US ambassador Mike Huckabee says Israel taking all Middle East land would be fine

US ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee has said it would be “fine” if Israel took “all” Middle East land—a line delivered not at a campaign rally but in an interview with Tucker Carlson.

According to The Guardian, Huckabee—an outspoken Christian and former Arkansas governor appointed by the Trump administration—discussed an Old Testament passage describing land promised to Abraham’s descendants “from the wadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates.” Carlson noted that, mapped onto modern borders, the claim would swallow the Levant and reach into parts of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Huckabee replied that it would be “a big piece of land,” then added: “It would be fine if they took it all.”

Al Jazeera reports similar remarks and frames them as a US envoy normalizing territorial expansion across the region.

This is not a policy paper; it is theology as geostrategy—except it still has consequences because it is spoken by a US official whose job is to represent Washington in a war zone. The same US state that insists it is merely “supporting an ally” is also importing a maximalist, quasi-scriptural map into an already combustible security environment.

Carlson’s role in the exchange is also telling. The Guardian notes Carlson has increasingly questioned US support for Israel, pushing him toward the fringes of the MAGA coalition. Huckabee represents the older pro-Israel right: less “strategic ambiguity,” more divine deed.

The interview follows a mini-drama over Carlson’s claims that he was detained at Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion airport—claims denied by Israeli and US officials. Former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett called Carlson “chickenshit,” The Guardian reports, while Huckabee defended Israel’s airport security as routine.

None of this changes borders tomorrow. But it does change incentives. When a US envoy treats maximal territorial claims as morally acceptable, regional actors—Tehran, Hezbollah, Gulf monarchies hosting US bases—have less reason to believe de-escalation is rewarded. It feeds the security dilemma: each side assumes the other’s “defensive” posture masks expansionist intent.

And it lands at a moment when Washington is already escalating its military posture toward Iran and demanding Tehran accept sweeping constraints. If US power is being justified with a mix of aircraft carriers and Bible verses, no one should be surprised when rivals hedge accordingly.

States love to insist their foreign policy is “rules-based.” Huckabee’s version is refreshingly candid: the rulebook is Genesis, and the enforcement mechanism is the US Navy.