By: Ariella Haviv

In a journalistic maneuver as provocative as it is emblematic of the polarized geopolitical moment, American broadcaster Tucker Carlson has released an exclusive interview with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, marking the first media engagement by the Iranian leader since the dual military campaigns known as Operation Rising Lion and Operation Midnight Hammer.

Carlson, a polarizing figure in American media known for both his populist rhetoric and his willingness to defy political orthodoxy, described the decision to air the interview as “a matter of principle in a democratic society.” As reported on Saturday by Israel National News (INN), the segment is already drawing fierce reactions from across the political and diplomatic spectrum — particularly in the wake of intense U.S.-Israel coordination against Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

The Carlson-Pezeshkian interview comes just ten days after a joint Israeli-American military strike severely damaged critical components of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Operation Rising Lion, executed by Israeli forces, and Operation Midnight Hammer, launched unilaterally by U.S. forces, targeted enrichment facilities, mobile ballistic missile depots, and command sites deep within Iranian territory. According to the information provided in the Israel National News (INN) report, the operations were viewed by Israeli security officials as an unprecedented success, setting Tehran’s nuclear program back by years — though Iran claims otherwise.

Against this backdrop, Carlson defended his decision to conduct the interview, fully acknowledging its controversial nature. “We know we’ll be criticized for this interview, and we decided to do it anyway,” he stated. “We were just at war with Iran ten days ago — and may be again.”

Carlson framed the encounter not as an act of appeasement or moral equivalency, but rather as a journalistic imperative. “Our view is that American citizens have the Constitutional and God-given right to know as much about what is being done with their money and in their name as they can,” he asserted. “That includes hearing from the people they’re fighting.”

Tucker Carlson 🇺🇲 interviews Iranian President Pezeshkian 🇮🇷

Bravo @TuckerCarlson
We look forward to this interview.

The world needs more journalists like Tucker Carlson – who are committed to the truth and the facts.
Real and good journalists don’t play politics but are… pic.twitter.com/eWQHvgersG

— Syriac Analysis (@Assyrian2) July 5, 2025

As INN has frequently reported, the U.S. administration’s decision to carry out Operation Midnight Hammer without a formal declaration of war drew significant backlash in Washington. Critics on both sides of the aisle accused the White House of circumventing Article I of the Constitution, which grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war.

The report at Israel National News noted that American constitutional scholars have increasingly viewed this as a long-standing erosion of Congressional oversight, particularly evident since the Vietnam era. Carlson echoed these concerns, suggesting that the opacity of war-making decisions underscores the importance of independent journalism and alternative voices.

The interview, conducted remotely and through an Iranian government-provided translator, was riddled with constraints. Carlson admitted that certain questions were deliberately avoided — not out of self-censorship, he claimed, but due to the inherent impossibility of extracting truth under duress or autocracy.

“I didn’t ask, ‘Was the nuclear program entirely disabled by the American bombing?’” he explained. “The purpose was not to obtain the absolute truth — which is impossible — but to add to the body of knowledge available for the American people to form their opinion.”

As the Israel National News report observed, this self-aware admission may not quell the criticism but could frame the broadcast as a historical artifact rather than a policy endorsement.

In a further twist, Carlson revealed that he has submitted three separate interview requests to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the past several months — all of which, he claims, have gone unanswered. “We want to hear from every side,” he insisted. “We’ve interviewed world leaders before — Putin, Orban, Modi. Why not Netanyahu?”

The INN report noted that Israeli officials have declined to comment on whether such requests were received or are under consideration. However, some analysts believe that Jerusalem is unlikely to engage with Carlson at a time when U.S.-Israel relations are under intense scrutiny, particularly in light of ongoing hostilities with Iranian proxy forces in Syria and Lebanon.

Unsurprisingly, Carlson’s interview with Pezeshkian is being weaponized by both critics and defenders. Detractors argue it gives a dangerous platform to a regime responsible for state-sponsored terror, brutal crackdowns on dissent, and the pursuit of nuclear capabilities in violation of international agreements. Others, including some free speech advocates, contend that such interviews do not legitimize tyrants but expose them.

In commentary published by Israel National News, senior security correspondent Amichai Sela warned that Carlson’s approach may inadvertently feed Iranian propaganda efforts, especially as Tehran seeks to portray itself as a rational actor besieged by Western aggression.

“Every frame of airtime granted to Pezeshkian will be exploited by IRGC media,” Sela wrote. “They are already calling it a ‘dialogue with the American people.’ But Iran’s record speaks for itself — from funding Hamas and Hezbollah to denying basic human rights. That cannot be whitewashed with clever subtitles and trimmed interviews.”

While it is too early to gauge the full domestic impact of the Carlson-Pezeshkian interview, early online metrics suggest that millions of viewers tuned in or accessed clips within hours of its release. As INN reported, American social media remains divided, with some praising the move as “brave journalism” and others decrying it as “reckless appeasement.”

Carlson closed the broadcast by reiterating his commitment to “unfiltered information” — even when controversial. “Can you believe everything you hear from the president of Iran? Probably not,” he admitted. “But keep in mind that anyone who seeks to deny you that right is not your ally, but your enemy.”

In an era marked by proxy wars, drone diplomacy, and asymmetric threats, Carlson’s interview with President Pezeshkian raises fundamental questions about the limits — and responsibilities — of journalism. Should platforms be granted to adversaries in the interest of understanding them? Or does such engagement lend credibility to regimes that thrive on censorship and repression?