The Editor's Desk - Thu 5 March 2026: Debunking myths and navigating the fog of war

In today’s Editor's Desk, Alec Hogg highlights a new investigation by James Myburgh that deconstructs the historical "myth" regarding the ANC’s relationship with the Iranian regime. This is followed by a deep-dive discussion from the Financial Times featuring Gideon Rachman and Emile Hokayem, who examine the escalating "battle of endurance" in the Middle East. They explore the strategic implications of the recent US combat operations in Iran, the resilience of the Iranian regime, and the growing anxiety among Gulf states and Western allies as the region faces the prospect of protracted instability..Don't miss out on future episodes of The Editor's Desk. Subscribe to BizNews Premium and get the podcast delivered to your inbox daily..Listen here.Edited transcript of today's Editor's Desk episode.Hello and welcome. I’m Alec Hogg, and this is the Editor’s Desk, an exclusive listen for our business premium members. It’s Thursday, the 5th of March, 2026. You might notice a slight tweak to our format going forward. Instead of only pointing you to the best of what’s happening on BizNews, we will also start bringing you premium podcasts from our partners at the Financial Times of London and Bloomberg. Today, we’re kicking that off by featuring the FT’s Rachman Review. But before sharing more about Gideon’s discussion with Emile Hokayem, the one story on BizNews today that you simply have to read is by an old friend of mine and former colleague, James Myburgh. So let me just give you a little bit of background on that. I started an online publication in 1996. It was above my garage in our home, then in Parkview. I was a complete ignoramus when it came to technology and bought a book that was probably about ten centimetres thick called Laura Lemay’s Teach Yourself HTML. Think now how early it was in the internet’s life. But that was the beginning of what another friend of mine—who was then an internet pioneer and a giant of the scene at the time, Kevin Davie—proposed. His publication was called Woza. He suggested that I take my column and, instead of just publishing it on his website, start my own titled website and call it Moneyweb. What a great name. And Kevin, who has since been teaching young financial journalists at the university, has really been an unsung hero in so many respects. Anyway, Moneyweb grew and, as the internet expanded, it became stronger. At one point in time, I think we had about 50 people who worked there, including a big operation in London called Mineweb. We had a close partnership with InfoMine in Vancouver, Canada. It became quite a business. Along the road, I met a gent by the name of James Myburgh and his partner, Stanley Uys. Stanley was the guy in London for the Morning Group—the old South African Associated Newspapers—and a quite brilliant journalist. James, I can tell you, is in the same league. He did his doctorate at Oxford; he’s just one of the smartest people I’ve ever met. The two of them were bumbling along with a website called Ever Fast the News, and I proposed that we support and work together. Moneyweb funded the website, and the two of them took huge salary sacrifices in producing the content. It was called Politicsweb and that, to my eternal delight, remains a beacon of good sense and good journalism in South Africa. James has continued with Politicsweb. Stanley sadly passed on, and James is now writing occasionally for Frans Cronje’s new operation, called The Common Sense. There’s good stuff there, especially when James writes it. Today he’s written a typical James Myburgh story. You’ve got to understand this man: he is fearless and will stand up for what he believes in. A good example was when one of his biggest philanthropic funders wanted him to fire David Bullard. Now, David’s got a beautiful pen, but sometimes he writes things that offend certain sectors of the population. James’s view was, "Well, that’s what he’s there to do, to tell the truth the way that he sees it. No, I’m not going to fire him because he happens to have offended some people. And by the way, if you want to withdraw your funding, be my guest." And that’s what happened. They did withdraw their funding. That’s James Myburgh. The story on BizNews today is typical Myburgh; he has gone and dug into a myth and shown it to be nonsense. The ANC tells us—and it’s been repeated by the Secretary General and some journalists—that they are a close friend of Iran and that the Iranian regime supported the ANC and the liberation movement. James shows that this is complete nonsense. There was a strong relationship between the ANC and the revolutionaries who ousted the Shah of Iran in 1979, but that went sour in just a couple of years. A couple of years later, the Islamic Republic launched a major clampdown on the Soviet networks and the Tudeh Party. The Tudeh Party was, like the ANC, supported by the Soviet Union, and many members were executed, arrested, or tortured by the Revolutionary Guard. James writes that up to 200 suspected Soviet agents and collaborators were executed. So, from 1983 onwards, there was no relationship between the ANC and Iran. In fact, the ANC was very unhappy with the Khomeini regime. To take it one step further, the Khomeini regime was selling oil to the apartheid regime in South Africa—the ANC’s direct enemies. As Hennie van Vuuren writes in his book Apartheid