.
-
espionage2 days ago
From Sidewinder to P.E.I.: Are Canada’s Political Elites Benefiting from Beijing’s Real Estate Reach?
-
Business2 days ago
Senator wants to torpedo Canada’s oil and gas industry
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days ago
FUBAR: How Trudeau & Trump Rewrote This Century’s Political Handbook
-
Alberta2 days ago
Alberta’s carbon diet – how to lose megatonnes in just three short decades
-
Energy2 days ago
Who put the energy illiterate in charge?
-
Agriculture2 days ago
Unstung Heroes: Canada’s Honey Bees are not Disappearing – They’re Thriving
-
espionage2 days ago
FBI Buried ‘Warning’ Intel on CCP Plot to Elect Biden Using TikTok, Fake IDs, CCP Sympathizers and PRC Students—Grassley Probes Withdrawal
-
David Clinton2 days ago
Why Are Ontario’s Public Schools So Violent?