By striking Iran in alliance with Israel, Donald Trump is doing what previous US presidents and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu contemplated but never executed.
I recall a 2012 panel on CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS — with Bret Stephens, Rula Jebreal, Elliot Abrams and Daniel Levy — debating whether the US and Israel would attack Iran that year. That was 13 years ago.
Iran has spent decades destabilising the Middle East by funding Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and other militant groups. All of this has been in service of its broader objective: assaulting Israel and the US.
After the October 7 2023 Hamas attacks on Israel that were orchestrated by Iran, Israel under Netanyahu made clear that Jewish life would not be treated as expendable. Iran provoked a lion and Israel’s mission now is to dismantle all those responsible for the atrocities of October 7.
As the US-Israel-Iran war unfolds the world is asking what comes next. The honest answer is that no-one knows. But one thing is certain: if the stated objective is regime change, leaving Iran’s regime standing would be a strategic humiliation for both Israel and the US. But finishing the job will require more than airstrikes. That is the reality Trump and Netanyahu must confront. Only ground forces can topple a regime.
Regime change
If the US and Israel succeed in their goal of regime change the major loser will be China. For the US, China is one of the pieces of the puzzle. Trump is cutting off Beijing’s access to discounted oil from Iran. The Chinese Communist Party has relied heavily on cheap oil from Iran and Venezuela. Trump has already neutralised Venezuela, and now he’s on Iran.
In Foreign Affairs last week Yu Sun, a director of the China programme at the Stimson Centre, argued that China is not aiding Iran in this war because Beijing cares about oil, not the Iranian regime. China sees Iran as too weak to support meaningfully, Sun argued in the essay.
Fareed Zakaria, speaking recently with Scott Galloway, described Iran’s attacks on its Arab neighbours as a strategic blunder. Those attacks pushed Gulf states to support US–Israel strikes. Such a blunder by Iran is one of the major reasons China is refraining from meaningfully aiding Iran. China still wants to get along with Gulf states.
Why have close ties with a regime that funds terror and destabilises the Middle East if there is no benefit to the country? The only logical explanation is that it remains in the interests of the political elite.
It is striking that China and Russia have not come to the meaningful aid of Iran or Venezuela. They have been watching the US assert dominance. The repressive Iran and Russia are heavily financed by China. Beijing buys 95% of Iran’s oil and almost half of Russia’s. Yet China has chosen not to intervene directly in this conflict, at least for now.
Another loser if the Iranian regime falls? South Africa. The ANC-dominated government has, for decades, maintained warm relations with Iran’s clerical establishment. In fact, before 2012 nearly 40% of South Africa’s oil came from Iran. South Africa still imports from Iran, but trade has declined substantially over the years due to international sanctions. Most of what South Africa imports from Iran now are things such as edible fruits and nuts, and plastics and carpets, all in small volumes.
Last week ANC secretary-general Fikile Mbalula posted repeatedly on X about the ayatollahs’ support for the ANC during the anti-apartheid struggle. After the assassination of Ali Khamenei in the present conflict ANC officials visited the Iranian embassy to sign a condolences book. President Cyril Ramaphosa also sent a letter of sympathy to Tehran.
It is unclear why South Africa’s government still has close ties with Iran. Sanctions prevent us from buying Iranian oil and, as noted above, trade between the two countries is negligible. Why have close ties with a regime that funds terror and destabilises the Middle East if there is no benefit to the country? The only logical explanation is that it remains in the interests of the political elite.
Now that the US and Israel have made it clear that their intention in striking Iran is to achieve regime change, the Iran-South Africa relationship is sure to unravel. Trump has said he intends to influence the selection of Iran’s next leadership. A new pro-West Iranian leadership will not look kindly on South Africa given the ANC’s support for the ayatollahs. A new, US-aligned Iranian government would also be welcomed across much of the Arab world, leaving South Africa on the wrong side of geopolitical realignment and history.
What are the lessons for South Africa?
South Africa must draw lessons from this moment. For too long the country has aligned itself with authoritarian regimes and geopolitical underperformers — China, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and Russia. Some even view South Africa as one of Iran’s proxies, which is unfortunate and dangerous for the country. This is the result of the ANC foreign policy lacking strategic foresight. South Africa should be nonaligned in practice and seek partnerships with nations that are shaping the future, not those clinging to the past.
The Middle East is increasingly normalising relations with Israel. The primary obstacle to regional peace has long been Iran. South Africa must move beyond outdated 20th century loyalties and position itself for the emerging new global order. The first step Ramaphosa should take is to appoint an ambassador to Israel. That would signal a fresh approach to South Africa’s foreign policy.
Phumlani M Majozi is senior economist and executive director at African Markets Institute (AMI) as well as author of Lessons from Past Heroes.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.