The Spectator

Spectator article suggests ‘Israeli money’ manipulates US policy towards Iran.


There’s a lot about John R. Bradley‘s piece on Iran in The Spectator (Forget our misguided friendship with Saudi Arabia: Iran is our natural ally, Sept. 2) that reads like something you’d expect to find in the Guardian.  

Whilst Bradley’s broad argument, that Saudi sponsored Wahhabism is a greater threat to the West than Shia, is at least debatable, parts of his op-ed seem like an outright defense of the Islamist regime.  For instance, he describes the US “singl[ing] out Iran and its Shia proxies as the instigators of terrorism and sectarian bloodshed” in the Middle East as “bizarre” and mocks what he characterises as America’s “borderline-insane obsession with the supposedly existential threat posed by Iran to Israel”.  However, he fails to explain why the US assessment of Iran’s sponsorship of terror throughout the world is misguided, or why Israeli fears of Tehran’s repeated threats to annihilate their country are unfounded.

Bradley also strangely suggests that Iran is more decent than Saudi Arabia merely because their antisemitic rhetoric usually employs the euphemism “Zionist” instead of the word “Jew”, and describes the “military sacrifices of Iran and its Shia ally, Hezbollah” in Syria as, yes, “heroic”!

However, it’s when he attempts to explain the reason why Americans “never hear” the Iranian side of the story that he descends into a conspiratorial trope.

One reason is that almost all the ‘experts’ on the region, who contribute countless op-eds to US newspapers, brief US intelligence officials and appear as pundits on TV, work for think-tanks funded by the Arab monarchies or Israel.

Bradley’s hypothesis not only fails to acknowledge that most regional “experts” were actually part of a media “echo chamber” that supported the Iran Deal (which Israel vehemently opposed), and ignores the role of pro-Iranian lobbying in Congress, but, most shamefully, suggests – naturally, without citing a source – that the US debate over Iran is significantly manipulated by Israeli money.

The charge that Israel or Jews exercise a dangerous degree of control over US foreign policy or public opinion is sadly common within leftist discourse on the Middle East, and the fact that such a toxic calumny has been published in a right-wing publication is another indication of the lure of such antisemitic logic among otherwise sober minds of all political persuasions. 

Related Articles

14 replies »

  1. John Bradley may indeed think that Iran is “our natural ally”, despite the evidence that suggests Iran has nuclear ambitions similar to North Korea. He might ponder on that comparison and whether or not N. Korea should also be “our natural ally”. Perhaps it is the Jewish lobby that is causing all this tension between the US and N. Korea after all. Well thus far Bradley hasn’t got round to blaming the antics of Kim Jong Un on Bibi Netanyahu or even the Arab monarchies. To do so would be as moronic as his opinions over US policy towards Iran. This is clearly a man who doesn’t do much joined up thinking.

    The real threat to world peace seems to be in the Far East and it is imperative that the West figures out how to deal with it. When or if the solution is found, a more effective approach to the problem of Iran should follow.

  2. Conspirational TRIPE is more like it. The latent antisemitism of so called “journalists” in GB is getting to the stage that they will blame the Jews for everything and anything happening on this planet.

  3. Iran, Saudi neither are our allies. What utter tosh Mr Bradley, but hey times are hard and money is to be made, kudos and published articles etc when engaging in pro Caliphate in waiting propaganda, Jew and Israel bashing (anti-semitism). However other lesser mortals decide to keep their integrity and sup on humble economy baked beans rather than caviar from ill gotten gains.

  4. All Islamofascist regimes are the enemy of everybody including other Islamofascist regimes. They are a cult of hate. They hate everybody and have for 1,400 years now

  5. “The charge that Israel or Jews exercise a dangerous degree of control over US foreign policy or public opinion is sadly common within leftist discourse on the Middle East, and the fact that such a toxic calumny has been published in a right-wing publication is another indication of the lure of such antisemitic logic among otherwise sober minds of all political persuasions.”

    To quote one John McClane (of Die Hard and not to be confused with the senior senator of Arizona), “Welcome to the party, Pal.”

    Although, to be fair, this isn’t the first Right Wing complaint of overt Judaic control of United States foreign policy (especially during this very anti-Globalist–which puts it nicely– administration); it’s just the latest.

  6. Should anyone doubt it, I wasn’t approving of traditional conservatism in my comment here. I was suggesting strongly that such people (specifically Hitchens Minor) feel a slight fellow feeling for Corbyn which they didn’t for Blair because of a latent, unspoken anti-Semitism within them. Not sure who would have given my comment the lowest possible mark; perhaps I should have been less ambiguous.