The US has a strong pro-Israel vision,

One of the most important events in the beginning of your career has been the contrarian coverage of Vietnam War. Your expose of ‘The myth of bloodbath in South Vietnam’ sort of paved the way for other journalists to take a line that was not fashionable pretty early in the war. How do you see it after so many decades?

I’m proud of having been the one to expose the bloodbath argument, but I’m afraid few people were aware of that.  I’ve seen a similar argument used more recently to justify continuation of the war in Iraq. The US public had withdrawn its support because it had become obvious that the war was a failure. The Bush administration had overthrown the Saddam Hussein regime only to unleash a violent Sunni-Shi’a sectarian power struggle that the US military couldn’t control.  Even worse, the US military presence was objectively supporting one side in that power struggle, even as it pretended by the honest broker between Sunni and Shi’a.

In many ways, things have not changed. The US invasion of Iraq and what happened subsequently there was shown to the world mostly through the eyes of embedded journalists who took a certain, expected, point of  view. Compare it with Vietnam days and do you think war reporting still lacks maturity?

It is a serious problem. The corporate news media seldom bother to fact check statements by the administration or the US military.  And they never probe deeply.  The result is that the news media function primarily as cheerleaders for the US wars. There is a lack of independent reporting in the mainstream media. For example, In the commentary on the 10th anniversary of 9/11, the news and infotainment media have predictably framed the discussion by the question of how successful the CIA and the military have been in destroying al Qaeda. Absent from the torrent of opinion and analysis was any mention of how the US military occupation of Muslim lands and wars that continue to kill Muslim civilians fuel jihadist sentiment.

You keep a keen eye on the affairs in Iraq and Iran. With the withdrawal of American troops in the coming months, do you think Iran will emerge stronger in the region? How will it dent American soft-power in the Middle East?

In my view, there seems to be pretty little or no relationship between US weakness in the region and augment in Iranian power. Iran’s increasing influence in the region will be governed by other set of  factors.

Incidents in MENA has taken the world by surprise. The Arab Spring has shown a substantial and sustainable domino effect. When the dust settles, how will the new Middle East look like?

The violence in Syria has far-reaching implications for the regional conflict. The main question is what would follow the end of the current regime. If it is a Sunni regime, it could embolden both Saudi Arabia and Israel. However the situation in Syria is complex. And we wont see a clear-cut trend anytime soon.

What, from your experience, are the Iranian leadership’s true foreign policy objectives and ambitions?

Iran wants recognition as a regional power, and it wants to reach an agreement with the United States that ends the threat and hostility. 

In your opinion, if the Obama administration is genuine and honest about wishing full, open negotiations with Iran will the current Iranian leadership negotiate genuinely and openly too?

The Obama administration has never had a unified vision on Iran.  It has a strong anti-Iran, pro-Israel component.

What do you make out of the latest US allegation on Iran vis-a-vis possible assassination of Saudi Ambassador?

The charges appear to be flimsy. It’s part of a two-decade long history of concocted accusations against Iran for “terror plots” that includes the Buenos Aires bombings of 1992 and 1994 as well as the Khobar Towers bombing of 1996.

The FBI was involved in making a case against Iran in all three cases. FBI deceit in constructing a case for an Iranian terror plot should come as no surprise, given its record of domestic terrorism prosecutions based on sting operations involving entrapment and skullduggery. Central to these stings has been the creation of fictional terrorist plots by the FBI itself.

The US tale of the Iranian plot was greeted with unusual skepticism on the part of Iran specialists and independent policy analysts, and even elements of the mainstream media. The critics observed that the alleged assassination scheme was not in Iran’s interest, and that it bore scant resemblance to past operations attributed to the foreign special operations branch of Iranian intelligence.