Ronny Sianturi
Even the most seasoned journalists rarely endure the trials faced by Frederik Pleitgen, a German-born correspondent for CNN, during his recent assignment in Iran. Pleitgen’s nearly 24-hour overland journey from Armenia to Tehran, undertaken at the outset of a major U.S. and Israeli military campaign, was just the prelude to an experience marked by constant peril. Upon arrival, he and his small team—producer Claudia Otto and a translator—were immediately confronted by relentless bombing, turning every moment into a high-stakes navigation of danger.
Pleitgen’s harrowing presence in Iran was made possible by his status as the sole Western journalist representing a major U.S. broadcasting outlet, having secured the Iranian regime’s singular Western-journalist visa. This precarious access, granted for an eight-day window, allowed him to deliver critical on-the-ground reporting during the war’s crucial initial week, often narrowly escaping death amidst the air strikes. Now back in Berlin, Pleitgen shared his extraordinary account in a phone interview, edited here for conciseness and clarity.
Securing Access Amidst Escalating Conflict
The process of gaining entry into Iran during active combat operations was, by Pleitgen’s account, a testament to persistent diplomatic engagement. "The moment that the combat operations started, I contacted the Iranian culture ministry and the foreign ministry and put in an official visa request," Pleitgen explained. His plea emphasized the vital importance of on-the-ground reporting, a message that, after an unspecified period, yielded a positive response. "At some point they were just like, ‘Okay, we’ll let you in.’ And then they issued a visa for eight days."
The initial leg of his journey involved flying to Yerevan, Armenia, from where a nine-hour drive through a snowstorm led them to the Iranian border. However, upon reaching the frontier, the team was met with an unexpected roadblock. "They told us, we’re not getting in," Pleitgen recounted. "They said the border is closed for foreigners and you need to go back to Armenia." This initial rejection underscored the volatile and unpredictable nature of border crossings during such a heightened period of conflict.
A Perilous Journey and Unforeseen Obstacles
Despite the official pronouncement at the border, Pleitgen and his team engaged in persistent negotiations. "It didn’t seem to matter much to them," he said of the initial refusal. "So we start negotiating with the border guards, and then we talk to the boss of the Border Station, all through a translator. And we talk and talk, and show them the paperwork again." Their perseverance eventually paid off, and they were granted passage.
The drive to Tehran was another 12-hour ordeal, during which the team witnessed the devastating impact of the ongoing air campaign. "We’re seeing the aftermath of so many airstrikes and the plumes of smoke from fresh air strikes," Pleitgen described. As they approached the capital, the intensity of the bombardment became alarmingly clear. "As we got closer to Tehran, we heard that there was heavy bombardment going on in the west of Tehran. So we don’t even get there the first night." This immediate immersion into the conflict zone set the tone for their entire stay.
Reporting Without a Safety Net
Crucially, Pleitgen’s operation was entirely independent, with no military embedding or official protection. "No. It’s just me, my translator and my producer Claudia Otto," he stated. Otto, a photojournalist, also handled camera work, a vital function given the difficulty of self-filming under duress. Their accommodation, a hotel in Tehran, offered little respite from the omnipresent threat. "The next morning we woke up at 5 am and there were jets overhead. We could hear them bombing someplace. We pretty much heard it the whole time we were there."
The constant threat of aerial bombardment presented a unique psychological challenge. "I definitely felt that way," Pleitgen admitted when asked if the logistical hurdles served as a distraction from the danger. "It’s one of those things of ‘at least I have something else to focus on.’ But also just the feeling — the vindication and the responsibility — of like, wow, I’m one of the few people, one of the few Western journalists, who can be here and do this. It was a strange feeling but also a really helpful one." This dual sense of privilege and duty seemed to fuel his determination.
A Different Kind of War Zone
Pleitgen’s extensive experience in global conflict zones—including Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya—provided a stark point of comparison for his reporting in Iran. "But this was very different," he emphasized. The nature of the urban bombardment in Tehran posed distinct challenges. "We were going into a place that was being bombarded heavily, that was using big munitions in a densely urban area where they would take down that building and maybe even the one next to it." This raised immediate concerns about personal safety and the selection of reporting locations.
"So a lot of your time when you get somewhere it’s ‘Is there cover I can seek?’ ‘Is this place that I want to film around the block from something that’s a potential target?’" Pleitgen explained. Unlike many war zones, Tehran lacked robust civil defense infrastructure. "Because unlike a lot of war zones in Tehran there are no real shelters. There’s no air raid sirens. So things can kick off at any moment and surprise you. Wherever we went, there was really never a time that it stayed quiet for more than maybe an hour or so." This constant state of alert significantly impacted the pace and focus of their reporting.
