BAHMAN KALBASIIn its statements, the US State Department is applying Israel’s positions Interview with Shahid Qureshi, fired for non-compliance

Bahman Kalbasi, BBC Persian, 17/9/2025

Bahman Kalbasi is the BBC Persian’s  correspondent at the United Nations in New York.

Translated by Tlaxcala

(Since Qureshi’s remarks in English were simultaneously translated into Farsi for broadcast, we have retranslated them into English from the Farsi version.)

 

Shahid Qureshi worked in the Bureau of Global Public Affairs of the US State Department and was recently dismissed from his job. Mr. Qureshi tells Bahman Kalbasi in a special interview program: Condolences to the families of Palestinian journalists killed by the Israeli army in Gaza and emphasizing USA’s opposition to ethnic cleansing in Gaza were positions that he intended to include in State Department statements according to the usual procedure, and this is why he was dismissed. In his first interview with a Persian-language media outlet after his dismissal from the US State Department, Mr. Qureshi talks about what happened and his experience working in different US administrations.

Bahman Kalbasi: In the months following Donald Trump’s return to the White House, pressure has increased on a number of activists and students opposed to Israel’s war in Gaza; from the administration’s efforts to deport some who were not U.S. citizens to firing others from their jobs. Shahid Qureshi worked in the public relations department of the U.S. State Department and was recently dismissed from his job. He had tried to include, based on the usual procedure, condolences to the families of Palestinian journalists killed by the Israeli military and opposition to ethnic cleansing in Gaza in the State Department’s statements. He says this is precisely why he was fired. This is his first interview with a Persian-language media outlet since his dismissal from the U.S. State Department, in which he talks about his experience in both the previous and current administrations, as well as what happened. I am Bahman Kalbasi , and I am speaking with this former U.S. State Department employee in a Special Dialogue.

 

Shahid Qureshi, thank you for the opportunity you’ve given BBC Persian. Before we get into the matter, could you talk a bit about yourself? Where were you born? Where did you grow up?

 

Shahid Qureshi: Yes, I was born in Seattle in 1991. For university, I studied International Relations at the University of Washington. My parents are from the city of Saveh in Iran and came to America around the time of the revolution. After getting my bachelor’s degree, I went to Washington D.C. and got my master’s degree in the same field, International Relations.

 

Bahman Kalbasi: How did you end up working for the U.S. State Department?

 

Shahid Qureshi: From a young age, and after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, I became sensitive to the endless wars the United States had become involved in. I felt that the image of Iraq formed in American public opinion before the invasion helped justify that operation. When we traveled to Iran to visit family and returned to America, seeing a similar negative image being formed about Iran worried me that what happened in Iraq could be repeated for Iran. 

That’s why I became very active in civil society organizations working to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and prevent its repetition in Iran. At the same time, working at the State Department was appealing to me as a diplomat, both to understand the forces that lead a country to war and to help find diplomatic paths for resolving disputes instead of war. I am very happy I was able to work there for a while.

 

Bahman Kalbasi : When you joined the U.S. State Department, what exactly did you do in your role in public relations? What were your duties?

 

Shahid Qureshi: Last September, I joined the State Department’s public relations team as a media liaison for events in Lebanon and Jordan. A media liaison has two main tasks. First, to continuously brief the State Department spokesperson on the latest developments, news, and questions the media might ask before they go to the podium to speak with journalists. For my coverage area, which was Jordan and Lebanon, so they would be prepared to explain the administration’s positions in their responses. The media liaison’s second job is to answer questions from the media, for example, about the U.S. government’s position on an event in Lebanon. After a few months in that position, State Department officials decided to trust me with the more important task of being the media liaison for developments in Israel and Palestine, which, as you can imagine, amidst this war, was a much heavier responsibility. Every day, various news networks would ask me about the U.S. position or reaction to an event in Israel’s war in Gaza. My duty, in both the Biden and Trump administrations, was to write my understanding of the U.S. government’s position and, before sending it to the journalist who asked the question, show it to senior State Department officials in various relevant departments. They would review what I had written line by line and, if they deemed necessary, remove or add a word or a few lines. When the final text was ready, I would send it to the seventh floor of the State Department building, where the senior advisors and deputies to the Secretary of State are, for approval. Then I would give it to the journalist as the official U.S. government position or provide it to the spokesperson before a press briefing to place in the folder organized by country names, so they would be prepared to answer if the same question came up. When you read in a news report that “a State Department spokesperson told us...”, that person is either me or another media liaison. As I said, there are one or several media liaisons for each region or continent.

