Latest news with #TedCruz
Newsweek
6 hours ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
What Ted Cruz's Iran Moment Reveals About America's Foreign Policy Illiteracy
On June 17, Tucker Carlson asked Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) what should have been a simple question: What is the population of Iran? Cruz didn't know. Carlson then asked him to name the country's major ethnic groups. Cruz came up blank again. This was not a gotcha moment. It was a spotlight. Cruz is a senior U.S. senator, a former presidential candidate, and a vocal advocate for a hardline U.S. posture on Iran. The fact that he couldn't name the most basic demographic facts about the country he wants to confront says a lot about how foreign policy operates in the U.S., and who it's meant to impress. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) delivers remarks during a press conference on Capitol Hill on May 8, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) delivers remarks during a press conference on Capitol Hill on May 8, 2025, in Washington, happened in that exchange wasn't just awkward, it revealed something more troubling. It laid bare the way American foreign policy often functions: heavy on confidence, light on depth. When elected officials speak with authority but can't answer the most basic facts, it reveals more than a personal gap. It reflects a deeper failure in how we prepare, and tolerate, those who shape our foreign policy. Cruz reflects a pattern that's become far too common. According to a 2020 Morning Consult/POLITICO poll, only 23 percent of Americans could locate Iran on a map. The rest pointed to Eastern Europe, South America, even Australia. And yet the same electorate regularly weighs in on questions of war, sanctions, regime change, and diplomatic withdrawal. The reality is that many Americans have strong views on foreign policy, but no geographic or historical grounding to anchor them. In a moment of relative global calm, that gap might be more forgivable. But we aren't in a calm moment. In fact, we're in the most conflict-saturated period in recent history. According to the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), 2024 recorded the highest number of state-based armed conflicts since 1946. Sixty-one such conflicts were active last year, including four between nation-states, the highest number of interstate wars in over 35 years. Almost 130,000 people were killed in battle-related deaths globally. We don't just live in a volatile world. We live in a dangerously mismatched one, where the complexity and lethality of modern conflict is rising, while public literacy about that complexity is falling. And this isn't just a polling problem or a media failure. It's a democratic one. In a system built on civilian oversight of military and diplomatic power, ignorance becomes a liability. It allows narratives to be crafted not around facts, but around vibes. When voters can't distinguish between a proxy conflict and a territorial war, or don't understand where the Strait of Hormuz even is, it becomes easier for bad policy to sound like strong policy. Slogans win. Nuance loses. This isn't just a voter problem. It's a leadership problem. When our lawmakers are allowed to posture confidently on matters of war and peace without even the most basic command of regional realities, the public follows their example. We normalize strategic amnesia. We reward theatrical strength over intellectual depth. And we end up with a foreign policy debate that centers on volume, not value. We also risk generational disengagement. Younger voters are inheriting a global environment that is far more multipolar, fragmented, and ideologically diffuse than the Cold War framework their textbooks still teach. But they're doing so with less geographic instruction, less civic education, and more algorithmically filtered noise. If that continues, the quality of our foreign policy conversation will degrade even further, not just in accuracy, but in accountability. This disconnect weakens democratic oversight. It makes military action easier to sell and harder to question. It elevates performative certainty over strategic thought. And it turns foreign policy into something closer to domestic theater, a place for identity posturing rather than global consequence management. You don't need to be an expert on every region to have a valid opinion about the world. But you should at least be able to find the country on a map before you advocate for bombing it. And our elected officials should be able to answer basic demographic questions about the places they want to sanction or confront. Because when they can't, and when we don't care that they can't, the result isn't just ignorance, it's escalation. We are in a moment where ignorance no longer leads to inaction. It leads to conflict. And we're going to pay for that gap with more than just polling errors. We're going to pay for it with human lives, diplomatic credibility, and the erosion of global stability itself. Brett Erickson is a governance strategist and certified global sanctions specialist (CGSS). He serves on the advisory board of the Loyola University Chicago School of Law's Center for Compliance Studies. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Newsweek
