Between War and Words: Seeking Truth in a World Edging Toward War

How an Unfiltered Conversation Exposes the Complexities of U.S.-Iran Engagement

and

Jul 08, 2025

I don’t normally talk about global war, but to say it’s not on my mind in today’s climate would be denial. The world feels more unsettled than it has in decades, and the headlines seem to bring a new warning every week—about superpower tensions, resource disputes, and conflicts that feel both distant and alarmingly close to home. The global stage is shaky, and whether we like it or not, these issues touch all of our lives. At times like this, I believe we should all be paying attention, questioning what we’re told, and thinking deeply about the real costs of conflict.

As a father, one of my greatest fears is that my children might one day be sent to fight in a war—especially one I neither chose nor truly understand. Looking at the world today, it’s hard not to feel unsettled by the way nations seem locked in a perpetual contest for resources and power, battles that often seem distant from the needs of ordinary people like myself. I can’t help but question whether these conflicts are truly necessary—or at least, whether they’re worth the price of peace and the future of our families.

Yet the reality is that the world remains on edge, and the causes of war are always more complicated than they appear in headlines or political speeches.

For those of us watching from the outside, understanding the true motives, fears, and ambitions that drive nations toward confrontation can feel impossible. That’s why communication matters, and why I believe independent journalism is more important than ever. In a media landscape dominated by corporate and government interests, the work of journalists willing to ask difficult questions—and give a platform to every side—offers hope that we might, together, break through the fog of narrative and find a path toward something better than endless conflict.

Tucker Carlson’s interview with Iran’s president arrives at a critical moment, as U.S.-Iran relations hang in the balance following unprecedented American and Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. The broadcast gave global audiences a rare, unfiltered view into the Iranian regime’s worldview. The conversation touched on nuclear ambitions, allegations of sabotage, calls for diplomacy, and the fraught relationship between Iran, Israel, and the United States.

I personally listen to these words with caution, aware that propaganda is never a one-way street. The narratives offered in such high-stakes interviews are often layered with half-truths, omissions, and carefully crafted messaging, whether spoken by an Iranian president or repeated by Western officials. Both sides have much to gain by shaping public opinion, and both employ their own forms of spin and selective memory. As viewers and citizens, we are left navigating a complex landscape where the truth is elusive, and where it’s essential to approach every claim—no matter the source—with a healthy dose of skepticism and an understanding that the stakes are too high for blind trust.

In short and as expected, Iran’s president used the opportunity to blame Israel for derailing peace, denied any nuclear weapons intent, and called for a return to negotiations—on the condition that the U.S. reject Israeli influence. While Carlson was commended in some quarters for providing adversarial input, others criticized the interview for lacking tough follow-ups or dissident perspectives. What many viewers may not realize is that the terms and conditions of such high-level interviews often limit what can be asked or challenged, leaving journalists like Carlson to navigate pre-set boundaries that can prevent tougher lines of questioning. The result of the interview was a revealing, controversial dialogue that underscored the complexity of U.S.-Iranian engagement in 2025.

Blame and Narrative Control:
The Iranian President consistently portrayed Iran as a victim of Israeli aggression and American pressure, blaming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for derailing U.S.-Iran diplomacy and for stoking regional conflict. He denied that Iran seeks nuclear weapons, citing a religious fatwa, and claimed the international perception of Iran as a nuclear threat is rooted in Israeli misinformation.
Nuclear Program and Verification:
The president denied Iran’s pursuit of nuclear arms, repeating that their nuclear program is peaceful and overseen by religious law. He blamed U.S. and Israeli attacks for damaging nuclear facilities and limiting the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) access, while stating that Iran remains open to future inspections—if trust is restored.
Diplomacy and Conditions for Talks:
Iran’s leader said he is willing to resume negotiations with the U.S., but only if America stops enabling Israeli attacks and respects Iran’s “rights” under international law. He accused Israel of sabotaging diplomatic efforts and insisted that the U.S. must avoid being manipulated into another “forever war” in the region.
Assassination and Proxy Allegations:
The President alleged that Israel tried to assassinate him and denied any Iranian involvement in terrorism or plots against U.S. officials. He argued that claims of sleeper cells or proxy violence are Israeli propaganda, asserting instead Iran’s commitment to peace.
Regional Dynamics and U.S. Involvement:
Carlson pressed the president about U.S.-Iran tensions, nuclear enrichment, and the prospect of American companies returning to Iran if peace were achieved. The president responded by emphasizing Iran’s openness to American investment and asserting that only U.S. sanctions (not Iranian law) block such cooperation.
Public Messaging:
The interview gave Iranian leadership a rare chance to address Western and American audiences directly, softening hostile slogans (such as “Death to America”) by redefining them as opposition to “crimes” and not to the U.S. people.

