How to Understand Tucker Carlson’s Interview with the President of Iran
When it comes to dictators, Tucker Carlson presents a false choice between censorship and softball interviews. There’s another way.
Fatima Abo Alasrar is the founder of the Ideology Machine Project and a senior policy analyst at the Washington Center for Yemeni Studies.
Hours after Tucker Carlson's interview with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian aired on Monday morning, Russian state media ran this headline: “Pezeshkian explained who is imposing the image of a belligerent Iran on the world.”
Who, indeed, was foisting the image of belligerence on the poor Islamic Republic? (The tired answer, of course, is Israel, not Tehran’s terrorist proxies or the violence it metes out against its own civilians.) The story spread fast. Russian outlets raved about the "sensational" conversation and presented Pezeshkian's claim that Israel manufactures Iran's violent image as fact. Iranian media celebrated their president, explaining to Americans that Iranians are for dialogue, conflating the people with the regime. Naturally, the US is not to be trusted. Meanwhile, Chinese reports doubled down on the stereotype of Israel as a shadowy villain by directly quoting Pezeshkian’s claim that Israel was behind the conflict.
Before the day was out, Carlson’s softball interview with Pezeshkian was ricocheting across authoritarian media echo chambers. Everything the Iranian dictator said was presented as some self-evident truth about the Middle East, validated by the man one Russian state broadcaster referred to as “the most respected journalist in America.”
This was to be expected. As someone who has studied Iranian information operations across the Middle East for two decades in Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, I can confirm: The pattern is glaringly consistent. Iran and its allies understand that Western audiences parse interviews like Carlson’s conversations with Pezeshkian or Vladimir Putin through a completely different framework than their own populations do. While in the US these interviews may seem like perfectly innocent reporting. But in Sana'a or Beirut, Pezeshkian's appearance on American media becomes proof of regime legitimacy. Screenshots quickly circulate through WhatsApp groups and Telegram channels as the interviewer moves on to the next question, having just handed Tehran a propaganda victory that would otherwise cost millions of dollars in conventional influence operations.
Carlson insists that his interview is consistent with democratic values of openness and critical thinking. Just as Pezeshkian points to an Israeli conspiracy, Carlson points to shadowy others who would “deny you that right” to hear all sides. However, he’s creating a false binary.
It’s never been about blocking Pezeshkian. The record and statements of the Iranian president—who ultimately serves Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei—are readily available. The issue is that Tucker Carlson let the obfuscations of a regime spokesperson go unchallenged. He softened the image of a hostile anti-American official and perpetrator of repression in Iran as a “heart surgeon.” (Bashar al Assad was an ophthalmologist, and Hitler a struggling artist.)
To be fair, Carlson did raise serious topics: Iran's nuclear ambitions, assassinations, sleeper cells, and chants of "death to America." The problem, again, wasn't the subjects Carlson broached; it was the complete lack of sincere follow-ups to Pezeshkian canned responses. In order to be a critical media consumer, it’s important to be able to tell the difference. When the Iranian president claimed religious edicts forbid nuclear weapons, Tucker could have asked which clerics issued these fatwas or whether they could be reversed. When Pezeshkian asserted that Iran "hasn't invaded another country in 200 years," a serious journalist might have asked about Iranian-backed proxies that have destabilized the entire region. He could have also asked why it is that Iranian officialdom calls Israel the “temporary entity.”The Iranian leader’s flat denials about sleeper cells demanded a reference to Jamshid Sharmahd, the American permanent resident who was kidnapped from Dubai, shipped to Oman, and executed after a show trial in Iran. Or Masih Alinijad, the Iranian-born US citizen and journalist whom Perzeshkian's regime tried to murder on American soil. From Tucker Carlson, nothing.
If you watch the interview, you'll notice the glaring power imbalance: Carlson poses each question with the tentative air of a schoolboy addressing his teacher: "Mr. President, thank you very much for doing this." Or "With respect, can you tell us..." When Pezeshkian offers the baffling explanation that "death to America" means death to policies, not people, Carlson simply moves on. No challenge. No demand for evidence.