 

Bahman Kalbasi : Let’s go to the week that led to your dismissal. What exactly happened that week, and what were you trying to include in the State Department statements or your responses to journalists that angered the senior State Department officials?

 

Shahid Qureshi: It happened over three days. First, a few weeks ago, on August 10th, the horrifying news arrived about the killing of 6 journalists in Gaza, one of them being Anas an-Sharif, an Al Jazeera reporter, in an Israeli missile attack on the media tent. I wrote a text similar to our usual positions that we had expressed in the past, and I added one line that we had also used before, which was condolences to the families of the victim journalists. As soon as I placed this text before senior officials for approval, they immediately told me to remove the condolences because “we don’t know what the Al Jazeera journalist did.” I don’t want to say which official it was, but it was an official appointed by Secretary of State Rubio, not from the career diplomats at the Department. His point was essentially that maybe Israel’s accusation that the killed journalist was a Hamas member is true, and ultimately, based on that same Israeli claim, they prevented offering condolences.

My problem here was, why don’t we ask U.S. intelligence agencies if this claim is true or not? Why do we accept Israel’s claim without question? This procedure has happened in other cases where senior State Department officials, instead of asking U.S. intelligence agencies themselves, accepted what Israeli government institutions said.

The day after that, the Associated Press asked me what the U.S. government’s position was on reports that Israel wants to expel Palestinians from Gaza and send them to South Sudan. This is a topic that had been raised several times before. In the spring, there were reports that Israel wanted to send Gazans to the autonomous region of Somaliland. Before that, there was talk of sending them to Libya and Ethiopia.

The U.S. government’s position in all these cases was consistent: that we do not comment on bilateral talks between, for example, Israel and Ethiopia, but we oppose the forced transfer of Gazans to any other place. Of course, the correct term for forced transfer is ethnic cleansing, but at the State Department we say ‘forced transfer’.

In short, when I sent these few lines for approval to the seventh floor, they deleted the sentence “We oppose the forced transfer of Palestinians,” which was very strange to me. Because we had taken a similar position before in this very Trump administration, and there was no problem. Mr. Trump himself, in his own words, had said he opposed ethnic cleansing, and his special representative, Mr. Witkoff, had also said we do not intend to evacuate people from Gaza. So it was completely consistent with the Trump administration’s positions to say we do not support forced transfer. But anyway, they crossed out that part of the text I had written.

Interestingly, we had used the exact same sentence a few weeks earlier regarding developments in Ethiopia and South Sudan – “Yes, the U.S. opposes the forced transfer of people from their land” – and it was approved without any issue. Then, the day after that, as part of my job of including finalized State Department answers in the spokesperson’s folder for potential journalist questions, I placed a response regarding the U.S. Speaker of the House’s trip to Israel and a visit he had to Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

At the same time, several senior advisors to the U.S. ambassador to Israel had used language on several occasions that did not align with long-standing U.S. government policy. To the extent that the State Department spokesperson, when asked by journalists about Ambassador Mike Huckabee’s remarks, said several times that “this is the ambassador’s view and language” and then repeated the official government position. It created a kind of distance between the State Department and the ambassador’s positions.

The same thing happened in my case. A senior advisor to Ambassador Huckabee, a man named David Milstein, constantly tried to promote positions known as “Israel First.” This means that Israel’s interests are more important, even when they may not align with U.S. interests and positions. In American political parlance, it’s common to say so-and-so is “Israel First.” Mr. Milstein had altered the text I had prepared and finalized for the State Department spokesperson’s folder. For example, I had written, “We oppose instability in the West Bank because it is also important for Israel’s security that the West Bank not become tense.” This is very established language we’ve used many times in the past. He crossed out “West Bank” and instead wrote “Judea and Samaria.” You know that this term is a religious and Israeli term used by those opposed to an independent Palestinian state to argue that settlement building in the West Bank, which is considered illegal by the international community, is their right. The U.S. government, including Mr. Trump and Secretary of State Rubio, have always called this area the West Bank, but the U.S. ambassador to Israel, Mr. Huckabee, uses “Judea and Samaria” at Israel’s request. With the support of my colleagues at the State Department, I removed “Judea and Samaria” again and put back “West Bank.”

So, three changes in three days: 1) A condolence for the killed Palestinian family, 2) Opposition to the forced transfer of Palestinians from Gaza, and 3) My resistance to the attempt by the ambassador’s advisor in Israel to remove “West Bank” from the State Department’s lexicon. The day after these three days, when I came to work, my colleagues told me that the same Mr. Milstein was extremely angry and had been in contact with senior officials on the seventh floor of the Department demanding my dismissal, and they had pressured my managers in public relations that I had to go. That’s how they made this political decision to fire me.

 

Bahman Kalbasi: So that Friday when they fired you, what exactly did they say to you?

 

Shahid Qureshi: They never formally or in writing told us why we were dismissed. Two days after this incident, when news of Mr. Milstein’s pressure reached me, I suddenly realized my access to the State Department’s computer system had been cut off. The next day, they just told me I had to turn in my work laptop and my building access card. And it wasn’t just that they didn’t tell me formally why; they even refused to write down the reason for my dismissal officially and in writing for my managers in the media liaison section, which showed it was a political decision that came from senior officials.

 

Bahman Kalbasi: What does this event tell you about what is happening inside the State Department? Especially the senior officials who, as you say, were not sensitive to these positions in past months but have now become sensitive. What has happened there?

 

Shahid Qureshi: On the contrary, at the beginning of the Trump presidency, I was hopeful because it started with a ceasefire in Gaza. The president’s speech in Saudi Arabia was very good. He said we don’t want war anymore. He criticized warmongers in America. But now I see that the influence of those same hardliners is pushing U.S. foreign policy towards radical decisions. The images from Gaza are horrifying, and now, in addition to that, this effort to use “Judea and Samaria” instead of “West Bank,” and the fact that we can’t even utter that we oppose ethnic cleansing, is terrifying. Especially since news reports indicate that serious discussions about transferring people out of Gaza are underway, and this itself shows it was not without reason that they deleted the text I wrote opposing forced transfer.

 

Bahman Kalbasi: Does that mean that even the things Trump himself said at the beginning of his administration are no longer official policy? Does this mean that Ambassador Huckabee, the current U.S. ambassador to Israel, has a greater role compared to other officials in shaping U.S. policy towards Israel? Because we know Mr. Huckabee is one of the most hardline figures and for years has even emphasized that in his view, there is no such thing as Palestinians.

 

Shahid Qureshi: That’s right. During my tenure, I had good relationships not only with my colleagues but even with some Trump appointees. My dismissal, through the influence of the U.S. embassy in Israel, sends a message to all diplomats and State Department staff that if they misstep on Israel, they could be fired. This will have a very negative impact. Who is willing, under these conditions, in a public relations role, to stand up for appropriate positions and oppose the stances of Ambassador Huckabee?

This is a disaster for a State Department full of the best foreign policy experts. Experts whose views and analyses have played a major role in positioning and shaping foreign policy. Because now they will worry that their expert opinions will be met negatively by officials. This will weaken our relations with other countries, even U.S. allies, from Jordan to the UAE and Saudi Arabia.

 

Bahman Kalbasi : What is the feeling among State Department employees, the diplomatic corps there, regarding this war? You worked with them in this role and others. Especially since even during the Biden administration, we saw that a number of State Department diplomats resigned in protest of his policy of supporting Israel. What is the feeling among your former colleagues now?

 

Shahid Qureshi: Let’s remember that the State Department staff is under great pressure right now. On one hand, the Trump administration has laid off thousands in workforce adjustments, and on the other hand, radical policies continue. We are all human, and the images from Gaza are very worrying, and diplomats convey these concerns to those in management they trust. But the direction of policy is set by President Trump and his Secretary of State, Mr. Rubio. Consequently, aside from expressing their expert opinions, there isn’t much else they can do.

