We’ve been following journalist and television host Fareed Zakaria for quite a while, and frankly have never been overly enthusiastic with his pro-Iran content. But lately his CNN subpage has been particularly abuzz, in our view bending over backwards to push the anti-pressure stance.
A reminder: in the aftermath of the Davos conference, we reported on Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif indicating to Zakaria that Iran might fudge its commitments under the Geneva agreement – even as his president, Hassan Rouhani, was all smiles courting Western investors. Zakaria didn’t seem especially perturbed with this scenario.
Then last Friday, a peculiar post appeared on Zakaria’s page. It was written by one Tyler Cullis and one Jamal Abdi, identified as a recent graduate of Boston University School of Law specializing in US sanctions on Iran and the policy director for the National Iranian American Council, respectively.
These two guest posters, clearly representatives of the pro-Iranian lobby in the US – whose director has been described by a DC judge as an agent of Tehran – slammed “the growing efforts” by Congress to “place limits on the president’s authority to lift sanctions.” The efforts by some senators to secure an alternative to diplomacy in the event that negotiations fail was described by Cullis and Abdi as weakening “the leverage of US negotiators.”
Again, nothing from Zakaria that would indicate ruffled feathers.
Why would Zakaria let all this go through? Well, at least he’s being consistent: We’ll remind readers that at the height of the Rouhani euphoria post-elections and pre-UN General Assembly, he wrote that “Khamenei has softened somewhat in recent years.”
Speaks for itself. Nothing left but to yearn for the bygone era of journalistic integrity.