This same deference was evident in his interview with Putin. The Russian dictator sat comfortably in his domain while the American interviewer seemed almost grateful for the opportunity. Yet when Carlson interviewed Ted Cruz, he interrupted constantly, showed visible frustration, and pressed the Texas senator on gaps in his knowledge of Iran. For a moment, Carlson revealed he could play the part of a serious journalist, even if his line of questioning was colored by his own agenda. But when it came to Putin or Pezeshkian, that critical edge was nowhere to be found, swapped out for courteous nods and softball questions
The contrast in approach reveals something deeper than inconsistency. It shows how proximity to authoritarian power seems to induce a suspicious passivity in those who are fierce with democratically-elected politicians. Carlson knows how to ask hard questions. He chooses not to when it’s convenient for the narrative he wants to spin.
But focusing on journalistic style alone misses the strategic implications. In an information ecosystem engineered for speed and volume, every unchallenged claim doesn't merely mislead; it becomes a durable piece of the propaganda infrastructure. By tomorrow, Pezeshkian's assertions: "Iran wants peace; it's all Netanyahu's fault," will have far outpaced any later correction or analysis. They become part of the baseline knowledge that shapes public opinion and, eventually, policy debates.
Consider what this means in concrete terms. Iran funds militias that target Americans in Iraq and Syria. It supplies drones that Russia uses to destroy Ukrainian cities. It encourages millions of Yemenis to chant death to Israel and America (and “curse the Jews!”) It coordinates with China to evade sanctions while developing nuclear capabilities. It explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel, America's key regional ally. And for all of this, one of the primary offenders in Tehran gets the reach and credibility of American media.
The damage is felt on multiple levels. Inside Iran, the regime gained a propaganda victory it couldn't achieve through state media alone: Western validation of its peaceful intentions narrative. For allied governments trying to maintain sanctions coalitions, the interview complicated their messaging. Many among Carlson’s devoted American audience watched and emerged convinced that Iran is simply misunderstood. Comments sections filled with viewers thanking Carlson for revealing that the real warmongers are in Washington and West Jerusalem, not Tehran.
Compare this interview to Iran’s traditional information operations. Less than a decade ago, the University of Toronto’s CitizenLab exposed a complex Tehran-backed disinformation network dubbed “Endless Mayfly.” The web of fake personas and fabricated stories represented a complicated, expensive operation. An interview with an American like Tucker Carlson is far simpler, and potentially more effective.
The solution isn't censorship or a refusal to engage. It's developing literacy for the propaganda battle. Just as we teach financial literacy or digital safety, we need frameworks for recognizing narrative warfare when it appears. When an interviewer pre-announces they won't ask hard questions, that's not transparency; it's surrender. When authoritarian leaders get unchallenged platforms while their victims remain nameless, that's not balance; it's complicity.
What can be done? Media platforms should require disclosure when interviews include pre-conditions or avoided topics. Journalists interviewing hostile actors should be held to the same fact-checking standards as their subjects. Most importantly, for every hour given to authoritarians, we should commit to amplifying the voices they silence; the dissidents, the exiles, the witnesses who can provide actual counter-narratives.
Our openness is being weaponized against us. The same democratic values that make us want to "hear all sides" are being exploited by authoritarians who permit no dissent in their own domains. From Moscow to Tehran to Beijing, they've found willing partners in Western media who see more profit in platforming dictators than in challenging them. This week's interview was their latest victory.
Related Content
Former NATO Supreme Commander: Why Iran Can't Win
A general's insight: If Iran wins, it will be because the West let them.
Facing My Would-Be Assassins
Iranian dissident & RDI Frontline Fellow Masih Alinejad: The men hired to murder me were convicted. Now the US should stand up to the regime that sent them.
 | A guest post by
|