Cruz Calls Tucker "Crazy" For Not Wanting Another Mid-East War

The Daily Mail has a couple articles this morning about a contentious interview between Sen. Ted Cruz and Tucker Carlson (see here and here). 

    The main point of contention seems to have been the amount and type of support that the U.S. was giving Israel in its bombings of Iran, and whether the conflict could result in a wider war. Interestingly, as both articles note, Cruz seemed admitted that while Israel is carrying out the actual bombing, we are supporting Israel (although, to be fair, there is no mention on how we are supporting them--certainly, for instance, we have been supplying them with weapons and assisting in shooting down Iranian missiles; and I suspect that we have provided tankers to assist in refueling Israeli aircraft). The first article continues:

    Cruz reacted to the early release of the interview clip on Wednesday morning on his own podcast.

    'I will say, on foreign policy, Tucker has gone bat crap crazy. He's gone off the rails. He is suddenly a hardcore isolationist,' Cruz said. 

I would like to know when opposition to the U.S. getting involved in yet another Middle-Eastern war became "crazy". By that metric, George Washington was also "bat crap crazy" when he warned the country to avoid foreign entanglements. In fact, most of our political and military leaders before President Wilson must have been "bat crap crazy".  

     It certainly not crazy to think that at some point the U.S. gets pulled more directly into the conflict. Another article from the Daily Mail--"The only way Israel can possibly take out Iran's most heavily fortified Fordow nuclear enrichment facility - with Trump's help"--indicates that Israel does not have the bunker buster weapons and capability to take out Iran's deeply fortified sites like the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant or the underground nuclear facilities at Isfahan. Moreover, Dr Andreas Krieg, an expert in Middle East security and senior lecturer at King's College London's School of Security Studies, warns that "continued attacks by Israel may have the opposite of their intended effect."

    Going after Iran's nuclear programme could 'reinforce Tehran's belief that a nuclear deterrent is not only justified but essential for regime survival'. 

    'Rather than halting Iran's nuclear trajectory, the strikes may serve as a powerful vindication of the logic that drives Iran's long-term nuclear ambition - deterrence through capability,' he said.  

The implication is that even if Iran didn't want nuclear weapons before, they will certainly want them now. And, if Trump's policy that Iran not have a nuclear weapon is to see its fruition, the U.S. will have to become more involved in not just the destruction of the remaining underground nuclear facilities, but perhaps regime change. 

• See also "Bunker buster bombs: The American weapon which could spell the end of Iran’s nuclear sites"--The Telegraph.  Discussing how the 13.6 ton U.S. Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) is the only non-nuclear weapon that could reach these deeply buried and fortified sites.