In a recent interview with Tucker Carlson, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz made a bold and controversial statement: “We are biblically commanded to support Israel.” This declaration, while resonating with a particular segment of American evangelical voters, raises urgent questions about the intersection of religion, foreign policy, and political financing. When viewed through the lens of Cruz’s well-documented connections with pro-Israel lobbying groups such as AIPAC, this biblical framing begins to look less like divine guidance and more like political theatre.
Biblical Command or Political Strategy?
Senator Cruz’s invocation of biblical doctrine as a justification for unwavering U.S. support of Israel isn’t new. Still, its timing and delivery—on a platform like Tucker Carlson’s—suggests a calculated move. As support for Israel has become increasingly contentious in the wake of humanitarian concerns over the Gaza conflict, Cruz’s statement appears to be a rhetorical shield. By invoking scripture, he effectively reframes foreign policy as a moral obligation, thus stifling dissent or debate.
But what exactly is the scriptural foundation for this claim? And more importantly, why do certain political figures insist on tying U.S. foreign relations to religious narratives?
“It’s not about theology. It’s about power and money,” says Dr. Emily West, professor of political communication at Columbia University. “When politicians invoke religion in foreign policy, especially in the context of the Middle East, it’s often to obscure the financial and geopolitical motivations behind their stance.”
The AIPAC Connection: Follow the Money
Ted Cruz has long enjoyed the backing of pro-Israel lobby groups, most notably AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee). Public campaign finance records show that Cruz has received millions in donations from AIPAC-linked individuals and PACs throughout his political career.
According to OpenSecrets and Federal Election Commission (FEC) data:
- In the 2024 election cycle, Cruz received approximately $1.3 million from pro-Israel lobbyists (OpenSecrets Source).
- During the 2017–2018 cycle, he received around $363,794 from similar sources (FEC Data).
- In the 2016 cycle, he secured approximately $352,017 in pro-Israel PAC donations.
These donations span multiple campaign cycles and are supported by his regular appearances at AIPAC events and his high rating among their endorsed candidates (AIPAC Speeches Archive).
These financial connections raise doubts about the sincerity of his biblical argument. Critics argue that the senator is using religious language to mask what is, in essence, a geopolitical alliance guided by campaign dollars.
Weaponizing Religion in Policy Discourse
The bigger question: Why does this matter?
Framing U.S. foreign policy as a biblical command removes the discussion from the realm of rational debate. It simplifies complex international dynamics into good vs. evil narratives and discourages critique by implying that any opposition is unholy or immoral. This religious framing has serious consequences:
- Suppresses legitimate policy debate
- Obscures the human rights concerns tied to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
- Politicizes religion, eroding the secular foundations of governance
The political utility of such rhetoric is undeniable. It consolidates evangelical voter bases, garners favor with influential donors, and deflects scrutiny. But the moral cost is high. American citizens deserve transparency in foreign policy, not theology masquerading as statecraft.
Explore more in our Israel–Palestine Conflict category for in-depth analysis and the latest updates on this ongoing issue.
Public Opinion and Political Performance
Polling data from Pew and Gallup suggest that while evangelical support for Israel remains high, younger Americans and Democrats are increasingly critical of unconditional U.S. support for the Israeli government, especially in light of human rights abuses in Gaza (Pew Research Poll, Gallup Report).
In this shifting landscape, politicians like Ted Cruz use biblical language not only to reinforce their base but also to distract from criticism. When confronted with civilian casualties, expanding settlements, or international condemnation, a divine mandate can conveniently redirect the conversation.
Final Thoughts: Time to Decode the Distractions
Ted Cruz’s interview clip is more than a religious statement—it is a political maneuver. By declaring biblical obligation, he bypasses public discourse, silences criticism, and shields himself with scripture while protecting the interests of financial backers.
In this moment, it’s essential for voters, especially those who value critical thinking and transparency, to see through the fog of moralistic distractions. Israel is a sovereign state. The United States is a secular republic. And policies—especially those involving military aid and international alliances—should be debated in terms of law, ethics, and strategic interest, not Old Testament scripture.
Stay tuned for our video breakdown of this clip on Decoding Affairs’ social media and YouTube. We’ll continue exposing how power, money, and messaging intersect to shape the political narrative.