The Constant Threat of Surprise
Evading the unpredictable nature of the air strikes was a daily struggle. "It’s quite difficult," Pleitgen said. "It’s just, ‘is there some high-value target maybe close to your vicinity?’ Just looking around and not going somewhere if you think there was, like a police station or a military facility. But there’s really no way to know." This inherent uncertainty meant that every excursion carried an element of risk.
The impact on his reporting methodology was profound. "Yeah, I mean I’d be lying if I said it didn’t," Pleitgen acknowledged. He described one instance where, while filming at a site that had been struck the previous day, the situation rapidly deteriorated. "We got through the security cordon, we talked to some people, and they let us film in a badly damaged building that was across from the area that had been hit… And then I was already feeling, ‘you know, that we had been there for about as long as I felt was good.’"
A sudden turn of events forced a hasty retreat. "Yeah so the people on the ground who were doing the security for that site said that we could film on the other side of the road. So we went around the block, and that’s when all of a sudden, anti-aircraft fire went off, and then we had to tail-end out of there so fast. And there was an explosion behind us as we went." This near-miss profoundly affected their work. He also recounted an incident at a dairy shop where the owner described a strike nearby that had killed a baker, illustrating the widespread and indiscriminate nature of the attacks.
The psychological toll of operating under such constant threat was significant. "What usually happens to me, and what happened this time with me as well, is that the early stages, when you’re there, when I’m walking around or going around, I always feel really weak and vulnerable, and because you’re constantly thinking, something could blow up next to me or hit the vehicle that it really affects the way you move and you’re not fully focused on on the questions that you want to ask," Pleitgen explained. "And it usually takes a day or a day and a half to get used to the situation where then you sort of block that out and you’re able to work at your full strength. As strange as that may sound, you really feel like your legs are stronger under you." This period of adjustment highlights the immense mental fortitude required for such reporting.
Life Under Siege: The Civilian Experience
The question of a safe haven in Tehran was also precarious. "Not really," Pleitgen responded when asked about secure accommodations. "An area close to our hotel got hit one night and you could tell the hotel staff was getting quite nervous, and some of the hits made the walls of the building shake." The proximity of the strikes created a palpable sense of anxiety, raising the chilling question: "could it get closer to us?" Another night, strikes on oil installations near the city cast a grim, smoky pall over the capital.
Gathering insights into the mood of the populace was a formidable challenge. "I won’t even pretend that I’ve even dug below the surface of a city of 11 or 12 million people," Pleitgen stated candidly. "And there are people who are against the government who will be very reluctant to speak to us." The pervasive fear following the escalation of bombing made many individuals, even those opposed to the regime, hesitant to engage. "And I think a lot of them are also shocked at the size of the explosions that they’re seeing and at the level of destruction that’s going on in parts of their town. So a lot of it is just fear."
Many residents were primarily focused on survival. "Many people are just trying to get by, like when we went to that neighborhood with the dairy farmer or we would talk to some of the customers. They were in a difficult economic situation beforehand, and now it’s even worse." The war exacerbated existing economic hardships. Pleitgen estimated that a significant portion of the population had fled the capital: "I would say about 20 to 30 percent of the people have left the city. So it’s a lot emptier than it used to be."
Despite the prevailing fear, a complex political landscape remained. "But it’s very complex. There are obviously a lot of people who are opposed to the regime and want it to fall. And then there’s a base of support the government has, and the government has been able to energize them." This duality suggests a society grappling with internal divisions amidst external aggression.
Navigating Objectivity and Media Criticism
Pleitgen directly addressed criticisms leveled against CNN, particularly from outlets like the New York Post, suggesting his access at the "leisure of the Iranian government" compromised his objectivity. He drew a parallel to CNN’s coverage of the Gulf War in 1991, where the network secured access to Iraq by demonstrating a commitment to reporting from all sides.
"And I think, quite frankly, that when there is a war going on, when there’s combat operations going on, that you need to also be on the other side, even if you know there are restrictions, even if it’s difficult," Pleitgen argued. He found the notion that reporting from a conflict zone for an opposing nation constituted "broadcasting for the enemy" to be misguided. "It’s about telling the story of the people who are on the ground feeling what it’s like to be under the bombardment, but it’s also to get a better sense of the way they think."
