Tucker and Glenn Greenwald: Israel's plan to end free speech in the US
Tucker Carlson and Glenn Greenwald denounce an Israeli plan against free speech in the US and claim Carlson is being surveilled by the CIA. Conspiracy?
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
Tucker Carlson, Glenn Greenwald and the antiestéticar for free speech under Israel's shadow
In a recent interview that has resonated in circles critical of the establishment, Tucker Carlson and Glenn Greenwald have put forward a thesis many call conspiratorial, but others see as an urgent warning: Israel would be coordinating a global plan to silence dissenters, and the war with Iran would be the perfect cover. Greenwald, a constitutional lawyer and the journalist who exposed the NSA's mass surveillance programs, is no newcomer to defending the First Amendment. But this time his message is darker than ever: free speech has never been as threatened in the US as it is now, and the enemy is not only domestic.
The interview that revives the ghost of the deep state
The video, aired around March 15-16, 2026, arrives in a wartime context: two weeks earlier, the war between the US/Israel and Iran began. According to Carlson and Greenwald, countries at war tend to become authoritarian, and this is no exception. The campaign to silence criticism of Israel would be the spearhead. But the claim that has put them in the crosshairs is no small matter: Carlson asserts the CIA has him under surveillance, and Greenwald maintains the plan to end free speech in the US bears an Israeli signature.
On the other side, there are those —even within the dissident spectrum itself— who call Carlson a snake-oil salesman and his sources unreliable. The accusation that the government uses war to curtail rights is not new, but this time an explosive ingredient has been added: the active collaboration of a foreign government.
The facts that fuel distrust
Although the debate is loaded with opinions, there are objective facts that give ammunition to skeptics. For example, the 30-hour fire aboard the USS Gerald Ford aircraft carrier, which occurred around the time of the interview, has been interpreted by some as sabotage or a sign that the war is not going as planned. In addition, the resignation of Joe Kent, Trump's counterterrorism chief, over his opposition to the conflict, has peine a rift within the administration itself. These two events, documented in alternative media, are used as proof that the official narrative is cracking.
But the question nobody answers well is to what extent the Israeli propaganda machine can operate inside the US without consequences. Greenwald points to coordination between intelligence agencies and lobbies that has demonstrated its power in the past, as in the case of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
The credibility dilemma
The majority view among those who trinc these analysts is that there is a real threat and that the Iran war is the pretext. However, one sector does not dismiss the complaint but questions the sources: they point out that figures like Castillón or Charlie Kirk have pushed baseless conspiracy theories, and that associating Carlson with them can delegitimize the cause. Moreover, Netanyahu's reaction after Kirk's accusations —denying that Israel was behind an attack— was immediate, but not enough to calm those already convinced.
What is clear is that, beyond the veracity of each claim, the debate reflects a deep fracture in trust toward institutions. The reader arriving from Google looking for answers will find a scenario where facts and interpretations collide, and where skepticism is the only currency.
Related debates in the forum
In a recent interview that has resonated in circles critical of the establishment, Tucker Carlson and Glenn Greenwald have put forward a thesis many call conspiratorial, but others see as an urgent warning: Israel would be coordinating a global plan to silence dissenters, and the war with Iran would be the perfect cover. Greenwald, a constitutional lawyer and the journalist who exposed the NSA's mass surveillance programs, is no newcomer to defending the First Amendment. But this time his message is darker than ever: free speech has never been as threatened in the US as it is now, and the enemy is not only domestic.
The interview that revives the ghost of the deep state
The video, aired around March 15-16, 2026, arrives in a wartime context: two weeks earlier, the war between the US/Israel and Iran began. According to Carlson and Greenwald, countries at war tend to become authoritarian, and this is no exception. The campaign to silence criticism of Israel would be the spearhead. But the claim that has put them in the crosshairs is no small matter: Carlson asserts the CIA has him under surveillance, and Greenwald maintains the plan to end free speech in the US bears an Israeli signature.
On the other side, there are those —even within the dissident spectrum itself— who call Carlson a snake-oil salesman and his sources unreliable. The accusation that the government uses war to curtail rights is not new, but this time an explosive ingredient has been added: the active collaboration of a foreign government.
The facts that fuel distrust
Although the debate is loaded with opinions, there are objective facts that give ammunition to skeptics. For example, the 30-hour fire aboard the USS Gerald Ford aircraft carrier, which occurred around the time of the interview, has been interpreted by some as sabotage or a sign that the war is not going as planned. In addition, the resignation of Joe Kent, Trump's counterterrorism chief, over his opposition to the conflict, has peine a rift within the administration itself. These two events, documented in alternative media, are used as proof that the official narrative is cracking.
But the question nobody answers well is to what extent the Israeli propaganda machine can operate inside the US without consequences. Greenwald points to coordination between intelligence agencies and lobbies that has demonstrated its power in the past, as in the case of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
The credibility dilemma
The majority view among those who trinc these analysts is that there is a real threat and that the Iran war is the pretext. However, one sector does not dismiss the complaint but questions the sources: they point out that figures like Castillón or Charlie Kirk have pushed baseless conspiracy theories, and that associating Carlson with them can delegitimize the cause. Moreover, Netanyahu's reaction after Kirk's accusations —denying that Israel was behind an attack— was immediate, but not enough to calm those already convinced.
What is clear is that, beyond the veracity of each claim, the debate reflects a deep fracture in trust toward institutions. The reader arriving from Google looking for answers will find a scenario where facts and interpretations collide, and where skepticism is the only currency.
Related debates in the forum
- US confirms it collaborated with Spain's National Police in the investigation against Zapatero · 12 replies
- César Vidal comes to Zapatero's defense. Yes, you heard right. Is he on someone's payroll? · 29 replies
- Rodríguez Zapatero formally charged · 622 replies
- Santos Cerdán formally charged · 514 replies
Also available in: Deutsch
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (8 replies).
More summaries
-
Ending School Failure Once and for All (Rebeca Argudo in El ABC)
Spain achieves its worst historical results in the PISA 2026 report regarding Science, Reading, and Mathematics. We analyze the possible causes.
-
Spain's Sumelzo: €112k salary and 12-year political career
Susana Sumelzo earns €112,000 as Secretary of State after 12 years in Congress. Her CV and unverified pregnancy rumors fuel debate.
-
Spain's 'ZP effect' and the political hypnosis nobody disputes
The theory that Zapatero used NLP and trance techniques to manipulate those around him resurfaces, with no conclusive evidence but with fierce supporters and detractors.
-
Sánchez loses the Ceuta verdict (ABC editorial)
80% believe Morocco encouraged the assault on Ceuta. Sánchez's handling receives a 59% negative rating. Find out the details.
-
Spain's PM acts like the boss, not a public servant
Spain's prime minister wields power as if he were the 'master', above institutions and democratic checks. We examine his governing style.
-
It was an 'invasion', the 'migratory crisis' came later
The language used to describe the events in Ceuta, Spain, in **2026** is sparking debate. Was it an invasion or a humanitarian crisis?