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
Ted Cruz Diverges From Other Republicans on Iran
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Texas Senator Ted Cruz has called for the U.S. to seek a regime change in Iran, a stance that few Republicans have echoed. "Let me be clear, I'm not advocating that we send in a bunch of American soldiers to make that happen," Cruz said on an episode of his podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz, released on Monday. "I am advocating that we use maximum pressure and economic sanctions to pressure the regime in a way that might encourage this regime to fall." Newsweek has contacted Cruz and other Republican lawmakers for comment via email. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) delivers an opening statement as President and CEO of Boeing Kelly Ortberg prepares to testify before the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on April... Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) delivers an opening statement as President and CEO of Boeing Kelly Ortberg prepares to testify before the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on April 02, 2025 in Washington, D.C. MoreWhy It Matters Cruz's comments come amid uncertainty over whether the United States will get directly involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran. President Donald Trump has reportedly been weighing whether to attack Iran by striking its well-defended Fordo uranium enrichment facility using a "bunker buster" bomb. He said on Thursday said he would make a decision on whether the U.S. will join Israel's war within two weeks. It has caused a split among Trump's most vocal MAGA supporters and national security conservatives, some calling him out for considering a greater U.S. role in the conflict after campaigning on a promise to keep the U.S. out of costly wars. But some Trump allies have said the U.S. should go "all in" to help Israel destroy Iran's nuclear program. What To Know Asked if he supported regime change in Iran, a spokesperson for Texas Senator John Cornyn pointed Newsweek to the senator's recent comments to The Texas Tribune. "I think that's up to the Iranian people," Cornyn told the Tribune. "Hopefully, they will take the opportunity that this may provide." And on Fox News, he said that the U.S. does not need "to take the lead in this effort." He said that Israel "has a variety of options, and they seem to be doing a very effective job on their own with our support." The divisions between Cruz and many Republicans were laid bare in his conversation on Wednesday with conservative commentator Tucker Carlson. "You don't know anything about Iran," Carlson told Cruz, after the senator said he didn't know the population of Iran or its ethnic makeup. "You're a senator who's calling for the overthrow of a government, and you don't know anything about the country. " Other MAGA Republicans, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, have decried deeper U.S. involvement in the conflict. "Foreign wars/intervention/regime change put America last, kill innocent people, are making us broke, and will ultimately lead to our destruction. That's not kooky," Greene wrote on X in defense of Carlson, after Trump branded him "kooky" for his criticism. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt avoided answering when asked if U.S. involvement in a regime change in Iran was on the table, during a press briefing on Thursday. She said: "The president's top priority right now is ensuring that Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon and providing peace and stability in the Middle East." But Senators Lindsey Graham and Thom Tillis have openly called for a regime change in Iran. What People Are Saying Senator Ted Cruz said on Fox News on Sunday: "I think it is very much in the interest of America to see regime change. I don't think there's any redeeming the Ayatollah." Senator Thom Tillis told CNN on Thursday: "It's time for regime change. And I believe that this president should be given a fair amount of leeway to effect that." Senator Lindsey Graham told Fox News' Sean Hannity on Monday night: "Be all in, President Trump, in helping Israel eliminate the nuclear threat. If we need to provide bombs to Israel, provide bombs. If we need to fly planes with Israel, do joint operations. But here's the bigger question, wouldn't the world be better off if the Ayatollahs went away and were replaced by something better? Wouldn't Iran be better off?" President Donald Trump told reporters on Wednesday about the U.S. possibly striking Iran: "I may do it, I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do." Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in a national address, said in part: "We warn America of the consequences of engaging in war, because it will suffer severe damage if it decides to do so. War is met with war, bombing with bombing, and strike with strike." What's Next Trump will make a make a decision about taking a direct military role in the conflict "within the next two weeks," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Thursday. This article includes reporting by The Associated Press.
