CNN’s Erin Burnett “Interview” of Iranian Foreign Minister Made Me Laugh

Max Can't Help It!
8 min readApr 19, 2024


I’d call her Deep State but there’s nothing Deep about her.

I’m going to use the recent attacks between Iran and Israel as a case-study in how Western Media, like CNN, doesn’t report facts that run counter to their on-going narrative of — who-knows-who’s making. Are they willfully pushing some Deep State agenda? Was Burnett just trying to get home, quick as a fiddle, to take delivery of a new Tesla?

On April 1st, 2024 Israel used a state-of-the-art F-35 and missiles to blow up the Iranian Consulate in Demascus, Syria, killing 13 people including Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, a Quds Force senior commander of the IRGC and his deputy General Mohammad Hadi Hajriahimi.

Remember to read between the lines — 11 unimportant people died as collateral damage.

For Western media it was just another Tuesday in Syria. For everyone working in foreign affairs around the world, Israel had escalated the conflict. It had crossed a red line recognized by all nations.

You do not bomb another nation’s consulate, anywhere, period. That’s what terrorists do.

Let’s jump forward to April 15 when the U.K.’s Foreign Secretary, David Cameron (now a Lord!) had this exchange with Kay Burley on Sky News:

Kay Burley: What would Britain do if our consulate was flattened?
David Cameron: Well, w-we would take very strong action…
Kay Burley: Iran would say that’s what they did…

Erin Burnett is NO Kay Burley.

Okay, back to April 13th when Iran attacked Israel with drones and rockets. Please tell me if I’m dreaming, but all the coverage I saw or read implied that Iran was attacking every Israeli city and town it could target.

The day after, on April 14th, the Iranian Foreign Minister held a press conference where he announced that Iran, a week before, had warned the U.S. of the attack and that it had communicated that 1) it would not attack U.S. interests and 2) it would only attack legitimate military targets in a “minimum response”.

The U.S. never disputed that Iran warned them. Indeed, we saw Biden returning from vacation to sit in a war room and watch the scheduled political theater. And it WAS theater because Iran, as far as I know only attacked one place in Israel, an airbase out in the desert.

The U.S. government and Israel both knew Iran would only attack the base from which Israel launched the F-35 fighters that took out the Iranian Consulate.

If CNN and ABC, for example, were kept in the dark by the U.S., why didn’t they ask the U.S. Government about it after the Iranian FM said so?

Instead, today, on the ABC News site, a story which was updated today, reads:

It’s April 19th, why do we need to “believe” the base was “likely” Iran’s primary target? The Iranian FM said it was. We have no evidence that Iran tried to hit anything else. The U.S. Government hasn’t claimed otherwise.

Why are CNN and ABC both continuing to cover up the fact that Iran only intended to strike one target and that the massive attack on Israel that they reported (and continue to report) never happened?

In April 18th, five days after the attack, Erin Burnett interviewed the Iranian Foreign Minister.

During her interview, her context remains that Iran attacked the whole of Israel and now Israel wants to respond in mind. In point of fact, again, Israel attacked a building in Syria and Iran attacked an isolated airbase in the desert of Israel.

BURNETT: Israel has vowed to retaliate against the Iranian strike over the weekend. Do you think Israel could strike as soon as tonight?

Isn’t that a question for someone in the Israeli government? How would he know? It’s not a real question. It’s the line she’s written for herself in her narrative that Israel and Iran are engaged in a full-scale war.

I want to focus on her questions because taken by themselves they show how she has no interest in learning anything new.

BURNETT: So when you say the response will be at a maximum level, you also, I know, have warned Israel against crossing what you have used the words, quote-unquote, “red lines.” What are those red lines, and what is a maximum level? You used, what, more than 300 drones, cruise missiles in that attack. What would escalate from there for you? What is a maximum level above that?

He clearly stated, on April 14th (and again in this interview) that the attack was not a “maximum level”. If Iran had used 30,000 drones against the Nevatim Airbase what would it change? There’s nothing near it worth bombing.

A good question would have been: did Israel know that Iran was specifically targeting the Nevatim Airbase and were the F-35s parked there during the attack.

