WANA (Jul 08) – Yesterday, the interview of Masoud Pezeshkian, Iran’s president, with Tucker Carlson—a polarizing conservative media figure in the U.S.—once again raised the question of whether Iran’s media strategy in times of crisis is designed for smart deterrence or trapped in the same old “dangerous normalization” paradigm.

 

This conversation took place amid a new phase of confrontation between the United States, Israel, and Iran in recent weeks. Just a few weeks ago, a 12-day war was imposed between Israel and Iran, during which the U.S. launched a large-scale attack on Iran’s sensitive nuclear facilities, and senior Israeli officials openly threatened to assassinate Iran’s Supreme Leader.

 

Against this backdrop, the interview drew criticism for the way Iran’s positions were presented—a narrative many observers see as a mix of diplomatic naïveté, a lack of deterrent tone, and moral boundary-setting that often proves ineffective in the realm of realpolitik.

Iran’s president answered Tucker Carlson’s questions with a photo of Rayan Ghasemian, a two-month-old baby killed in Israel’s attack on Tehran / WANA News Agency

Iran’s president answered Tucker Carlson’s questions with a photo of Rayan Ghasemian, a two-month-old baby killed in Israel’s attack on Tehran / WANA News Agency

Iran’s Narrative as Told by Pezeshkian

Throughout the interview, Pezeshkian tried to portray Iran as a “peace-seeking but wounded” nation. He stressed that Iran was ready to return to the negotiating table, provided Israeli attacks did not derail the process.

 

But this stance revealed the same fundamental weakness critics call a policy of “apology and pleading.” The key question is this: when the other side openly threatens to assassinate the leader of a country and has even attacked meetings of Iran’s senior commanders, why does the official narrative describe such violence merely as a factor disrupting trust-building?

 

Domestic critics see this approach as a replay of the old mindset often visible in the positions of Mohammad Javad Zarif and the reformist Rouhani administration’s diplomacy team: the assumption that the problem with the U.S. relationship is not structural conflict but the “mischief” of Netanyahu or certain American neoconservatives.

 

In effect, Pezeshkian bet again on a tactic that has repeatedly failed: “playing the Trump-Netanyahu divide” and pushing the idea that isolating a particular faction in the U.S. would open the path to normalization.

Nuclear deal negotiators pose for a photo at the UN building in Vienna, Austria.

The Issue of Tone: The Line Between Diplomacy and Deterrence

In diplomacy, tone is a strategic tool. Iran’s foreign minister Araghchi, in recent statements about negotiations, phrased it this way: “How can you return to a table that the U.S. and Israel have repeatedly destroyed?”

 

By contrast, Pezeshkian said: “We hope that after this crisis, we can return to the negotiating table.”

 

Araghchi’s tone carried a key element: reminding the other side of the cost of betraying agreements. Pezeshkian’s message lacked that element. While this may seem a subtle difference, in media strategy such details define the line between a “rational, strong stance” and a “message of weakness.”

 

Araghchi: “Don’t take Trump’s remarks about resuming negotiations too seriously”

WANA (Jun 26) – Iran’s Foreign Minister responded to Trump’s remarks about a possible negotiation with the U.S. next week by saying: “Don’t take his remarks too seriously. No agreement has been made to resume talks. We are consulting internally to determine which path best serves Iran’s interests.”   Araghchi made these remarks on Thursday […]

Read More...

 

The Big Question: Who Was the Interview For?

A crucial question in analyzing this interview is identifying its primary audience. Was it meant for the American public? For Iranians at home? Or as a layered message to both?

 

Some media analysts argue that such interviews are a way to manage domestic opinion via international channels—a means of lowering resistance to reviving negotiations and preparing the public for deals that some political factions might brand as “concessions without gains.”

 

Pezeshkian’s interview can be seen as part of a broader trend: with growing economic and security pressures, parts of Iran’s political elite are being pushed toward “fragile normalization,” even at the risk of appearing vulnerable.

 

But, as the experience of the JCPOA (2015 nuclear deal) showed, one-sided pacifism in the face of a strategy aimed at Iran’s collapse has never guaranteed sustainable deterrence.

People attend the funeral procession of Iranian military commanders, nuclear scientists and others killed in Israeli strikes, in Tehran, Iran, June 28, 2025. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)

The Need for More Calculated Narratives in Today’s Media Strategy

What was missing in this interview was precisely the element essential to realist foreign policy: balancing a message of peace with credible threat.

 

That Iran has been a victim of war and terrorism is undeniable. But in a world where power dynamics outweigh moral arguments, one cannot expect that simply proclaiming victimhood will reduce the enemy’s structural hostility.

 

Pezeshkian is a president who may genuinely want to show “a different face of Iran.” But if that difference is reduced merely to a softer tone, it does nothing to change the balance of power—and risks sending a dangerous message instead: that deterrence has collapsed.