The Independent
8 hours ago
- Politics
- The Independent
CNN panelist scolded best friend's wife at dinner for being illegal immigrant: ‘Sorry you decided to break the law'
A guest panellist on CNN has made the astonishing revelation that he recently scolded the wife of his best friend at a dinner party for entering the U.S. illegally, telling her: 'I am sorry that you decided to break the law.' Conservative radio host Ben Ferguson was appearing on the network's NewsNight discussion show, moderated by host Abby Phillip, on Thursday night when he was challenged by fellow contributor Van Jones on whether he knew any undocumented migrants as they discussed ICE raids across the country. 'I know you very well and I know for sure, if you knew the people that we're talking about, you would be standing with us,' Jones said to Ferguson. That's when Ferguson dropped his bombshell. 'One of my best friends married an illegal immigrant. We had this conversation at dinner and I said to her, 'I am sorry that you decided to break the law.' 'There are a lot of Americans that break laws and they go to jail and there's a consequence for your actions,' he said. A shocked Phillip interjected to ask him to clarify: 'Hold on, Ben. So you said that you have a friend whose wife is an illegal immigrant and you said to that person, to her…' 'I had them on my show. I had them literally on my show because it's an important conversation to have,' Ferguson explained, referring to the podcast he co-hosts with Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz. 'You said to her, 'You need to be deported'?' Phillip asked. 'I said the same thing that my dad said to me if I ever got arrested: 'Don't expect me to bail you out, you're accountable for your actions,'' he answered. 'And what I said to her was this, 'I think you're an incredible human being. I love that you have this love with your family and friends. It doesn't erase, your kindness or your love, the fact that you broke the law.'' Asked, 'Did you call ICE on her?,' he responded: 'I'm not gonna call ICE on someone.' 'They had already had an interaction with the law. They were already going through the process.'
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
CNN Panel Recoils At Conservative Guest's Comment To Friend's Undocumented Wife
Right-wing radio host Ben Ferguson caught the panel on CNN's 'NewsNight' off guard on Thursday with an anecdote about what he said to the undocumented wife of one of his best friends. 'One of my best friends married an illegal immigrant,' said Ferguson, who co-hosts the 'Verdict' podcast with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). 'We had this conversation at dinner, and I said to her, 'I'm sorry that you decided to break the law. There are a lot of Americans that break laws, and they go to jail. And there's a consequence for your actions.'' Host Abby Phillip pressed for clarification, calling it a 'very interesting anecdote' amid the Trump administration's crackdown on immigration. 'And you said to her, 'You need to be deported?'' Phillip asked. Ferguson replied: 'I said the same thing my dad said to me if I ever got arrested: 'Don't expect me to bail you out. You're accountable for your actions.'' He claimed he also told the woman, who has children with his close friend: 'I think you're an incredible human being. I love that you have this love with your family and your friends. It doesn't erase your kindness or your love, the fact that you broke the law.' When asked if he had reported the woman to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Ferguson said: 'I'm not going to call ICE on somebody.' Pressed on why not, he explained that she had actually appeared on his radio show to talk about her status. And he added: 'Because they were working through the process with lawyers while this was happening. They already had an interaction with law. They were already going through the process.' Other panelists pointed out that many of the people who have been detained by ICE agents in recent weeks are in a similar legal position. Watch here: Billionaire Reveals Why He Turned Down Kamala Harris' Running Mate Shot U.S. Soccer Star Dishes On 'Weird' Oval Office Moment With Trump Jen Psaki Uses Not 1 — But 2 — Scathing Supercuts To Undermine Trump's Latest Claim
The Independent
12 hours ago
- Politics
- The Independent
The most dangerous battle facing Trump isn't in Iran
It had the feel of two ageing dons sparring in the senior common room, both smugly full of self-admiration with their own cleverness. This was the encounter between two of MAGAs leading intellectual apostles: Senator Ted Cruz from Texas (Princeton University and Harvard Law) and one-time Fox News host, unrivalled leader in white grievance politics and influential beyond justification, Tucker Carlson. There was an 'en garde' – and from there they parried and counter-parried in an interview broadcast this week. There was the occasional lunge as the two 50-somethings engaged in their dialectic on the wisdom or otherwise of Donald Trump allowing the US to become dragged into the Iran / Israel conflict. It has been one of the articles of faith, one of the foundational beliefs of the MAGA movement that America should not be the world's policeman – although the isolationist, pull-up-the-drawbridge, let the rest of the world get on with it school of thought is nothing new. There's always been that strand to American thought, even if Donald Trump is shouting it more loudly. There is also a more practical, realpolitik side to it in Trump's mind. Put simply, what good did it ever do a president? LBJ felled by Vietnam; Bush 43 and his neocon Iraq misadventure; Biden and the calamitous Afghan withdrawal. In Trump's mind nothing positive ever comes of it, so why go there in the first place. For all the lofty words between messers Cruz and Carlson the row boils down to this. According to Carlson, if America First means anything it requires you staying out of other people's wars. Meanwhile, Ted 'yeah, but' Cruz's view was Iran is a menace, we like Israel, they are our ally and we have to be on their side – and the clincher: the mullahs in Tehran had earlier made clear they wanted to assassinate Trump, so America does have a dog in the fight. It is a fault line that is running through MAGA. And where the president, who just celebrated his 79th birthday with a military parade in Washington, is seemingly treading tentatively. Leave aside the paradox of Trump wanting a military parade for an armed forces he never wants to use (except maybe for vanity parades through the centre of DC, or to deploy for civil protests in California), the acolytes are picking up their ideological swords and clashing with each other over whether to send a B-2 bomber from the US airbase at Diego Garcia armed with a MOP, a 30,000 pound 'Massive Ordnance Penetrator' strapped to the undercarriage to bomb Iran's nuclear site buried deep in the mountains. Trump has said he will decide in the next two weeks if the US will get directly involved in supporting Israel's attacks. The most interesting intervention has come from the vice president, JD Vance, who is seen as an arch proponent of isolationism. Of course, he has to do the president's bidding – but his was a carefully argued case on X (if anything be carefully litigated on X). His argument was that if Iran was only interested in civil nuclear power, why did it need to enhance uranium to the levels they were doing. And therefore if Iran got hold of a nuclear weapon, just think what a menace they would be to American interests in the Middle East. Understandably, around the world the question of whether the US will get involved in attacking Iran is garnering all the headlines headlines – it could be the most consequential decision of Trump's second term. But within the US there is another foundational argument about the core principles of MAGA roiling the populist right. And it's over illegal immigration. Go to more out less any restaurant in the US and you will find there are two classes of servers. There are the waiters and waitresses who will take your food order – and in Washington they are invariably college kids, and in New York out of work actors. And then there is the lower strata of plate clearers and water glass fillers. And they are more often than not Hispanic. It is the same in garden work or road construction. Likewise hotels. And in the fruit basket of California – the central belt – almost all the fruit is picked by Latinos. A huge percentage of these workers are 'illegals', totally in the crosshairs of Trump's promise to purge the US of this shadow workforce. The problem is – just like over whether to bomb Iran – ideological purity is banging its head against practical politics. Trump this week told his immigration chief to ease off the gas when it comes to deporting hotel workers and those in the fields and those clearing the plates. Why? Because a lot of these industries would collapse without the plentiful supply of cheap immigrant labour. And Trump's wealthy friends with hotel chains and big agriculture interests have told him so. Cue MAGA divisions over whether the president is going soft and betraying his promises. All of which brings us to the president himself. The Iran decision is weighing heavily. He has given himself a two-week window to make his call. But to those who question his MAGA bona fides he more or less said this: I invented it, I decide what it means – and anyway my base loves me more than it ever did. All of which could lead one to the uncomfortable conclusion, that the real battle for Trump is at home, not Iran.