The significance of the interview lies first in its journalistic value. Carlson’s conversation with the Iranian president exemplified the importance of hearing directly from adversaries, offering Western viewers an unfiltered look at how Iran’s leadership frames its grievances, intentions, and diplomatic conditions. This direct engagement provides critical insight into the mindset and strategic messaging of a major U.S. adversary.

From a statecraft and propaganda perspective, observers noted that Iran’s president made deft use of the platform to deploy classic tactics: shifting blame onto Israel and the United States, invoking religious authority to legitimize policy, presenting conditional offers of diplomacy, and repeatedly emphasizing Iranian victimhood—all while carefully avoiding direct responsibility for destabilizing actions in the region.

The interview also generated considerable controversy and reaction both in the U.S. and abroad. Some praised Carlson for offering adversarial input that challenges conventional narratives, while others criticized the interview for lacking tough follow-up questions or failing to include the perspectives of Iranian dissidents. Meanwhile, the Iranian president’s claims regarding nuclear facility damage and assassination attempts received widespread coverage and scrutiny in outlets such as Newsweek and the Wall Street Journal.

Iran’s Tactics Worn by Time

Throughout the interview, Iran’s president employed a familiar diplomatic playbook—a blend of grievance, religious legitimacy, conditional overtures, and plausible deniability designed to preserve Iranian flexibility while minimizing blame.

1. Strategic Ambiguity via Religious Mandates

He invoked a religious fatwa from Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, claiming it forbids Iran from ever pursuing nuclear weapons. This decree, regularly cited by Tehran, serves as a shield in international discourse. However, Western analysts have long debated its permanence, noting the fatwa’s flexibility and its use as diplomatic cover should Iran feel threatened (Wikipedia).

Of course, just as Iran uses religious decrees to shape its narrative, Western officials and analysts also employ their own forms of messaging—framing Iranian intentions in the most suspicious light and often emphasizing worst-case scenarios to justify their own strategic goals.

2. Victim Narratives and Delegitimization of Oversight

The president consistently cast Iran as the perpetual victim of external aggression, blaming Israel—specifically Prime Minister Netanyahu—for sabotaging peace and diplomacy, and the IAEA for allegedly leaking intelligence to adversaries. This tactic not only positions Iran as wronged and justified in its distrust, but also undermines international institutions, creating space for delay and maneuver.

3. Conditional Diplomacy and Flexible Rigidity

Iran offered to return to talks and open its nuclear program to inspections—on the condition that America ceases what it calls unlawful attacks, repairs trust, and distances itself from Israeli influence. This “conditional cooperation” allows Iran to appear open to peace while retaining all leverage and prolonging negotiations on its own terms, a strategy seen repeatedly in the history of nuclear diplomacy (including the long, circuitous path to the JCPOA).

And while this tactic may seem evasive or self-serving, it’s a position most countries would adopt if they perceived themselves as under threat or subject to outside interference—protecting national interests while keeping diplomatic options on the table.

4. Plausible Deniability on Proxy Activity and Violence

Whenever pressed on proxy actions, assassinations, or sleeper-cell claims, Iran’s president deflected, denying direct involvement and attributing such accusations to Israeli or Western propaganda. This approach—avoiding accountability while leveraging plausible deniability—has been central to Iran’s support for groups like Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iraqi militias, making Tehran a master at walking the line between confrontation and retreat.

Despite official denials, there is substantial evidence linking Iran to the support of groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, and various Shia militias operating in Iraq and Syria. Over the years, intercepted communications, captured weapon shipments, financial transactions, and the testimonies of fighters themselves have consistently pointed back to Tehran as a source of funding, training, and military hardware. U.S. intelligence agencies, and most independent researchers have documented how Iranian Revolutionary Guard operatives coordinate with these groups, enabling them to project power and challenge rivals throughout the region. While Iran frames this support as solidarity with oppressed peoples, for many in the international community, it is a deliberate strategy of asymmetrical warfare—one that blurs the lines between plausible deniability and direct involvement.

