Richard Stengel, who served as the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs during the Obama administration, has long been an advocate for the Iran Deal.
In a recent segment on MSNBC, Stengel ventured into controversial territory by positing that Iran could be a more favorable ally for the United States than Israel.
When confronted by the host about the notorious chants of ‘death to America’ that often echo from Iran, Stengel’s attempts to downplay this sentiment were nothing short of remarkable.
The Washington Free Beacon reported:
On MSNBC, Stengel, a former Obama administration official, questioned the rationale behind the U.S. alliance with Israel instead of Iran, labeling the latter as “the most Western nation” in the Middle East. He acknowledged the chants of “death to America” from Iranians but argued that they also have a fondness for American cinema.
“Why is it a foundational issue for Trump that Iran doesn’t possess a nuclear weapon?” Stengel asked during his Thursday appearance. “Why are we allied with Israel?”
When pressed about the implications of those chants, Stengel recounted a 2014 visit to Iran. “I was at a rally,” he explained. “These young men were chanting ‘death to America.’ After they finished, they approached me and said, ‘Are you American?’ I replied yes, and they welcomed me, expressing their love for American culture and movies.”
“Iran is the most Western nation in the entire Middle East,” Stengel continued. “We share much more common ground with them than with several countries with whom we currently maintain alliances.”
Watch the video below:
NEW: Obama’s Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Richard Stengel says the United States has a lot in common with Iran.
Stengel acknowledged that Iranians chant “Death to America,” but noted they are respectful about it.
“Iran is the most Western nation… pic.twitter.com/v3VWkONi4p
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) June 19, 2025
This perspective raises eyebrows, as it seems to reflect a rather convoluted understanding of international relations. How else could one explain Stengel’s fervent attempts to rationalize such an assertion?
