America First, Not “Israel” First

By Mohamad Hammoud

How Tucker Carlson Is Rewiring US Opinion—and Why the Middle East Is Watching Closely

For decades, US support for “Israel” functioned like political gravity: ever-present, unquestioned, and immune to dissent. That gravity is weakening. The shift has not yet altered realities on the ground in Lebanon or the Middle East, but it is laying the political conditions that eventually will. At the center of this change stands a single, polarizing figure who has done more than most to move American opinion from instinctive loyalty to open skepticism: Tucker Carlson.

Scale, Not Subtlety: Why Carlson Matters

Carlson’s importance is not ideological nuance. It is a scale. Until his departure from Fox News in 2023, Carlson hosted the most-watched prime-time show in American cable news, averaging roughly 3.5 million viewers a night, according to Nielsen data reported by CNN. Since then, his independent platform has retained a massive audience across podcasts and social media, rivaling the reach of legacy television.

In American politics, reach is power. When someone with Carlson’s audience changes direction, the ecosystem reacts—donors recalibrate, activists follow and politicians take notes.

From Establishment Conservatism to “America First”

Carlson’s background helps explain why his pivot landed so hard. He is not a left-wing activist or an academic critic of US foreign policy. He is a product of elite American conservatism: the son of a Reagan-era official, educated at boarding schools, fluent in the language of the establishment. For years, he echoed mainstream Republican positions, including firm support for “Israel.”

That history gave his break credibility on the right. When Carlson challenged the consensus, he did so as an insider, not an outsider—and that distinction mattered.

Breaking the Taboo on “Israel”

Over the past year, Carlson has made that break unmistakable. Responding to calls by "Israeli" Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich to cut off water to Gaza, Carlson said on his show, “We do not kill people because of how they were born. We are Christians.” On another broadcast, he dismissed prominent Christian Zionists, including Senator Ted Cruz and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, as “the people I dislike more than anybody,” accusing them of subordinating American interests to a foreign state.

His argument is strategic, not sentimental. Carlson has repeatedly warned that unconditional US backing for “Israel” risks dragging the United States into a regional war with Iran—one he says Americans neither want nor benefit from. “I’m an American,” he said. “My loyalty is to my country. Not to any other country.”

When Opinion Becomes Permission

That framing—America First, not “Israel” First—has resonated beyond Carlson’s base. According to Gallup polling cited by Reuters, sympathy for “Israel” among Americans has fallen below 50 percent for the first time since the early 2000s. Pew Research Center surveys show younger Americans now view the “Israeli” government more negatively than positively.

Carlson did not create these numbers. He legitimized them inside conservative media. As one senior evangelical leader warned in comments reported by an “Israeli” newspaper, parts of the MAGA base are now “turning against 'Israel',” with Carlson “setting the tone.”

From Media to the Ballot Box

The shift has begun to appear at the ballot box. In New York City, Zohran Mamdani won a local election after rejecting pro-“Israel” PAC money and calling Gaza “a live-streamed genocide.” The race took place in one of the most Jewish-populated urban districts in the world. According to election analysts, the result broke a psychological barrier: candidates can now criticize “Israel” and still win.

That lesson travels fast in American politics.

Why Lebanon Is Paying Attention

Lebanon and the Middle East have not yet felt the policy impact of these changes—but they will. US military aid to “Israel,” roughly $3.8 billion annually as reported by the Congressional Research Service, depends on congressional approval. Historically, sustained drops in public support generate pressure to condition or limit that aid.

For Lebanon, this is not abstract. “Israeli” military doctrine has long relied on unconditional US diplomatic cover. When that assumption weakens, escalation becomes riskier. A divided Washington is less willing to absorb global backlash on “Israel’s” behalf.

A Shift Before the Shift

Foreign Affairs recently argued that the era of “'Israeli' exceptionalism” in US policy is ending—not because Washington has changed overnight, but because American society has. Carlson’s role fits squarely into that diagnosis. He did not invent skepticism; he mainstreamed it where it once could not exist.

That is why the Middle East is watching. When American opinion moves, policy eventually follows—slowly, unevenly but decisively. For Lebanon, a country that has paid the price of US-backed “Israeli” wars for decades, this is not a media story. It is an early signal of a strategic shift whose consequences have yet to arrive.