Nuclear Facilities: Tactical Strikes, Strategic Resilience

The interview came on the heels of extensive U.S. and Israeli airstrikes that targeted critical Iranian nuclear sites:

Natanz saw the destruction of its above-ground pilot enrichment facility and power infrastructure, impacting some 1,700 advanced centrifuges and causing cascading blackouts that likely damaged underground halls (The Guardian, AP News, Wikipedia).
Fordow suffered surface damage, with above-ground infrastructure hit and access roads sealed, but its underground enrichment complex appears mostly intact (Wall Street Journal).
Isfahan saw conversion and fuel fabrication centers destroyed or damaged, according to satellite imagery and Iranian admissions.

The IAEA has warned of sharply degraded nuclear safety at these sites and sharply reduced access for inspectors (IAEA).

While U.S. and Israeli sources argue the strikes have set Iran’s nuclear program back by months—possibly years—intelligence estimates suggest that, as in the past, Iran’s institutional knowledge, underground infrastructure, and ability to innovate will limit any setback to a matter of months (Al Jazeera).

The cycle remains: strikes disrupt, Iran recovers, and the international community is forced back to the negotiating table.

This is the same cycle I have watched unfold since I was a child in the 1980s—a cycle marked by periodic escalation, retaliation, and eventual calls for negotiation that never seem to deliver lasting peace. In 1983, the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, widely attributed to Hezbollah with Iranian backing, set the tone for decades of shadow conflict. The Iran-Iraq War throughout the eighties drew in superpower involvement and regional alliances, only to end in a tense stalemate. In the 1990s and early 2000s, Western sanctions, covert operations, and accusations of nuclear ambitions alternated with attempts at engagement, like the fleeting promise of President Khatami’s so-called “Dialogue of Civilizations.” The 2000s saw further escalation with Iran’s nuclear enrichment, the exposure of secret facilities, and a steady drumbeat of sabotage, cyberattacks, and targeted killings—each incident followed by renewed diplomatic efforts, often collapsing under the weight of mistrust. The names and headlines may change, but the underlying pattern of disruption, recovery, and stalemated negotiation is painfully familiar, repeating itself with almost predictable regularity through every administration and crisis.

The Dilemma of U.S. Involvement Is A Difficult Debate

The question of whether the United States should remain involved in the Iran nuclear standoff is among the most challenging and divisive in American foreign policy. On one hand, advocates of engagement argue that active U.S. involvement is necessary to prevent nuclear proliferation, protect regional allies, and uphold global security norms. On the other, critics caution that such involvement risks escalation, regional instability, and entanglement in another prolonged Middle Eastern conflict. Both perspectives raise valid concerns about national interest, diplomatic effectiveness, and unintended consequences, leaving policymakers and the public to grapple with an uneasy calculus where every option carries significant risks and uncertainties. This ongoing debate reflects not just the complexities of the Iran issue, but the broader dilemma the U.S. faces as it balances its security commitments with the costs and limits of intervention abroad.

Arguments For U.S. Involvement

1. Strikes Have Temporarily Disrupted Iran’s Enrichment and Signaled Consequences for Nuclear Escalation
Direct military action—such as the June 2025 strikes on Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan—demonstrates to both Iran and the international community that there are real, tangible consequences for crossing nuclear red lines.

Temporary Setbacks, Strategic Signals: While many analysts and U.S. intelligence acknowledge these strikes delayed Iran’s program by only months, the symbolic value is substantial. It broadcasts U.S. resolve, showing that efforts to weaponize enrichment capacity will not go unanswered (AP News, Wall Street Journal).
Reinforcing Red Lines: This approach helps reinforce international nonproliferation norms by demonstrating that the world will not passively accept nuclear defiance. Even a temporary pause can deter rapid breakout and buy time for diplomatic or economic leverage to work.

2. Military Pressure May Force Iran to the Negotiating Table, Reinforcing Nonproliferation Norms
U.S. shows of force—coupled with clear diplomatic channels—have a record of bringing adversaries to the table.

Precedent in Diplomacy: The Obama administration’s successful push for the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) was partly enabled by years of covert action, sabotage, and the credible threat of military intervention. Iran entered negotiations not just because of sanctions, but also out of fear of military escalation (Brookings).
Pressure as Leverage: Continued military and economic pressure helps maintain U.S. leverage in any future talks, potentially resulting in more robust and enforceable agreements. When Tehran faces credible threats to its nuclear infrastructure, it may be more inclined to compromise on inspection regimes, enrichment caps, or regional activities.

