What are the principal conservative arguments for maintaining the U.S.-Israel strategic relationship, and how do proponents rebut Carlson's claims?
Executive summary
Conservative defenses of the U.S.-Israel strategic relationship stress hard security returns—military cooperation, intelligence-sharing, and regional deterrence—alongside shared political values and domestic political coalitions that make the alliance both practical and popular [1] [2]. Proponents respond to Tucker Carlson’s contention that Israel is a “burden” and “strategically insignificant” by pointing to concrete mutual benefits, historical precedent for dual partnerships in the Middle East, and the political costs of abandonment [3] [4].
1. Strategic and military utility: the frontline partner argument
Many conservatives frame Israel as a combat-tested partner whose armed forces and operational experience strengthen U.S. military effectiveness in the Middle East, serving as a forward deterrent against regional adversaries—an argument advanced in conservative outlets rebutting Carlson and in policy commentary that calls Carlson’s “no overriding strategic interest” claim ignorant [1] [3] [2].
2. Intelligence and technological returns: asymmetric value, not barrel counts
Proponents emphasize that Israel’s intelligence cooperation, cybersecurity and defense technologies produce outsized returns relative to the $3.8 billion annual security package—returns that are not captured by simple resource counts—and that Israel’s innovation complements U.S. capabilities, a point Bryan and others have made when rebutting resource-only metrics that Carlson invokes [3] [2] [4].
3. Democratic affinity and soft-power justification
Conservatives also defend the relationship on ideological grounds, noting Israel’s democratic institutions and cultural ties to the West as a basis for partnership that aligns with American political values and legitimacy-based diplomacy, a rationale invoked by commentators who label Carlson’s dismissal of democratic affinity as strategically shallow [2] [4].
4. Regional balancing and the non–zero-sum case
Analysts counter Carlson’s framing that Washington must choose Israel or Gulf partners by pointing out that U.S. policy long has pursued both tracks simultaneously—illustrated by the Abraham Accords and expanded Gulf-Israel ties—and that cooperation with Gulf states does not obviate strategic returns from Israel [3] [5]. The Trump-era accords and subsequent arms and diplomatic deals are cited as proof of a multi-vector U.S. strategy [3].
5. Domestic politics and coalition stability
Supporters argue that pro-Israel policy enjoys deep roots in GOP coalitions—among evangelicals, neoconservatives, and mainstream national security conservatives—and that sudden downgrades risk fracturing those domestic alliances; critics of Carlson warn his rhetoric has already accelerated internal party fights and energized both pro- and anti-Israel camps [6] [7] [8].
6. How proponents rebut Carlson’s specific claims
Responses to Carlson are twofold: empirical and normative. Empirically, writers like Victor Davis Hanson and outlets such as the Jewish Journal produce point-by-point rebuttals that Israel is not resource-poor—its gas exports, energy deals, and tech ties generate tangible returns—and that U.S. strategic posture benefits from Israeli capabilities [2] [4]. Normatively, defenders stress that dismissing values and long-standing alliances for transactional, short-term calculations undermines U.S. credibility; Hudson Institute and others call Carlson’s zero-sum argument “strategic ignorance,” noting Washington has long sustained ties with both Israel and Gulf states [3] [5].
7. Internal conservative dissent and the limits of the rebuttal
Despite forceful rebuttals, the conservative coalition is fracturing: Carlson’s America-first isolationist strain and populist critics complicate a single “conservative” line, and reporting shows real tensions at conferences and in Congress where pro- and anti-Israel conservatives clash—meaning rebuttals face not only strategic counterarguments but also intra-party political realignment [9] [10] [7]. Sources differ on whether Carlson represents a transient outlier or a durable realignment [11] [9].
Conclusion
Conservative proponents defend the U.S.-Israel relationship through a mix of strategic, technological, democratic, and domestic-political arguments and meet Carlson’s claims with empirical rebuttals and a reminder that U.S. strategy has long managed multiple regional partners simultaneously; but the debate matters less as abstract theory than as a real force reshaping GOP coalitions and U.S. posture in the Middle East, a dynamic the reporting shows remains unsettled [3] [2] [7].