By Hassen Lorgat
Joanne Joseph has made her long-overdue and welcome return to South African radio in an aptly named programme, The Daily Discourse with Joanne Joseph on SAfm:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkUtYr7eTq4
She spoke of a world at war and divided, and how our Constitution and its values might guide us in these times, where misinformation and disinformation reign wildly. Respect for the Constitution and research-based thinking is required, and the platform is to be used to discuss these issues. Importantly, she underscored the value of being open to persuasion.
Thus, I fully endorse her opening sentiments. But sadly, half an hour into the programme, the professional journalist uncharacteristically failed to provide the full context of the guest she had on the line.
Benjy Shulman was simply introduced as the expert (my word) and the Executive Director of the Middle East Africa Research Institute (MEARI). It was not stated that he is also a board member of the South African Friends of Israel and has for many years served as Director of Public Policy at the South African Zionist Federation (it is believed he may have since stepped down).
This should not disqualify him from speaking about Middle Eastern geopolitics and African security. However, had listeners and viewers known about his recent writings on Iran — in Africa and the Middle East — they would have been forewarned.
Just a few months ago, in Business Day, he accused Iran of spreading Islamist extremism and terror financing networks on the continent. In the article headlined “Iran is a Malignant Force in Africa”, Shulman speaks of Iran backing militant groups:
https://www.businessday.co.za/bd/opinion/2025-06-25-benji-shulman-iran-is-a-malignant-force-in-africa/
For four decades, he wrote, Iran has served as the central engine for Islamic terrorism, supporting proxies and destabilising the region. He lambasted Iran’s relations with Hezbollah, its funding of Shia militias in Iraq, and “its unwavering support for Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza.” The Iranian regime, he argued, has perfected a model for asymmetrical warfare.
In one of his more recent reports, he warned about what he considers the strategic risks of South Africa’s deepening ties with Iran, specifically regarding trade and diplomatic alignment.
So when Joanne asks him: “What is in this geopolitical war for the US? Why invade Iran?” — his answer is bland and merely serves to justify the narratives of empire (Don Roe Doctrine, “he has to look after his part of the world,” “plug the holes” — Greenland, Iran, and so on).
When Joanne asks him how South Africa can benefit from being allowed free passage to get oil and other resources through the Strait of Hormuz, he ends up warning us: “This war is not going to be good for us… Other countries are making lists about who is going through the straits… and so on. We have limited economic trade with Iran — we are not in the top 30 or 40. Why are they going through… undermining us… (we may feel pain).”
In this monitoring exercise, he mentions Saudi Arabia, and it may be appropriate to share how off the mark he is. The countries whose vessels have been allowed to pass through the Strait — as permitted by Iran in its post-April 2026 selective blockade strategy — include:
France – A CMA CGM container ship passed around April 3.
Saudi Arabia – An oil tanker (carrying 1 million barrels to India) passed in late March/early April.
Japan – Three Japan-linked ships exited the Gulf around April 3–4.
India – Indian-flagged gas carriers with naval escorts (Operation Sankalp).
China – Ships aligned with China granted permission by Iran.
Russia – Ships aligned with Russia granted permission by Iran.
Oman – Omani-linked tankers continued operating.
Iraq – Vessels received permission after direct talks with Tehran.
Pakistan – Vessels received permission after direct talks with Tehran.
Malaysia – Vessels received permission after direct talks with Tehran.
Thailand – Vessels received permission after direct talks with Tehran.
So, I still have hope that this programme will improve, but I must confess that this interview was such a let-down, and the producers must take some blame here too. In a rebuttal to the Business Day article, a letter writer, Andile Songezo — under the headline “Iran Fearmongering” — quite correctly stated that Shulman’s article argued for regime change in Iran. In addition, Songezo argues that “Shulman cynically weaponises African tragedies to argue for regime change in Tehran”:
https://www.businessday.co.za/bd/opinion/letters/2025-06-26-letter-iran-fearmongering/
Would you ask a supporter of regime change in Iran to speak on the Strait of Hormuz and how South Africa could benefit? It is like asking the fox to look after the chickens.
The way this programme has fallen foul of the recent ruling of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, which I helped to work on: case number 16/2025. The matter was heard on 2 December 2025, and they finally ruled on 12 February 2026. The ruling can be found here:
https://www.bccsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/16-Lorgat-vs-SABC-News-SAFM-Judgment-Final.pdf
The ruling is a clear sanction and a wake-up call for the SABC (and SAfm). They have been reminded that they must report in a balanced, accurate, and truthful manner. They were warned: “The SABC is reprimanded and urged to ensure balance in accordance with the requirements of Clause 13.1.”
We are watching and listening…
