On Tuesday, CNN International and PBS host Christiane Amanpour conducted two interviews, one with U.S. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and another with Iranian VP for women and family affairs Massoumeh Ebtekar, and the contrast in Amanpour’s attitude toward the interviewees could not have been more stark, as she targeted Esper while lobbing softballs at Ebtekar.
As Curtis Houck of Newsbusters pointed out in a comprehensive report, Amanpour started her interview with Esper by suggesting that the threat that the Trump administration cited for its airstrike killing Iranian general Qassem Doleimani was based on evidence that was “razor thin and the chatter was nothing out of the ordinary.” She challenged Esper to look at “the world down the barrel of this camera straight in the eye and say that there was a ticking time bomb evidence.”
Esper fired back that the evidence was “more than razor thin, and it’s persuasive,” that Solemani aimed “to synchronize and plan additional attacks on American forces, diplomats or facilities.”
Amanpour segued to claiming that in Iran there was “not just an outpouring of grief from the people there and rallying around a regime that had been unpopular, but that it’s also a message” of revenge. As Houck noted, Amanpour posited that allies of the U.S. were calling on the U.S. to deescalate, and thus, “You are being put in the same boat as Iran. I don’t recall this ever happening before, where the United States and a nation like Iran, are both being put in the same boat, both being asked to de-escalate. How does that make you feel?”
Esper answered, “Well, I guess I disagree with your premise, Christiane. I will tell you — and I’ve talked to all these allies and partners — the ones in the region are fully, 100 percent supportive of what we’ve done and what we’re prepared to do. They see the removal of Soleimani, this known terrorist and head of a terrorist organization, his removal from the battlefield as a great victory and they know what it means — and it’s a game changer for the region.”
Amanpour then launched into a tirade attacking the decision to target Soleimani, saing:
… senior Americans have told me that intelligence officials in — you know, your own intelligence officials — predicted precisely this kind of Iranian escalation after the maximum pressure campaign that followed the withdrawal from the nuclear deal. They predicted attacks on shipping in the Gulf — it happened. They predicted attacks on Saudi Arabia — it happened. They suggested it might happen against U.S. bases, U.S. targets — it did happen. You talk about Soleimani, but what is the strategy here? I mean, you knew that this was possibly going to happen. Was it wise — you talk about Soleimani — nobody is claiming that he was a good guy, no — none of your allies are — and everybody knows what his role in the region was, but by the same token, previous U.S. administrations, when they could, did not take him out. Israel, when it could, did not take him out, for fear of the consequences. I guess I want to ask you, do you regret putting that extreme option on the table for the President? Wouldn’t some of the other options have sufficed in this period to send a very strong message of deterrence?
Esper replied, “Well, Christiane, I would say many experts, going back a few years now, predicted and were proven true, that in the wake of the JCPOA, which did not cover ballistic missiles, which did not cover Iran’s hostage-taking, which did not cover Iran’s malign behavior, that such activities would pick up — particularly when we opened up the economic spigots and we returned to them tens of billions of dollars — we saw this activity pick up across the region, again, spanning from Africa, through the Middle East to Afghanistan and what’s happened in the last few years, in Iraq in particular, in the last 12 months, is just a manifestation of an Iranian regime that is bent on exporting its revolutionary beliefs.”
In 1979, Ebtekar, who was 18 and a spokeswoman for the Iranian hostage-takers who seized 52 Americans, was asked about the American hostages if she could “personally lift up a gun and put it to the head of one of these people and kill him” if there were an attack on the U.S. embassy to save the hostages. As The New York Times reported, she answered, “Yes. When I’ve seen an American gun being lifted up and killing my brothers and sisters in the streets, of course.” Here are some samplings of how Amanpour, who did not mention Ebtekar’s 1979 role, treated Ebtekar:
When Amanpour asked whether Iran would “respond” to American “call[s] for descalation,” Ebtekar cited “millions who are marching in support and in commemoration of…the Commander of the Hearts” against the Americans having “taken a terrorist action” in killing Soleimani. Amanpour stated she found it “interesting” that Ebtekar called the reaction in Iran to Soleimani’s death a “revival of the Islamic revolution.”
Ebtekar delightedly suggested there was a “wave of awakening” in the U.S. on social media “understand[ing] very well what has happened and the terrible actions of the American government.”
Amanpour concluded by insinuating that the Iranian leadership was moderate and “took a gamble negotiating with the United States, saying:
I have heard that message coming out of Iran from the days since this targeted killing, that the final response should be from your perspective to remove American forces, but what I want to ask you is this because you were and are a committed revolutionary. You were very prominent during the early days of the Islamic revolution, but you became more of a reformist as well, and you supported the negotiations for the Iran nuclear deal, and diplomacy to, you know, settle some issues.
My question to you now is, is that completely out of the window? Are people like you and Foreign Minister Zarif, even President Rouhani, who took a gamble negotiating with the United States, are they sidelined? Is it now those who believe that America can never be discussed with, for want of a better word, hard-liners, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps? Are they more in the ascendancy? Is there any hope for any negotiations, very briefly, if you wouldn’t mind?
Interviews below: