Ex-Obama Official Explains Iran’s ‘Death to America’ Chants as Misunderstood [WATCH]

Richard Stengel, who once held a significant role in the Obama administration, recently stirred the pot with his comments on MSNBC. He questioned the U.S.’s long-standing alliance with Israel and suggested downplaying the threat posed by Iran. This has raised eyebrows, especially given the ongoing tensions in the Middle East, with regular clashes between Israel and Iran.

His remarks come at a time when Iran’s nuclear ambitions are under constant scrutiny despite international efforts to monitor them. The International Atomic Energy Agency has been in and out of Iran, trying to ensure compliance, yet accusations of Iran backing regional terror groups persist. Stengel’s history of controversial statements is nothing new, but the context and timing of his latest comments have amplified the backlash.

During his time in the Obama administration, Stengel was responsible for shaping public diplomacy. Critics have pointed out that his messaging sometimes appeared aligned with political narratives, such as during the response to the tragic downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. His role in the Biden-Harris transition team also saw him downplay threats from groups like al-Qaeda and the Taliban, which shocked many.

Stengel’s recent comments about Iran painted a picture of a misunderstood nation. He recalled an experience from 2014 where, despite anti-American chants, he was warmly welcomed by some Iranians. These anecdotes are seen by some as an attempt to humanize a regime that continues to sponsor terrorism.

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 said that Iranians do, in fact, chant “Death to America,” but are respectful about it.

“Iran is the most Western nation… pic.twitter.com/v3VWkONi4p

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) June 19, 2025

Fox News and the New York Post have been vocal in their criticism of Stengel’s remarks. They argue that his comments gloss over Iran’s human rights abuses and its history of anti-American rhetoric. Iran’s enforcement of strict Islamic laws, which include severe punishments for same-sex relations, stands in stark contrast to the rosy image Stengel seemed to portray.

The U.S. has formally labeled Iran a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984. This designation is backed by Iran’s ongoing missile development and uranium enrichment activities, which have drawn international sanctions. Many see Stengel’s comments as dismissive of these serious concerns.

The recent military exchanges between Israel and Iran further highlight the instability in the region. This context makes Stengel’s questioning of the U.S.-Israel alliance even more contentious. Critics argue that the alliance is crucial for maintaining a balance of power in the volatile Middle East.

Stengel’s portrayal of Iran as the “most Western nation” in the Middle East is particularly controversial. It ignores the numerous reports of human rights violations and the oppressive nature of the Iranian regime. Such statements have sparked a debate on how the U.S. should approach its foreign policy in the region.

In the past, Stengel has been accused of aligning his public statements with the political objectives of the administrations he served. This history adds another layer of complexity to the current controversy surrounding his remarks. The perception that he is downplaying legitimate threats only fuels further criticism.

The broader implications of Stengel’s comments are yet to be seen. With MSNBC undergoing changes, it’s unclear how this will affect its roster of analysts and contributors. The network’s future direction might influence how such topics are discussed on its platform.

In the meantime, the debate on U.S. foreign policy towards Iran continues. The conservative media has been quick to highlight the dangers of underestimating the Iranian regime. They emphasize the importance of maintaining a strong stance against any threats to U.S. and allied interests.

Stengel’s comments about the friendly Iranians he encountered seem to downplay the regime’s aggressive posture. This narrative clashes with the well-documented actions of the Iranian government on the world stage. The disparity between Stengel’s portrayal and the reality faced by many in the region is stark.

The ongoing tension in the Middle East remains a complex issue. The U.S.’s alliances and policies are crucial in navigating this intricate geopolitical landscape. Stengel’s remarks have sparked a needed conversation, but the consensus on the right approach remains elusive.

As discussions unfold, the focus remains on ensuring that U.S. interests and those of its allies are safeguarded. The alliance with Israel, in particular, is seen as a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy in the region. Many argue that questioning this alliance is not only misguided but potentially harmful.

The conservative perspective emphasizes strength and vigilance in foreign policy. Stengel’s comments, seen as contrary to this perspective, have unsurprisingly drawn criticism. The debate highlights the divergent views on how best to secure peace and stability in the Middle East.

Richard Stengel’s remarks serve as a reminder of the complexities in U.S. foreign policy. His comments, while controversial, have brought much-needed attention to the ongoing issues in the region. The conversation around these matters is crucial in shaping future policies and alliances.

The U.S.’s approach to Iran and its alliances will continue to be a topic of significant debate. As new developments arise, the importance of a strong, clear stance cannot be overstated. The discussions sparked by Stengel’s comments contribute to the larger dialogue on these critical issues.