Guns and Money, in 1985 the government of Iran agreed to purchase $750 million worth of South African weapons from Armscor in return for Iranian crude of equal value. This relationship continued. South Africa lived off oil from Iran through the 1980s. The only time it started to be weaved into this myth of friendship was in July 1992, when Nelson Mandela visited Iran, overruling the objections of the ANC Department of International Affairs and the ANC chief representative in London, Mendi Msimang. Mandela was looking for money; he was quite mercenary about these things. He realised that you needed money to win elections. So he went to Tehran, where he was even awarded an honorary doctorate. What a story, and what a way for propagandists to revise history to suit what they want us to think now. It’s a great piece. Go and read it. Now for the deep dive with Gideon Rachman, the chief foreign affairs commentator for the Financial Times, and Emile Hokayem, director of regional security at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. The topic is Iran, under the headline "Iran War Risks Turning into a Battle of Endurance." Over to Gideon. The Rachman Review: Iran War Risks (Summarised) Gideon Rachman: The latest war began with a strike on Tehran that killed much of Iran's senior leadership. But what happens next? When Donald Trump announced the onset of hostilities, he endorsed regime change in Iran and called for the Iranian people to overthrow the leadership of the Islamic Republic. Iran’s response was to broaden the conflict, firing not just at Israel but also at Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, shattering the safe-haven image of Dubai. We are learning that the US consulate in Dubai has reportedly been hit by a suspected Iranian drone and is currently on fire. Three US embassies in the region are closed as the State Department urges citizens to leave. I began my conversation with Emile Hokayem by asking him if he thinks this is likely to be a short or a long war. Emile Hokayem: This is a matter of a few weeks, but a few very intense weeks with a long tail. This doesn’t end with total victory; it ends with a very messy security situation. At the moment, the US and Israel have the military advantage, but the Iranian regime has proven resilient. This is a regime with a strong ideological core that can take losses and adjust. Gideon Rachman: Do you think the Americans have been surprised by Iran’s ability to resist? They kill a lot of the leadership, yet Iran is managing to fire into the Gulf states. Emile Hokayem: Certainly, the US has been surprised by how quickly Iran was able to fire at its immediate neighbourhood. But that’s a lesson Iran learned after the June 2025 war—it had to delegate authority to missile crews across the country. Iran has been mostly successful through the use of waves of drones, especially the Shahed-136. It has learned from Russia’s use of this technology in Ukraine. It’s a battle of endurance. How many projectiles can Iran still launch, and how many interceptors can the US, Israel, and their partners use to counter them? Gideon Rachman: I was talking to some Israelis and they said the number of interceptors Israel has is a state secret. Is that basically the critical metric? Emile Hokayem: It is the critical metric. We have Pentagon officials leaking and complaining about what wars in the Middle East are doing to America’s ammunition stocks. There is extreme anger at Iran in the Gulf states, but also a lot of apprehension and anger at the US and Israel for failing to really defend them so far. Gideon Rachman: President Trump and his senior officials have offered a wide array of aims. Israel seems to have a clearer idea; they want regime decapitation. But what does chaos in Iran look like for the 90 million people there? Emile Hokayem: Iran is a country with deep fissures over ethnicity and socioeconomic goods. An Iran that cannot export oil and has no sense of order may well be an Iran that exports refugees and instability. If the US is not willing to stabilize it, we will face protracted instability. Gideon Rachman: Trump seems consistent on one thing: no American troops on the ground. Will the Gulf states join the campaign? Emile Hokayem: It looks increasingly likely that the Gulf states will relax their opposition to the US use of bases and airspace. I wouldn’t be surprised if a couple of Gulf states are looking at operational plans right now. Gideon Rachman: Last question—Britain’s involvement. Donald Trump was pretty scathing about Keir Starmer, saying he's "no Churchill." How do you interpret Britain’s "careful balance"? Emile Hokayem: If the UK joins the campaign for regime change, they will be on the hook for the day after. They would be expected to help with the stabilization and containment of Iran. Can the UK afford that? I’m going to leave it there for today. Thank you for trusting us with your time. I’m Alec Hogg. Until tomorrow, cheerio.

The Editor's Desk - Thu 5 March 2026: Debunking myths and navigating the fog of war

Related Stories

BN Daybreak - Fri 12 June 2026: Trump halts Iran strikes; SA's overlooked gold fortune; PA surge; World Cup fees

BN Daybreak - Wed 10 June 2026: US strikes Iran; SpaceX demand; Joburg budget woes; SA Competition Court backlog

Gideon Rachman: The Iran crisis has not yet peaked

The FT's Rachman Review: Iran war — What does Tehran want and will it get it?