This made the headlines in June 2025 when Senator Ted Cruz came clean of the fact that the United States was backing Israeli military actions against what has become known as the existence of Iran. Such a plain revelation was made in a controversial interview with a retired Fox News presenter, Tucker Carlson, and created a stampede of controversy over American support of Israel amid an escalating Israel-Iran war. The extreme nature of Cruz coupled with an appalling lack of knowledge regarding Iran indicated the significant division within the core of President Donald Trump as well as creating substantial questions regarding the U.S. decision-making process as far as foreign policy is concerned.
Facts, statements and politics around this statement of Cruz will be analyzed along with effects it had on the U.S. participation in the Middle East as well as challenges ahead of the policy makers in 2025.
We love watching them eat their own.
— Lincoln Square (@LincolnSquareHQ) June 18, 2025
Bonus: Ted Cruz slips up and admits America has her hand in the Israel/Iran conflict. https://t.co/2PT1Eo1Dty
Ted Cruz’s Admission: What Did He Say?
US support for Israeli strikes
In a June 18, 2025, open interview, Senator Ted Cruz stated that “Israel ran the attack, but we (the U.S.) supported them.” Cruz’s remarks run counter to White House officials’ claims that the US had anything to do with Israeli strikes on Iranian sites. Cruz’s acknowledgement validated the assistance provided by US troops, especially in averting Iranian retaliation.
Advocacy for Military Action
Cruz has consistently advocated for a hardline approach toward Iran, including targeted military strikes on Iran’s fortified Fordow uranium enrichment facility. He described the possibility of a U.S. strike as “reasonable” and revealed that he had shared his views directly with President Trump. Cruz’s position reflects a faction within the Republican Party pushing for regime change in Tehran through maximum pressure and potential military intervention.
The Controversial Interview with Tucker Carlson
Clash Over Knowledge and Strategy
The interview between Cruz and Carlson became a flashpoint for intra-MAGA tensions. Carlson, an outspoken opponent of U.S. military involvement abroad, questioned Cruz over what he knows about Iran, asking simple questions like its population and demographics. Cruz conceded that he didn’t know the population or percentage of Persians and Shia Muslims and Carlson responded with, “You don’t know the population of the country you’re trying to destroy?”
This brief but telling exchange indicates much larger concerns over whether many policymakers promoting military conflict have any understanding about these foreign countries, and raises questions about the level of competence, or expertise, behind these hawkish appeals.
Accusations of Warmongering
Carlson accused Cruz and other Trump allies of being warmongers eager to drag the U.S. into another costly conflict. He named media figures like Sean Hannity and Rupert Murdoch as part of a “warmonger” cabal pushing for war with Iran. Cruz defended his stance but faced criticism for conflating religious motivations with strategic policy.
Religious and Ideological Explanations
Evangelical Support for Israel
Cruz acknowledged that evangelical Christian beliefs were a major reason for supporting Israel and opposing the Iranian regime. He discussed dispensationalist theology and the biblical commandment to bless Israel that has a passage stating, “Those who bless Israel will be blessed.” The political advocacy of this religious conviction has been a force for many U.S. policy arguments regarding the Middle East.
Implications for Policy
Although religious convictions are still a significant motivation for some policymakers, critics contended that there is more risk of losing touch with the complexities of geopolitical realities in policymaking based in an ideology or theology, as well as escalating conflicts without a clear or realistic strategy.
Political Fallout and Party Divisions
Rift Within the Republican Party
Cruz’s belligerent position is the opposite of a more restrained view among a lot of Republicans, including Texas-based Republicans. Cruz advocates regime change and war in a call to action, whereas others call for restraint, promoting diplomacy and caution against involvement in “forever wars.”
Steve Bannon, former Trump strategist, for instance, assailed interventionist policies as tending to break up the MAGA coalition and taking focus away from domestic agendas.
Trump’s Ambivalence
President Trump himself does not take a stand, considering choices such as giving Israel a “bunker buster” bomb with which to annihilate Iran’s buried nuclear facilities. He has openly declared, “I may do it, I may not do it,” indicative of internal deliberations within his team.
Trump also rejected Carlson’s criticism of Cruz as “kooky,” highlighting the complicated relationships within his entourage.
Public Awareness and Understanding
Widespread Ignorance
Despite these high stakes, Iran has not been well understood by the public. In 2020 only 23% of Americans who were surveyed could locate Iran on a map, indicating that public opinion may be out of sync with the public’s understanding of foreign policy. This situation illustrates the public’s anxieties about informed debate and democratic accountability in their choices for military action.
Latest Instances in 2025
Escalating Conflict Between Israel and Iran
Beginning in June 2025, Israel’s attacks on military targets of Iran, especially the heavily fortified Fordow facility, and also on Iranian nuclear sites have grown since the war began. Iran has retaliated against Israel by attacking Israeli cities and also pursuing missile strikes against U.S. troops and U.S. military bases in the region.
Alleged Assassination Plots
Reports surfaced alleging Iranian attempts to assassinate President Trump, though these claims remain contested. The Iranian Supreme Leader’s removal has been publicly discussed by Israeli officials, which heightens tensions.
U.S. Military Posture
The U.S. has sent additional warships and fighter aircraft to the Middle East. This deployment demonstrates U.S. military readiness, even while U.S. congressional leaders are divided on approving direct military action.
Risk and Implications of U.S. Intervention
Risk of Escalation
Direct U.S. intervention has the potential to escalate the war into a regional confrontation as proxy forces could be clinical agents on behalf of Iran’s desires that destabilize potentially vulnerable neighboring states. Because of the imminent risk of Iranian retaliation against U.S. personnel and U.S. allies, escalation creates risks that can be avoided.
Strategic Ambiguity and Uncertainty
The uncertainty over U.S. objectives and the absence of any agreement in the U.S. government or the governments of allied nations, create uncertainty that complicates diplomatic activities but also supports military planning.
Humanitarian Consequences
Pushing for escalation in the conflict creates more risks for civilians on both sides and civilians will suffer deaths, injuries, displacements and/or other humanitarian suffering.
Senator Ted Cruz’s signal of American backing for Israeli airstrikes against Iran has laid bare the complexities and contradictions of America’s role in the Middle Eastern conflict. Cruz’s militarized position somewhat cloaked with religious emotions and political aspirations is juxtaposed with suspicion and concerns expressed from different areas. Cruz’s controversial interview with Tucker Carlson also signaled ignorance and fractures in the Republican Party and more broadly the MAGA movement.
The United States stands at the crossroads, not only while President Trump considers his options with increasing regional tensions, but a moment of reckoning. We will make choices over the coming weeks that could determine the course of the Israel-Iran conflict, America’s standing in the world, and the possibilities of either peace or a war in one of the world’s most combustible regions.
