Nournews: The recent interview of Dr. Masoud Pezeshkian, President of Iran, with Tucker Carlson, the well-known and controversial American host, sparked mixed reactions in the Iranian media. Some considered it a smart opportunity to present a rational and different image of Iran to the American public, while others saw it as a sign of naïveté, weakness, or even a departure from the revolutionary discourse. But beyond this polarization, the interview can be viewed from another angle: an effort to establish a new rhetoric in Iranian politics—a rhetoric that is calm yet decisive.

A Language Suitable to the Message
At a time when Iran’s case in Western media is accompanied by exaggerated labels, distorted images, harsh slogans, or violent clichés, the president’s interview with one of the most influential conservative American media figures provided a rare opportunity to correct this image. Pezeshkian conveyed his message in a frank yet calm manner: Iran neither seeks war nor follows the noise. We are ready for honorable negotiations, but at the same time, we will never hesitate to defend our country.

One of the most important parts of the interview was Pezeshkian’s response to Carlson’s question about the slogan “Death to America,” which is often portrayed in Western media with extremist interpretations. The president, while emphasizing a fundamental opposition to the hegemonic policies of the U.S., clarified that this slogan is not directed at ordinary American people or even their officials, but at the structures that have caused suffering and insecurity to the people of the region. This distinction can be considered a clever approach that both targeted the American audience and reduced the possibility of misuse of harsh slogans. At the same time, instead of speaking from a position of weakness or aggression, he explicitly stated that if it comes to defending the country, he is ready for martyrdom.

Criticism Faced
This approach also faced criticism. Kayhan newspaper, in a harsh editorial, criticized Pezeshkian’s remarks about the absence of a religious fatwa for assassinating American and Israeli figures like Trump and Netanyahu, emphasizing that there are fatwas that consider these individuals as “enemies.” Another critique came from Vatan-e Emrooz newspaper, which pointed to technical and visual weaknesses of the interview and said it could have been conducted more effectively. Some, like Javan newspaper, complained about the president’s “soft tone,” seeing it as a sign of retreat or weakness.

Reasonable Expectations from a President
Accepting that the technical and content quality of the interview could have been better, one must ask: What should be expected from a politician on an international platform? Does harsh and aggressive language, especially in front of global media cameras, increase Iran’s authority or does it rather feed hostile media? Isn’t it truly possible to speak to the world with logic, dignity, intelligence, and calmness while simultaneously defending national interests and firm resolve against aggressors?

Unlike some common examples, Pezeshkian, in this interview, instead of repeating slogans, explained the concepts behind them with his own key terms. He analyzed as much as he attacked. He warned as much as he threatened. Even when the topic of an “assassination plot” against him by Israeli agents was raised, without escalating tensions, he spoke clearly yet calmly. This calmness is neither a sign of simplicity nor passivity, but stems from a deeper understanding of the necessity to change the tone of foreign policy in the post-war era and amid compounded global crises. As Supreme Leader Khamenei expressed, he neither exaggerated the necessity of negotiations nor underestimated the damages of war. His explanation was almost realistic and his statement relatively effective and inspiring, seeming well aware that the Western audience of this interview includes not only officials but also the general public and opinion-makers.

The fact is that today the Islamic Republic of Iran is more than ever seeking to reconstruct its global image beyond imposed and Iranophobic stereotypes, build logical trust in the region, and ultimately reverse-engineer media narratives. This cannot be achieved by military power or harsh stances alone, but rather requires the art of “effective speaking”—a rhetoric in which inner firmness accompanies external dignity. Pezeshkian tried to create such a tone in this interview. Perhaps this tone is still unfamiliar or even unpleasant to many inside the country, as some hardline political elements called it “shameful” and threatened him with possible institutional repercussions like from parliament; yet it must be understood that successful foreign policy often emerges from such tonal and expressive differences. Sometimes a calm sentence can be more effective than a thousand loud slogans. Iran’s combined diplomacy carries multiple voices—both the angry voices of men on the ground and the reasoned voices of politicians.

Undoubtedly, fair criticism and demand for higher quality from the government is necessary. But care must be taken that amid internal struggles, the country’s combined diplomatic language is not distorted or weakened. Although Pezeshkian spoke calmly, his message was clear: Iran is ready for engagement but prepared for defense. This is the voice most heard in today’s turbulent world.