Tucker Carlson is Russian Propaganda, Period

Imagine an educated and well-known American commentator traveling to an authoritarian country to visit a supermarket, only to brag to his viewers that here, in this country, they even have shopping carts.

This might sound like a skit, but it’s the bizarre reality of the contemporary information wars—wars in which Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News host with a multi-million-strong audience on X, serves as a linchpin.

It was Carlson who visited a high-end French supermarket in central Moscow after interviewing Vladimir Putin in 2024. And it is also he who recently announced that he had recorded an exclusive interview with Iran’s newly elected president, Masoud Pezeshkian, which is slated for release soon.

Carlson’s choice of guests should come as no surprise, given his strong anti-Israel and anti-Ukraine views. Russia’s propaganda machine has long targeted Jerusalem—as I’ve explained in detail in my previous blog—and Carlson, at this point, is almost certainly part of that machine, given how easily he gains access to figures like Putin and Pezeshkian.

Any journalist knows that interviewing high-level officials—especially heads of state from authoritarian regimes—is a highly coordinated affair, typically reserved for individuals who agree to submit questions well in advance. Even in Russia, Putin does not grant interviews to federal channels. Instead, he communicates through lackeys like Pavel Zarubin, a reporter whose questions range from “Sir, are you a great ruler?” to “Indeed, the greatest?”

Compared to Zarubin, Carlson is both more independent and more sophisticated.

Even during his 2024 interview with Putin—which predictably turned into a blend of sci-fi historical revisionism reminiscent of Dr. Evil’s “the details of my life are quite inconsequential” monologue—Carlson occasionally showed visible emotion. His intemperance was even more pronounced during another interview when his claim that Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is “a dictator” was challenged. His reaction was so visibly strong and awkward that one couldn’t help but suspect the influence of a stimulant—especially given his history with alcohol and drug abuse.

His personal habits are not my concern; he is neither the first nor the last celebrity to fall prey to such vices. But they may also help explain why Carlson has transformed from a journalist and commentator—however controversial—into a full-fledged propagandist. He now openly flirts with rogue regimes, amplifies their narratives, and presents fiction as fact.

This was particularly evident during his conversation with Donald Trump’s special Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, who claimed that Soviet ruler Nikita Khrushchev made Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson oblasts part of Ukraine. Carlson found this “fascinating” and added that Khrushchev was “Ukrainian.”

There’s little doubt Witkoff picked up these “historical facts” during his now-defunct travels to Moscow. Khrushchev did not “give” Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson to Ukraine—they were already part of Ukraine. Nor was he Ukrainian.

Carlson, a graduate of Trinity College (a “little Ivy”), most certainly knows this. Yet he continues to espouse views that cannot be explained by ignorance—only by intent.

Geopolitics and national security are not a pub quiz, where you ask politicians the population of Iran, as Carlson did during his contentious interview with pro-Israel Senator Ted Cruz.

Nor do you interview one of Putin’s most vocal supporters, the Russian-Ukrainian oligarch in exile Vadim Novinsky—a complete unknown to Western audiences—on topics like “the oppression of Christians in Ukraine” and “Ukraine being a dictatorship” without inviting any actual religious leaders from Ukraine to comment. For instance, Chief Rabbi Moshe Reuven Azman, whose own son died fighting for Ukraine.

Unless, of course, you’re pursuing a deliberate agenda.

Which brings me to this: Carlson’s latest interview with Pezeshkian was likely facilitated by Moscow. And its goal isn’t to ensure that people “have the right to know and make up their minds who they believe,” but rather to sow doubt, cherry-pick narratives, and turn people against their own governments.

There’s really no other reason why an American would interview the leader of a country that chants “Death to America.”