Ambassador Claims Israel Owns Five Countries NOW

U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee sparked international controversy by declaring Israel has biblical rights to vast Middle Eastern territories spanning from the Nile to the Euphrates Rivers, before attempting to walk back the explosive statement as hyperbole.

Story Snapshot

Huckabee told Tucker Carlson “it would be fine” if Israel took land covering Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Palestinian territories based on Genesis 15
The ambassador invoked Christian Zionist theology during a 165-minute interview that aired February 20, 2026, immediately drawing criticism from Arab media outlets
Huckabee quickly backpedaled, calling his remarks hyperbolic and clarifying Israel only seeks to protect current territory, not conquer neighboring nations
The exchange highlights growing tensions between evangelical foreign policy views and practical diplomatic considerations under the Trump administration

Biblical Justification for Territorial Claims

Huckabee’s statement referenced Genesis 15:18-21, which describes God’s promise to Abraham of land stretching from Egypt’s Nile River to Iraq’s Euphrates River. The ambassador told Carlson during the interview that this biblical covenant entitles Israel to these vast territories, which would encompass multiple sovereign nations including Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and all Palestinian lands. This “Greater Israel” concept has been invoked by some Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to justify settlement expansion beyond 1967 borders. Huckabee’s willingness to explicitly endorse such maximalist claims represents an unusually direct application of Christian Zionist theology to U.S. diplomatic policy.

Immediate Retreat From Controversial Position

Within the same interview, Huckabee attempted damage control by characterizing his statement as hyperbolic rather than a policy position. He clarified that Israel is “not trying to take over Jordan” or other neighboring countries, but added the qualifier that “if they win a war, that’s a whole other discussion.” This hedging reveals the tension between theological conviction and diplomatic reality. The ambassador emphasized Israel’s focus remains on defending current territory rather than pursuing conquests, yet his initial remarks had already provided ammunition to critics who view U.S.-Israel relations as dangerously one-sided and disconnected from regional stability concerns.

Carlson’s Skepticism Reflects Conservative Divide

Tucker Carlson’s pointed questioning during the interview exposed fractures within conservative foreign policy circles. Carlson, who recently criticized Huckabee for ignoring Christian persecution under Israeli occupation, pressed the ambassador on the practical implications of biblical literalism in modern geopolitics. This exchange matters because both men are Trump allies, yet Carlson represents a growing isolationist faction skeptical of unconditional Israel support. The confrontation aired on Carlson’s influential platform, reaching millions of conservative viewers who may share concerns about endless Middle Eastern entanglements. Carlson’s willingness to challenge Huckabee signals that questioning pro-Israel orthodoxy is no longer taboo among prominent conservative voices.

Regional Fallout and Policy Implications

Arabic media outlets, including Al-Quds, condemned Huckabee’s remarks as provocative and dangerous to regional stability. The statement threatens to undermine U.S. relations with Arab allies including Jordan, Egypt, and Gulf states who rely on American security guarantees. Palestinians and Arab Christians viewed the comments as validation of their worst fears about U.S. diplomatic intentions. While no official Trump administration response has emerged, Huckabee’s position as ambassador means his words carry governmental weight, even when later softened. The controversy demonstrates how mixing religious conviction with diplomacy can create unnecessary friction. For conservatives who prioritize American interests over ideological commitments, Huckabee’s biblical maximalism raises questions about whether such rhetoric serves U.S. strategic goals or unnecessarily antagonizes regional partners while empowering extremists on all sides.