It's true that Tucker Carlson is saying something different from the rest of Fox on Iran, but it's important to review exactly what he is saying before arguing that he's on your side -- and to assess the possible downstream consequences.
The argument that Trump is being betrayed by advisers who want to distract his attention from the "invasion" and undocumented immigrants in the U.S. is well-crafted for Trump, a paranoid racist who responds to direct criticism with hyperaggression.
Problems include: 1) What happens if Trump does turn his attention back to vulnerable populations at the border/in this country? 2) How does the rest of the audience respond to the virulent "invasion" talk? mediamatters.org/immigration/ye…
There's a benefit to having anti-war arguments reach the Fox audience. When these are the arguments that are being made, there are also tremendous risks.
(Of course it's insane that a cable news host has a direct line to the president of the United States through his television set, but that's the world we live in I don't make the rules.)
Looks like if Trump is listening to a Fox host on Iran right now, it isn’t Carlson. 
Carlson, Hannity, Hegseth, Dobbs... they all offer somewhat different flavors of commentary and have their own unique obsessions. But when Trump is taking advice from any of them, it generally isn’t going to go well for the country.
Here's the column-length version of this thread: mediamatters.org/tucker-carlson…
