A dangerous narrative has resurfaced in American politics: the debate over war, Israel, Iran, and Donald Trump is shifting away from facts, decisions, and accountability, and towards old anti-Semitic myths of ‘secret control’ and ‘Jewish influence.’ At the center of this story is Tucker Carlson — one of the most prominent voices of the American right, who in an interview with The New York Times essentially portrayed Trump not as an independent president, but as a man under the power of Benjamin Netanyahu.
Carlson’s formulations were not just harsh. They were constructed to evoke a familiar picture for the audience: a strong, yet seemingly unfree American leader, behind whom a foreign politician and his supporters in the U.S. operate. This is where political criticism begins to transition into another genre — conspiracy theory, where Israel is no longer an ally, a contentious partner, or a subject of tough discussion, but supposedly a hidden force controlling Washington.
For the Israeli audience, this conversation is important not only because of Netanyahu’s name. It shows how quickly criticism of a specific Israeli government can be replaced by the old language of suspicion towards Jews in general.
When the debate over war turns into a myth of ‘control’
Tucker Carlson stated that during the decision-making process on striking Iran, Trump appeared more like a ‘hostage’ than a sovereign leader. He then clarified that, in his opinion, the president was held hostage by Benjamin Netanyahu and his numerous supporters in the U.S. This was followed by an even harsher phrase: ‘This is slavery. This is complete control of one person over another.’
Such words are not chosen by accident.
One can argue about who exactly pushed the U.S. towards a hard line against Iran. One can discuss Israel’s interests, the position of the American administration, the pressure of allies, the role of intelligence data, the fear of Tehran’s nuclear program, and Trump’s own political calculations. All of this is normal political discourse.
But when instead of analysis, the image of an ‘enslaved’ president allegedly controlled by the Israeli prime minister appears, it is no longer about politics. This is the language that has been used against Jews for centuries: hidden influence, foreign power, secret networks, control over states.
Netanyahu can be criticized — but not turned into a demonic figure
There are reasons to criticize Benjamin Netanyahu. In Israel, they know this well without Tucker Carlson’s hints.
He is accused of political responsibility for failures before October 7, delaying decisions on Gaza, conflict with democratic institutions, dependence on far-right partners, a hard line on Iran, and the fact that Israeli politics in recent years increasingly looks like a series of crises without a clear strategy.
But it’s one thing to analyze the actions of the prime minister, his cabinet, mistakes, interests, and consequences.
It’s quite another to portray him as a ‘Jewish Rasputin’ supposedly controlling the U.S. president. Such a presentation does not help to understand the war, Iran, Gaza, or the U.S.-Israel alliance. It only brings old and very dangerous clichés to the surface.
Iran, Israel, and the American divide: why the topic has become toxic
The issue of Iran has long been one of the central themes for Netanyahu. For decades, he has said that Israel must not allow Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons, even if it requires force. This is not a secret position, not a backstage conspiracy, and not a sudden intrigue. This is the public line of the Israeli prime minister, around which debates have long been ongoing within Israel, in the U.S., and on the international stage.
Therefore, the version that Netanyahu tried to persuade Trump to act more harshly does not in itself seem fantastic. Political leaders persuade allies, exert pressure, negotiate, use arguments and threats. This is how foreign policy works.
The problem begins where Trump is completely deprived of agency.
Carlson effectively removes the American president’s responsibility for his own decision. If the strike on Iran causes dissatisfaction among part of the American public, it is more convenient to say that Trump was ‘forced.’ Then the blame lies not with the U.S. leader himself, not with his administration, not with the American decision-making system, but with an external player — Israel and ‘its supporters.’
For Trump’s supporters, this is psychologically convenient. For anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists — almost ideal.
Why Israel again becomes a convenient explanation for others’ mistakes
The U.S. has its own interests in the Middle East. American politics has its own history of conflict with Iran. Trump has a personal manner of making decisions, demonstrating strength, and simultaneously shifting responsibility when the consequences become inconvenient.
But Carlson shifts the center of gravity to Israel.
This is what is dangerous. In such logic, Israel becomes not a state with its own interests, mistakes, and calculations, but a universal culprit. If the war is unpopular — Israel is to blame. If the president made a mistake — he was controlled. If American politics is at an impasse — then someone from outside was pulling the strings.
For the Israeli audience, there is a painful signal here. Even when it comes to a specific politician, old anti-Semitic schemes quickly expand: from Netanyahu — to ‘pro-Israel supporters,’ from them — to American Jews, from political criticism — to suspicion of disloyalty.
This is why Nikk.Agency — Israel News | Nikk.Agency views this story not as another scandal around an American TV host, but as an alarming symptom: in the U.S., there is growing fatigue from Middle Eastern wars, but some public figures are trying to direct this fatigue towards anti-Semitic explanations.
The danger is not only from the right: a new common platform against Israel
The most unpleasant thing about this story is that it is not limited to one MAGA camp. Skepticism towards the U.S.-Israel alliance is growing both on the right and the left. The difference is only in language, but sometimes this language begins to suspiciously converge.
Right-wing isolationists say: America should not fight again for foreign interests.
Left-wing progressives say: The U.S. should not pay for Israel’s policy, especially against the backdrop of the war in Gaza and the huge number of Palestinian casualties.
Both positions can be part of a normal democratic discourse. One can oppose military aid to Israel. One can demand conditions, control, accountability, changes in Gaza policy, a review of military cooperation, or pressure on Netanyahu’s government.
But when these arguments are supplemented by the idea that Israel ‘drags,’ ‘controls,’ ‘blackmails,’ or ‘enslaves’ America, the debate changes its nature.
Carlson gives conspiracy a political packaging
The material emphasizes that Carlson has previously promoted strange versions about the role of Israel, Chabad, the war with Iran, and even religious plots around Jerusalem. He also spoke of Trump’s ‘supernatural’ ability to achieve obedience from his officials and used language that takes the conversation from politics to mysticism.
This makes the situation even more dangerous.
When a political commentator begins to describe international relations as a struggle of secret forces, magical influence, religious images, and hidden control, the audience stops looking for documents, decisions, protocols, interests, and responsibility. They are offered a simple picture: there are ‘they’ who control what is happening.
And in such pictures, Jews too often end up being appointed as the culprits.
Why Democrats and Republicans will have to choose
American politics is now entering a period where the issue of Israel is no longer an automatic consensus. More and more Democrats are advocating for restrictions on military aid. Some Republicans are moving towards isolationism. Young voters view Gaza, Iran, and the cost of alliances differently. This is a reality that Israel cannot ignore.
But this is precisely why the boundaries of language become critically important.
If Republicans are willing to use Carlson’s audience, they will have to answer whether they accept his anti-Semitic baggage along with it.
If Democrats want to criticize Israel from moral and human rights positions, they will have to especially carefully separate political criticism from hints of ‘Jewish influence’ and ‘hidden control.’
Otherwise, both sides risk arriving at the same dirty point — legitimizing anti-Semitism under the guise of fighting for peace, the economy, America’s independence, or human rights.
The end of this story is still open. But the main thing is already visible: criticism of Israel will only intensify, especially against the backdrop of war, Iran, and the crisis of trust in Netanyahu. The question is different — will this criticism remain in the field of politics or will it finally move into conspiracy theory.
For Israel, the U.S., and Jewish communities, this is not an abstract debate about rhetoric. It is a question of security, alliances, and how quickly old myths can return in the new information age — no longer through marginal leaflets, but through interviews, podcasts, political shows, and millions of views.