For decades, a familiar image on global TV screens during international summits has been the Iranian president answering questions from major Western journalists. From Mohammad Khatami’s landmark 1998 interview with Christiane Amanpour on CNN to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s high-profile sit-downs with Charlie Rose, David Frost, and Pierre Salinger, and the more recent interviews of Hassan Rouhani and Ebrahim Raisi with Fareed Zakaria, Lester Holt, and Bari Weiss—the tradition of Iranian presidents engaging foreign media has become a fixture of Iran’s media diplomacy.
The latest example: the controversial July 2025 interview between newly elected Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian and former Fox News host Tucker Carlson. The unusual and provocative conversation stirred debate across political and media circles—and revived an old question:
Why have US presidents never agreed to be interviewed by any Iranian journalist or media outlet?
This question isn’t new. Iranian media have repeatedly requested interviews or even short Q&As with American presidents—requests that have gone unanswered. But it’s not just Iranian outlets being denied access. A look at US presidential media history shows that even internationally recognized platforms like Al Jazeera and the BBC have faced tight restrictions. In fact, foreign press access to the White House remains one of the most conservative aspects of its communication strategy.
A Narrow, Selective Media Strategy
Since the 1990s, American presidents have rarely agreed to interviews with outlets beyond the orbit of US-owned or allied media groups. There has been almost no direct engagement with Al Jazeera. The Obama administration gave a few limited interviews to international journalists, but Al Jazeera never received official on-air time—only an occasional written response or statement, and even those in rare, controlled contexts.
As for the BBC, its global prestige hasn’t translated into access either. From Jimmy Carter to Joe Biden, US presidents have, on average, granted just one or two interviews to the British broadcaster over the course of their terms. Barack Obama gave a short interview to the BBC in 2011, and George W. Bush did one during his presidency. Donald Trump, to date, has not granted the BBC a single interview.
These patterns challenge the popular narrative of American media openness. While the US is often seen as a haven for open dialogue between power and the press, the White House remains cautious, controlled, and selective—especially with foreign journalists.
Why the Cold Shoulder to Iranian Media?
In the case of Iran, that cautiousness becomes even more rigid—tied not just to political but also ideological and security concerns. Several reasons help explain this longstanding refusal:
1.Security and Diplomatic Risks
From a U.S. intelligence and foreign policy standpoint, granting an interview to an Iranian journalist is often seen as giving a “formal platform” to a hostile government. Outlets like Press TV and the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) are officially labeled as “state-controlled” or “propaganda arms” by the US government.
2.Lack of Mutual Media Trust
American presidents tend to speak with outlets that are owned by—or familiar to—institutions aligned with US media norms. The Iranian media ecosystem, with its formal tone and restrictions on certain types of reporting, is often perceived as incompatible with White House media strategy.
3.US-Centric Global Media Narrative
US presidents, confident that global media revolves around Washington, rarely feel the need to step outside their comfort zone. In essence, they don’t chase coverage—they are the coverage.
4.Fear of Unfriendly Framing
Iranian journalists may pose questions from a critical or adversarial angle, particularly on foreign policy. That possibility is seen as a reputational risk, especially in election seasons or during moments of geopolitical tension.
Can Media Balance Ever Be Achieved?
For any real balance to emerge between Iranian and American media relations, the entire structure of global media diplomacy may need a rethink. On one hand, Iranian media would need to enhance their professional infrastructure, international engagement, and openness to diverse viewpoints. On the other, if the White House genuinely believes in dialogue among civilizations and media fairness, it should be more receptive to good-faith requests from non-American journalists.
Tucker Carlson’s interview with Pezeshkian may have broken a mold, but it still took place within the American media ecosystem—and by a private citizen, not a state broadcaster. So the question remains: Will the world ever witness a sitting US president answering questions from an Iranian reporter—just as Iranian leaders have routinely spoken to American journalists?
The answer lies not just in geopolitics, but in the interplay of media credibility, mutual trust, and professional readiness. Until that day comes, “dialogue” may continue to be a one-sided privilege in the global information equation.
NOURNEWS