A recent episode of Insiders on Background, the ABC’s foreign affairs discussion program, hosted by Melissa Clark and featuring political scientist and former detainee Kylie Moore-Gilbert, examined Iran following recent US and Israeli military strikes. The program’s premise is clear: Iran’s regime is weakening. Its leadership is ageing, paranoid, and fractured; its people are disillusioned; its isolation is deepening.
Moore-Gilbert certainly brings expertise and lived experience - her time as a political prisoner in Iran gives weight to her views. Yes, Moore-Gilbert has academic credentials and personal insight. But as with any commentator, we should understand her history and assess whether she offers a balanced perspective.
Here’s where problems arise.
A glance at Moore-Gilbert’s posts on X shows that while Israeli bombing has killed thousands of children in Gaza over the past year, she has been silent on their suffering. During that same period, Iran has bombed no one - but this seems to escape her attention as she focuses on demonizing Iran.
She has even promoted an article in The Financial Times accusing Fatima Payman - the only Australian politician prepared to jeopardize her career by standing up for Gaza’s children - of betrayal. Elsewhere, she celebrates Israel’s assassination by pager bomb, a blatant act of terrorism that maimed and killed civilians.
In short, she is hardly a dispassionate analyst.
Then there are questions about her own background. Reports suggest her associations with Israel may have contributed to her arrest in Iran. The Sydney Morning Herald highlighted her relationship with an Israeli and documented her time in Israel, including attendance at Ein Prat, a Zionist academy whose curriculum is explicitly tied to Zionist ideology and the justification of Israel as a Jewish state.
It would not be unreasonable for Iran - or any observer - to view attendance at such an academy as preparation for a role in Israeli intelligence.
Moreover, Moore-Gilbert has expressed open support for regime change in Iran, as shown in her writing for The Strategist. Her position is clear: the regime must be overthrown - by any means necessary.
To be clear, you don’t have to agree with what Moore-Gilbert thinks about Iran. She’s entitled to her opinions. But what matters here is that the ABC chose to present her views without any meaningful context that would help audiences situate her perspective among competing voices. This suggests either editorial incompetence or a willingness to privilege a particular pro-Israel framing, which is at odds with the ABC’s charter.
Here’s what an honest introduction might have sounded like:
"Today, we interview Kylie Moore-Gilbert, an academic and commentator on Iranian affairs. Moore-Gilbert lived in Israel, studied at an academy for Zionist leadership development, learned Hebrew and Arabic, and married an Israeli citizen. These ties drew the attention of Iranian authorities, who arrested her on espionage charges during a visit to Iran - charges she denies - and held her for 600 days in prison."
Beyond this failure to contextualize, there are deeper problems with the interview itself.
First: the tone.
The segment exudes an unmistakable sense of satisfaction - even celebration - over the bombing of Iranian government infrastructure. Clark describes Israel’s missile strike on Evin Prison, notorious for housing dissidents, as “impactful” and “morale-boosting.” She briefly acknowledges “the human cost of just one missile” but quickly pivots to focus on what it means for the regime.
No one raises the question of legality. No one acknowledges that unprovoked attacks on another sovereign state may breach international law. Civilian casualties? Never mentioned. The moral questions? Ignored. The discussion proceeds as if the outcome - a weakened regime-is all that matters.
Would we react the same way if Iran had launched missiles at Israeli or American prisons holding political activists? Would we muse about “symbolism” then?
Second: the framing of regime collapse.
Moore-Gilbert repeats a familiar claim: the Iranian people overwhelmingly oppose their leaders. She cites surveys - mostly conducted from abroad - suggesting 80% of Iranians want regime change. She lists corruption, poverty, and repression as driving discontent.
These are valid concerns, but her portrayal goes too far. The only neutral survey, by Gallup, shows dissatisfaction—but no greater than in many other countries. Should widespread discontent with Scott Morrison or Peter Dutton have triggered regime-change discussions here? Would anyone suggest regime change in Germany due to AfD’s rise?
The interview treats dissatisfaction as tacit support for foreign intervention - as though Iranians would welcome bombs falling on Tehran.
This is dangerously simplistic. History shows why: Iraq, Libya, and Syria all demonstrate the catastrophic consequences of Western interventions cloaked in the rhetoric of liberation. Failed states, sectarian violence, and extremist insurgencies followed in their wake.
Even Iranians who dislike their government are not blind. Many will resist foreign attacks. Nationalism often outweighs reform when a country is under siege. Yet this reality is never mentioned.
Third: the analysis of international alliances.
Moore-Gilbert correctly notes Iran’s diplomatic isolation, pointing out that Russia and China have withheld significant support during the crisis. But this is framed as a moral verdict: isolation as deserved punishment for a rogue state.
There’s no acknowledgment that support from Russia or China might be covert - or that Iran’s diplomacy with regional powers like Qatar could reflect caution and pragmatism. Nor is there any reflection on how the presence of US bases in the Gulf contributes to instability, or why countries like Qatar tolerate them.
But regimes don’t collapse on cue. Bombs don’t deliver democracy. Populations don’t cheer from rubble.
Had this interview paused even briefly to consider the legal, ethical, or historical complexities of bombing Iran, it could have produced a deeper, more responsible discussion. Instead, it favoured certainty over nuance and symbolism over substance. In a time when war rhetoric is again being normalized and military strikes portrayed as moral clarity, we need more scepticism from our national broadcaster - not less.
Narratives of collapse
ABC frames Iran, uncritically supporting regime-change narratives.
In a time when war rhetoric is again being normalized and military strikes portrayed as moral clarity, we need more scepticism from our national broadcaster - not less.