Donald Trump has the Bart Simpson-like gift of getting away with almost anything he says. His acolytes do not. It is a lesson US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee has just learnt the hard way after setting off a diplomatic storm by telling Tucker Carlson that it would be “fine if they took it all” — referring to the biblical view that Israel’s promised land stretches from the Nile to the Euphrates.
Saudi Arabia swiftly called the remarks dangerous and inconsistent with international law. Jordan described them as an assault on regional sovereignty. Egypt warned they violated diplomatic norms and undermined prospects for peace. The UAE signalled that such rhetoric complicates already fragile regional diplomacy. Huckabee later called the comment “somewhat hyperbolic.” The Middle East did not.
What Huckabee said and how Arab nations reacted
In the interview, Carlson asked Huckabee whether Israel had a biblical right to territory spanning essentially the entire Middle East. Huckabee replied: “It would be fine if they took it all. But I don’t think that’s what we’re talking about here today.” He added that Israel was not trying to conquer neighbouring states and was “asking to take the land that they now occupy and protect its people,” referring to Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. Later, he described his earlier remark as “somewhat of a hyperbolic statement” and subsequently argued that parts of the exchange had been taken out of context.
The response from Arab capitals was unusually coordinated and unusually direct.
Saudi Arabia’s foreign ministry described the comments as “dangerous” and “irresponsible,” saying they violate international law and the UN Charter, and reaffirmed that any sustainable peace must rest on recognised borders and a Palestinian state.
Jordan called the remarks “an assault on the sovereignty of the states of the region” and labelled them “absurd and provocative,” warning that such rhetoric threatens regional stability.
President Donald Trump speaks with Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman during the Saudi Investment Forum at the Kennedy Center, Wednesday, Nov. 19, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
Egypt said the comments represented a “blatant violation” of diplomatic norms and stressed that Israel has no sovereignty over occupied Arab lands, framing the remarks as incompatible with a viable political settlement.
The United Arab Emirates, in coordination with regional partners, made clear that peace efforts require restraint and clarity, not expansive interpretations of scripture.
These were not isolated rebukes. A broader joint statement signed by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, Turkey, Indonesia, Pakistan, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Lebanon, Oman, Syria, the Palestinian Authority, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the Arab League described the ambassador’s words as “dangerous and inflammatory remarks” that constitute “a flagrant violation of the principles of international law and the Charter of the United Nations” and pose “a grave threat to the security and stability of the region.” The statement reaffirmed support for a two-state solution and warned that maximalist language undermines de-escalation.
In Washington, the US Embassy in Jerusalem said Huckabee’s comments were taken out of context and did not signal any change in US policy. The administration moved quickly to reassure partners that there was no shift in America’s formal position.
The balancing act inside Washington
The objective was continuity. Trump’s second-term Middle East strategy rests on calibrated pressure: project strength, keep adversaries guessing, avoid large-scale entanglement. It is signalling without open-ended commitment. That approach depends on message discipline. If allies conclude that theological conviction is shaping diplomatic language, they hedge. When they hedge, leverage erodes. Huckabee’s remark forced the administration to reassure partners that scripture is not strategy.
The deeper divide within MAGA
The timing matters. The Israel–Iran confrontation had already exposed a philosophical split inside MAGA. The coalition that returned Trump to office was unified by a promise of strength without endless war. One camp — including Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz — argues that foreign interventions hollow out American power. For them, Iraq remains a cautionary tale. “America First” means restraint.
Another camp — including Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Mark Levin and Sean Hannity — sees Iran as a systemic threat and views unwavering alignment with Israel as both moral obligation and strategic necessity.
Read:
Inside MAGA's Israel Civil War Vice President JD Vance has aligned himself closely with Trump’s calibrated posture, avoiding overt identification with either faction.
Huckabee did not create this divide. He exposed it.
Theology and statecraft
For many evangelical voters, support for Israel is rooted in covenant theology. Genesis 15:18 is not metaphor; it is promise. Christian Zionism sees modern Israel as intertwined with divine commitment. That belief commands loyalty inside the Republican base. American foreign policy, however, operates through international law and negotiated borders. When a US diplomat invokes expansive sacred geography, the line between faith and policy appears blurred. Arab governments see instability in that blur. Populist MAGA voters see the risk of being pulled into confrontation by ideological fervour.
The question is not about scripture itself. It is about whether scripture should frame statecraft.
Bored of Peace?
Trump’s political skill lies in holding together constituencies that do not fully agree. Evangelical fervour, nationalist restraint and strategic hawkishness coexist because he rarely forces them into open conflict. The Middle East, however, has a habit of demanding clarity.
Lean too heavily toward maximalism and Arab partners recoil while anti-war populists grow uneasy. Lean too visibly toward restraint and hawks accuse weakness. Trump’s method has been ambiguity controlled from the centre — project strength, avoid entanglement, keep everyone guessing but not alarmed. Huckabee’s comment briefly shifted that control outward.
It also lands awkwardly against one of Trump’s signature second-term initiatives: the so-called “Board of Peace,” his framework for coordinating Gaza reconstruction and broader regional stabilisation. That effort depends on Arab governments not merely tolerating Washington’s role, but actively participating in it — politically, financially and diplomatically.
When a US ambassador appears comfortable invoking maximalist biblical geography, it complicates that ask. Arab states cannot publicly endorse a reconstruction and security framework if their domestic audiences suspect Washington is sympathetic to expansionist rhetoric. Even if policy has not changed, perception alone can slow cooperation. The Board of Peace was designed to project steadiness and American leverage. Huckabee’s remark introduced volatility into that equation. And in a region where diplomacy already runs on narrow margins, volatility is expensive.
The larger picture
No borders have shifted. No doctrine has been rewritten. No troops have moved because of a podcast exchange. And yet, a single sentence exposed how narrow the margin for error is when theology and diplomacy share the same microphone. Arab capitals did not treat the remark as colourful rhetoric. They issued formal condemnations, invoked international law, and demanded clarity. Not because they believed Israel was about to expand to the Euphrates, but because ambiguity from Washington is destabilising in itself.
Inside MAGA, the comment resurfaced an argument that never fully disappeared. One wing sees strength in unwavering alignment and deterrence. Another sees strength in restraint and avoiding another Middle Eastern entanglement. Huckabee’s language touched that nerve.
Trump’s political skill has always been his ability to hold these instincts together without forcing a choice between them. Evangelical conviction, nationalist caution and hardline deterrence coexist under his banner because he rarely allows one to overpower the others.
In 2026, the most consequential tension may not be between Washington and Tehran, but within the coalition that governs Washington. It is a coalition attempting to reconcile faith, force and fatigue — and discovering that even a stray sentence can tilt that balance.
Because in geopolitics, words are not harmless. They are signals. And signals, in this region, are never ignored.