3. A U.S. Presence Helps Contain Iran-Backed Proxy Forces in Theaters Like Iraq and Yemen, Protecting Allies and Global Trade
Iran’s power projection relies heavily on a network of proxy militias across the Middle East.

Protecting Regional Stability: U.S. involvement helps deter Iranian-aligned militias—such as Kata’ib Hezbollah in Iraq or the Houthis in Yemen—from attacking U.S. interests, destabilizing fragile governments, or threatening partners like Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE.
Guarding Critical Maritime Chokepoints: A continued U.S. military presence in the Gulf is a bulwark against Iranian attempts to disrupt shipping lanes, especially the Strait of Hormuz—through which roughly 20% of global oil passes (U.S. Energy Information Administration).

In short, U.S. involvement is justified by both immediate and long-term interests:

It delays Iran’s nuclear progress and signals clear consequences for violations.
It strengthens the credibility of future negotiations and international nonproliferation commitments.
It helps contain the regional influence of Iran’s proxies, thereby supporting U.S. allies, safeguarding critical trade, and deterring a wider Middle East conflict.

These arguments underscore the logic that America’s active engagement—militarily and diplomatically—is not just about stopping enrichment, but about shaping the regional order and upholding the rules-based international system.

Arguments Against Deep Involvement

While airstrikes or sabotage can deliver headline-grabbing blows to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, history shows the regime’s remarkable capacity for recovery and adaptation:

1. Iran’s Resilience and Adaptation

Camouflage & Hardening: After previous strikes (e.g., Stuxnet in 2010, the Natanz explosion in 2020), Iran rapidly rebuilt, dispersed, and further buried its nuclear facilities. Sites like Fordow and Natanz are now deep underground, shielded from most conventional weapons (Wall Street Journal).
Technical Ingenuity: Iranian scientists have developed advanced centrifuges faster than predicted. Destruction of current hardware can be partially offset by technological upgrades or hidden stockpiles (AP News).
Institutional Knowledge: Iran’s nuclear expertise is not easily erased. Personnel, know-how, and supply chains can be reconstituted even if physical infrastructure is hit.

2. Risk of Escalation and Policy Backfire

Weaponization Incentives: Facing existential threats, regimes often become more determined to obtain a nuclear deterrent. The Israeli strike on Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981 pushed Saddam Hussein to redouble his secret nuclear work (Union of Concerned Scientists).
NPT Withdrawal: Iran has signaled that renewed attacks could prompt it to exit the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), removing all legal and diplomatic oversight. Without inspectors, Iran could “break out” much more rapidly (AP News).

3. The Ephemeral Nature of Military Gains

Temporary Delays Only: U.S. intelligence estimates that the latest strikes set Iran’s program back by mere months, not years (AP News). Iran’s ability to repair or circumvent damage is underestimated at Washington’s peril.
No Sustainable Solution: Disruptions don’t remove the motivation or capability for nuclear development; they only slow the clock. As soon as international focus wanes, Iran can resume enrichment, often with even greater secrecy.

4. Dangers of Instability and Blowback

Regional Chaos: Military action risks retaliatory strikes by Iran or its proxies (Hezbollah, militias in Iraq, Houthi forces in Yemen), putting U.S. troops, allies, and shipping lanes in jeopardy.
Cycle of Instability: Each episode of force prompts Iran to retaliate or escalate elsewhere, deepening the region’s instability and drawing the U.S. into an unending series of confrontations.

5. Undermining Global Nonproliferation Norms

Erosion of Diplomatic Tools: If the U.S. is seen as relying on force rather than negotiations or international law, it undermines the legitimacy of global nonproliferation regimes. Other states may feel less bound by diplomatic agreements if great powers set the precedent of striking first.

Deep military involvement offers no permanent fix—only an expensive, high-risk holding pattern. Without the underpinning of sustained diplomacy, robust inspections, and engagement with international frameworks, any advantage gained is likely to be fleeting, while the dangers of miscalculation, arms racing, and regional instability multiply.

What Does America Gain?