 

Bahman Kalbasi: What has been the reaction to your dismissal? Both among your former colleagues and employees, and in the media, which we saw covered it. And if you could go back a few weeks, would you still try to include those points in the State Department statement, or do you think it would have been better not to get involved in this fight at all?

 

Shahid Qureshi: Many colleagues called and expressed regret, saying conditions have become tougher after my dismissal; no one is very willing to take on the media liaison role because it has become too political and senior officials at the U.S. embassy in Israel interfere. And yes, if I went back, I would still insist on the text I wrote, because it was a continuation of policies we had announced in the past, like opposing the forced transfer of Gazans and a simple condolence to the families of killed journalists.

 

Bahman Kalbasi: Having worked in both the previous and current administrations, what was the difference between the two? Especially regarding the issue of Israel and Palestine. Because many say there isn’t much difference; Biden also fully supported Israel, and Mr. Trump is doing the same. There isn’t much difference between Democrats and Republicans, especially on Palestine and Israel. Is this assessment correct, and based on your work there, did you see a difference in this policy?

 

Shahid Qureshi: That’s a good question. In the few months I was in this position under the Biden administration, it became clear to me that Mr. Biden should have ended the Gaza war much sooner. If they had done that, we wouldn’t be in this situation today. The horrific images from Gaza occurred during both that administration and this one. So yes, in that regard, there is no difference between the two administrations. But in the language the State Department spokesperson used, there was a difference under Biden, because there was at least sympathy for the Palestinians, and we asked Israel to investigate cases of civilian casualties and be accountable. The problem was that we didn’t follow up much to ensure what we said was implemented. This administration doesn’t even offer verbal sympathy and doesn’t demand accountability or investigation from Israel.

 

Bahman Kalbasi: Many critics say that perhaps Biden and his policy were actually worse, because superficially he used words, employed terms that suggested sympathy for the Palestinians, but in practice, he implemented the same policy as Trump. At least Trump’s words and actions are the same, and he says he doesn’t care what happens to the Palestinians.

 

Shahid Qureshi: Yes, that’s true. I accept that. It’s not honest to express sympathy in our statements but allow horrific events in Gaza to continue in practice. President Trump also missed the opportunity when he didn’t insist on maintaining the ceasefire that was formed at the beginning of his administration. Consequently, both administrations made mistakes, and the price is paid by the Palestinian people who are in this terrible situation. This war must end.

 

Bahman Kalbasi : To what extent do you think your Iranian-American background played a role in your dismissal? Not necessarily, but in general, if you were a white American with no connection to the Middle East, perhaps their treatment of you might have been different.

 

Shahid Qureshi: It must be accepted that when these “Israel First” people see a Middle Eastern name like mine, Shahid Qureshi, they can more easily pressure others, saying, ‘Yes, this person is not aligned with our policies,’ or ‘He has written anti-war articles in the media before, and must be fired.’ So yes, it probably was not without influence. It’s not like anyone ever said such a thing to me directly, but they could have come to me and said, ‘Policy has changed, and we don’t want to openly oppose ethnic cleansing,’ and I would have decided whether to stay or resign. But no, they fired me immediately. The judgment is with the viewers.

 

Bahman Kalbasi : In conclusion, I want to look at what the main concern is regarding the path the State Department is taking, the path the Trump administration is taking, and its consequences, especially in the Israel-Gaza war.

 

Shahid Qureshi: My main concern is the suffering of the Palestinians which continues, and the hopes I had at the beginning of the Trump administration that a lasting ceasefire would hold, which were lost. The speeches by Mr. Trump himself saying he wanted peace were not followed up or implemented. And simultaneously, we are accepting Israel’s narrative of events in Gaza more and more. The result of this behavior is Israel’s greater isolation, and this isolation also affects America’s relations with its allies. Right now we see the U.S. government criticizing Canada, Australia, Britain, and France, asking why they want to recognize an independent Palestinian state? For me, U.S. interests should be the priority, the same slogan President Trump gave. But now, given the influence the “Israel First” crowd has, this priority has been called into question.

 

Bahman Kalbasi: Shahid Qureshi, thank you for the opportunity you gave me.

 

Shahid Qureshi: Thank you very much. Thanks. I am grateful you allowed me to speak in English because my Persian isn’t good.