Conservative historian and political commentator Victor Davis Hanson delivered a measured but forceful rebuttal to Tucker Carlson, pushing back strongly against Carlson’s claim that U.S. ties with Qatar hold greater strategic value than the American alliance with Israel.

In a recent podcast clip, Hanson expressed clear disappointment while dismantling Carlson’s argument point by point. “I would like to say—it pains me to say this—but the Tucker that is talking is not the one that I had a seven-to-eight-year relationship with every Monday after the monologue,” Hanson said. “But to be frank, everything he just said is demonstrably untrue.”

Hanson rejected the notion that Qatar offers more to U.S. strategic interests than Israel, arguing that such a claim ignores decades of historical, cultural, and practical realities. He emphasized Israel’s role as a stabilizing force rooted in Judeo-Christian values that align closely with Western civilization and American political culture. According to Hanson, this shared foundation is not symbolic but has shaped consistent military, intelligence, and diplomatic cooperation over generations.

He further highlighted Israel’s tangible contributions to American interests, including its emergence as an energy-independent natural gas exporter, reducing reliance on unstable regimes. Hanson also pointed to Israeli innovations such as drip irrigation, which have been adopted by American farmers and continue to improve agricultural efficiency in arid regions of the United States.

Hanson contrasted Israel’s record with Qatar’s, noting that while Qatar hosts U.S. assets, it simultaneously maintains relationships with hostile actors and funds institutions that often undermine Western interests. In his view, equating transactional basing arrangements with a deep strategic alliance reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of long-term national security.

The exchange underscores a growing divide within conservative foreign policy debates, particularly as some voices attempt to downplay Israel’s importance in favor of short-term geopolitical calculations. Hanson’s response framed Israel not as a liability or optional partner, but as one of America’s most reliable allies in a volatile region.

By calmly dismantling Carlson’s assertions without personal attacks, Hanson reinforced the case that U.S.–Israel relations are built on shared values, proven reliability, and real-world benefits — not convenience or fleeting diplomatic trends.