Deterrence Messaging

One of the primary advantages for the United States is the clear, credible message sent to both adversaries and allies: hostile actions—especially in the realm of nuclear proliferation—carry real, enforceable consequences.

Regional Empowerment: By acting decisively, the U.S. reassures partners such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates that their security concerns are being addressed, which in turn bolsters coalition-building and military cooperation in a volatile region.
Discouraging Escalation: For Iran, and by extension other potential proliferators, American resolve serves as a warning. The demonstration of military and economic willpower raises the cost of nuclear defiance, deterring not only Iran but any state considering similar paths.
Precedent for Future Actors: The U.S. response sets a precedent that other aspiring nuclear powers—whether in the Middle East, Asia, or beyond—must factor into their strategic calculations.

Time-Bridging

Military strikes and other forms of hard power do not solve the nuclear issue outright, but they can buy crucial time.

Diplomatic Leverage: Temporary setbacks in Iran’s nuclear progress create space for American diplomats to pursue renewed negotiations, coordinate multilateral pressure, or revisit and strengthen international agreements like the JCPOA.
Inspection and Sanctions Opportunities: The pause allows the international community, particularly the IAEA, to potentially reassert inspection authority or for the U.S. and its partners to recalibrate sanctions for greater effect (IAEA).
Buffer Against Breakout: Delaying Iran’s ability to reach nuclear breakout buys time to detect, deter, and, if necessary, prepare more comprehensive responses to future escalation.

Global Leadership Role

America’s engagement in the Iran issue is closely watched not just in the Middle East, but around the world.

Upholding Nonproliferation Norms: The U.S. solidifies its reputation as a guarantor of the nuclear order, reinforcing global norms and expectations about who can possess or pursue nuclear weapons.
International Standing: Taking decisive action, whether through force or coalition-building, signals to allies and rivals alike that the U.S. is still the indispensable nation in global security architecture. This international leadership helps maintain alliances, drive multilateral initiatives, and influence future crises far beyond Iran.
Shaping the Rules-Based Order: America’s active involvement, especially when paired with coalition support and lawful justification, underlines the principle that the spread of weapons of mass destruction will not be tolerated—a message aimed not only at Iran, but at North Korea, potential rogue states, and non-state actors.

Caveats and Strategic Balance

Yet these gains are not automatic or risk-free. Each benefit must be carefully weighed against:

The Risk of Escalation: Strikes or military presence could provoke Iranian retaliation—directly or through proxies—potentially escalating into a regional war.
Strategic Evasiveness: Iran has repeatedly demonstrated an ability to adapt, rebuild, and obscure its nuclear progress. Without robust follow-up, America’s tactical gains may dissipate as Iran shifts underground or resorts to asymmetric tactics.
Regional Blowback: U.S. involvement can inflame anti-American sentiment, destabilize fragile governments, and provide propaganda fodder for Iran and its partners.

Translating these short-term disruptions and messages into durable, positive outcomes requires more than military might. It demands a coordinated strategy—balancing targeted action with ongoing diplomacy, alliance management, and intelligence sharing. Only by integrating all elements of national power can the U.S. hope to shape not just Iran’s behavior, but the security landscape of the broader region and the credibility of the global nonproliferation regime.

Tucker Carlson’s interview gave Americans and the world a rare glimpse into the strategic mindset of one of Washington’s chief adversaries. While the conversation offered transparency and a platform for adversarial voices, it also showcased Tehran’s well-honed tactics—blending grievances with conditional diplomacy and shifting responsibility for conflict.

For U.S. policymakers, the challenge is to translate short-term disruptions into lasting gains by combining deterrence with dialogue, intelligence, and international coordination—ensuring that America’s actions serve both its security and its principles in a region where every move echoes far beyond the headlines.

I don’t know personally what the right answer is. I’m grateful for the opportunity that independent journalism has given us to see and hear from all sides, even as I recognize how deeply propaganda runs and how much information remains hidden from public view. The intentions of nations, leaders, and movements remain cloaked in shadows, and the truth is often lost in the fog of rhetoric and maneuvering. In times like these, it’s easy to feel the pressure to take sides or rush to judgment, but I believe doing so only adds to the confusion and heightens the risk of tragic missteps. What I do know, above all, is that I don’t want my children—or anyone’s children—fighting in another world war. If there’s any lesson to draw from this moment, it’s the importance of humility, caution, and an unwavering commitment to seeking peace before it’s too late.