BURNETT: So you have — you have details of what that would be, a maximum level, but you mentioned that the minimum level, as you’re calling the strike over the weekend, you’re saying did not strike economic, financial, civilians. But I would assume a maximum strike, which you say is planned, would do those three things?

What nation on Earth would say “we define a maximum attack” as ____. Instead, this question is a variation of “Are you still building missiles to nuke Israel. (are you still beating your wife).”

BURNETT: So you talk about how the strike, you say, met your objectives. Admiral John Kirby, the U.S. Spokesperson for the National Security Council, sees it very differently. He described your strike on Israel, Foreign Minister, as a, quote, “embarrassing failure.” What do you say to that?

Why is that a question for him? Again, he said they were only attacking the military bases that attacked Iran’s Consulate. They never stated an objective of destroying anything or killing anyone. The question should be for John Kirby. Why does he call it an “embarrassing failure” when the attack was a political statement the U.S. was informed about a week before it happened?

Why doesn’t she ask Kirby the question Burley asked Cameron?

Does her question show some sort of conspiracy between CNN and the Biden Administration to frame the attack in the way the U.S./Israel wants it framed?

BURNETT: So, just to be clear, you intended for it to perform as it did. So there were 99% of them were intercepted, a couple went through, there was no significant damage done. That was the intent of the strike?

Here she is using the age-old technique of repeating something to make the viewer believe it’s true even though it never was and never will be.

BURNETT: President Joe Biden spoke yesterday, Foreign Minister. He talked about Israel and Ukraine and he said, and I quote him, “We stand with our friends and we won’t let Iran or Russia succeed.” If the United States helps Israel again, as Israel has said, they will strike. You have now said you will strike back, your words, at the maximum level. Will you strike American targets?

He clearly said on April 14th, a day after the attack, that Iran had informed the U.S. of the attack would not strike American targets. However, if the U.S. attacked Iran it would attack back. How is that a question for any nation?

BURNETT: So, if the United States helps Israel again to defend against incoming missiles against Iran, that will not — are you saying, that will not put American targets on your list?

He never said Iran cared one way or the other if the U.S. helped Israel defend itself. It’s not an issue for them. Again, she’s trying to make the viewer believe Iran is angry that the U.S. shot down some of its drones and missiles. Iran said it did not care. Why is she fabricating this?

BURNETT: An Iranian nuclear — I wait for the translation to finish. An Iranian nuclear commander today, Mr. Foreign Minister, said Iran’s nuclear policies could be changed if Israel keeps threatening to attack Iranian nuclear sites. What does that mean?

For the whole interview Burnett interrupted the translator’s last words to get to the next question. Burnett was completely disrespectful both of the Iranian FM and the ethics of fair journalism. I don’t believe this was accidental. Burnett has been working in media for almost 20 years. She knew what she was doing.

Again, she is no Kay Burley who asked intelligent questions, and no matter how frustrating Lord David Cameron became, treated him and her job respectfully.

Now we get to the Burnett’s 3rd Act. Her star turn, her monologue, her real objective. Her true colors.

BURNETT: I want to ask you about some developments that have happened in Iran in the context of this. There has been a renewed push for women to wear hijab. And obviously the Supreme Leader has mentioned this in a couple of recent speeches. Sources tell CNN morality police have been much more present on the streets in various Iranian cities.

There’s a woman who didn’t want her name used in our conversation. She’s afraid of her safety, but just this week she said to CNN she was in the passenger seat of her husband’s car without her headscarf. She received a text from police warning her of noncompliance with the hijab policy.

The text included her license number and other identifiers of the car, warning her if she violated hijab laws again, her car would be impounded. The context here, of course, is two years ago, the widespread protest following the death of the 22-year-old young woman, Mahsa Amini, who was arrested by morality police because of inappropriately wearing or not wearing a proper hijab. Why is this happening now, and what will be the punishment for women who violate it?

We go from talking about WWIII starting in the Middle East, between Israel and Iran, to a question of Iranian domestic politics?

Lastly, why did Hossein Amir-Abdollahian agree to the interview? I believe he knew exactly what she would do but wanted to send a message to his peers in the U.S., Israel and viewers like me (us).

The message is your press, even CNN which you believe is unbiased, can’t even talk to someone respectfully. Everyone in the world notices. You delude yourselves but you aren’t fooling anyone else.