This was a terrible fawning interview by Mr. Rose. I was not impressed. The only thing he appeared to push her on was whether or not to “talk to Iran”. This is the “debate” in US doctrine; what goes assumed is that it is right for the US to intervene in Iranian afairs, that it is right to remake the Iranian government however the US government (rather than the Iranian population) sees fit; that the United States has the right to rule the world.
Going unmentioned, unspeakable, unthinkable, as usual in standard US doctrine, was the long-standing bipartisan US policy of intervening in Iranian affairs, overthrowing the democratically elected government in 1953; installing the vicious and repressive Shah; sending commandos in in 1979 or so for which it was condemned by the International Court of Justice; and the repeated threats of force, including nuclear weapons, against Iran throughout the Bush administration; the threat of force alone in international relations is itself a breach of the UN Charter.
Not to mention that this interview seemed to involve a pretty clear distortion of the historical record, disregarding numerous assessments by the IAEA as to the status of Iran’s nuclear program, and the obvious point about this program — it is something developed *because* Iran feels threatened, and threatened primarily by the US. And Iran’s efforts to assure a “grand bargain” for regional security has been wiped from the historical record: Rice just doesn’t remember it , in this interview. And of course, in general, repressive tendencies in the Iranian government are only enhanced by US threats.
So, international criminality is the assumed position, and then Rose and Rice can discuss the best standover tactics; and in the process, the journalist can prostrate himself as “the naive journalist”, looking up to the great statesperson for advice and direction. Journalism on its knees, and authority being worshipped, even when thrown out of office in disgrace.