He emphasized the strategic value of understanding opposing viewpoints, even if they are propaganda. "You know, whether you like that way or not, your propensity for miscalculation is a lot smaller when you also listen to the other side, even if you think that they’re saying things for propaganda purposes, but at least it shows you what their vibe is and how they’re feeling and what their mojo is." Pleitgen underscored the importance of this nuanced understanding for both audiences and world leaders.
The Long Road to Resolution
Predicting an end to the conflict proved challenging. "You know, unless there’s a collapse on the Iran side, which I don’t know if that would ever happen, they seem to be able to withstand this," Pleitgen observed. He highlighted the resilience of the Iranian system, suggesting its capacity for self-renewal and its deep entrenchment. "The system can renew itself for a long time. No matter who you decapitate there, there’s always going to be the next guy. The system is big, it’s multi-layered."
The initial strikes, which targeted top leadership including the Supreme Leader, seemed to have galvanized, rather than crippled, the regime. "And I also think that they believe that they found their footing after the initial big decapitating strike that took out the Supreme Leader and some of the top generals and some of the political leaders as well," he stated. "And some of them were hard-liners but there are still hardliners left, and even a lot of the moderates from the beginning that wanted to negotiate are aligning with the hard-liners."
Pleitgen identified Ali Larijani, then head of the Supreme National Security Council, as a key figure in managing the military campaign and state security. He noted Larijani’s diplomatic importance and his connections to the former Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Larijani’s subsequent death in an Israeli airstrike, shortly after the interview, underscored the volatile leadership dynamics and the continuing impact of the conflict on Iran’s power structures. Pleitgen’s post-interview addendum highlighted Larijani’s role in regional diplomacy and his alignment with hardline factions, signaling a potential shift in the internal political landscape.
The economic influence of the Revolutionary Guard was also presented as a significant factor in the regime’s stability. "The other thing that many people may not understand is that the Revolutionary Guard and its organizations own a large part of the economy there so they control a lot of the Iranian state," Pleitgen explained. This economic power base contributes to the regime’s resilience. "And there’s a lot of different organizations. There’s a lot of different groups. Different companies that all have a stake in [the regime] continuing. So it’s a very difficult thing to penetrate, to evoke change."
While acknowledging the possibility of a negotiated settlement, Pleitgen expressed uncertainty about its timing and form. "I’m guessing that at some point there could be a settlement, maybe, or a negotiated solution, because right now there’s so many countries in the world that are reeling from rising oil prices. But I don’t know when, where or how." He cautioned that prolonged conflict could increase Iran’s leverage, potentially leading to a more favorable outcome for them.
The Enduring Value of On-the-Ground Journalism
The conversation turned to the evolving media landscape and the challenges faced by traditional war correspondents in an era dominated by social media. Pleitgen acknowledged the concerns about the future of his profession but firmly defended its continued relevance. "But I have to say that this has been one of those occasions that have really shown why we’re still important, why the big news organizations are still important," he asserted.
He contrasted the depth of reporting from established news outlets with the often superficial nature of social media content. "Because as you say so much of social media is just commenting on things, and of course they play important roles, but it just can’t compare to people in Lebanon or Iran or anywhere else who can tell you what’s going on." Pleitgen expressed hope for the preservation of traditional journalism models, citing positive ratings for CNN’s coverage as evidence of audience recognition. "There’s no replacement for having eyes and ears on the ground and the front lines."
Pleitgen concluded with a strong defense of privately owned media, drawing on his childhood experiences in East Berlin. "And I do think that one of the things that’s great about America is that the media is all privately owned. And that’s what journalism needs to be. Because the biggest dangers to free speech and to freedom of the press come from the state. So I just hope the American way of doing journalism as it has been for so many years is something that gets preserved."
The Future of Reporting from Iran
The prospect of returning to Iran for further reporting remains uncertain, primarily due to the visa application process. "It takes months to apply for a visa," Pleitgen noted. He indicated that Iran’s current policy appeared to allow only one foreign media outlet access at a time, suggesting another CNN correspondent might be dispatched soon. Despite the obstacles, Pleitgen expressed a desire to continue his work on the story. "I was gonna try and go back at some point, if I can. And I’m still working the story right now. I’m still getting in touch with people. I can’t go cold turkey." His commitment underscores the ongoing need for comprehensive, firsthand reporting from the heart of conflict.
