On BBC Radio 4’s World at One programme of March 23rd, while discussing the possibility of an American deal with Iran, International Editor Jeremy Bowen chose to tell listeners what, in his view, the major obstacle to peace might be:
“The whole issue about the Israeli’s, they want first of all to do massive damage to the Islamic Republic hopefully dislodge the regime but if that doesn’t happen make it so weak that it can’t threaten them and that it can’t threaten Israel’s position as the military hegemon of the middle east, the only country with nuclear weapons in the middle east, and so on, and will they accept some kind of a deal like this, if there is a deal should I say no proof there is, or will they go back to do what they have referred to in other contexts particularly Gaza over the years which is this idea of mowing the grass every now and then when you think that your enemy who you’ve bashed very hard is going to grow up, is going to rise up a little bit, you bash them again so is that the kind of scenario they’re looking for? I mean it is really messy and this is important because what’s going on there effects the entire global economy and by extension peace in the world too”
In this one short statement, less than two minutes long, Bowen managed to make an astonishing number of claims, while entirely ignoring an equally astonishing number of facts.
“they want first of all to do massive damage to the Islamic Republic hopefully dislodge the regime but if that doesn’t work make it so weak it can’t threaten them”
This statement is broadly true. As the BBC Reported on March 24th:
“(Netanyahu) promis(ed) Israelis this war would end the immediate threat from Iran and its network of proxies around the region.”
And
“He (Netanyahu) promised this war would end all the existential threats to Israel, and maybe even promote conditions to change the regime in Iran”
Bowen, however, frames Israel’s goal to weaken the regime in Iran as a simple projection of power, rather than a response to decades of existential threat, and the sponsoring of a “ring of fire” of terror proxies including Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as the Houthis and militias in Iraq. For Bowen, the issue at hand is not Israel responding to genuine threats but Israel demanding a position of power in the region:
“(weaken the regime so) that it can’t threaten Israel’s position as the military hegemon of the middle east, the only country with nuclear weapons in the middle east”
This argument frames the war as a projection of power and nothing more, erasing Iranian actions and straying dangerously close to antisemitic tropes about Jewish power.
He goes on:
“(if there is a deal) Will they go back to do what they have referred to in other contexts, particularly Gaza over the years, which is this idea of mowing the grass every now and then when you think that your enemy who you’ve bashed very hard is going to grow up, is going to rise up a little bit, you bash them again so is that the kind of scenario they’re looking for?”
“Mowing the grass” or policies of containment have in the past been preferred by Israel to outright war against terror proxies, as described in the paper on the subject by Efraim Inbar and Eitan Shamir from 2013:
“Israel’s approach in the twenty-first century is often termed ‘Mowing the Grass’, a new term in Israel’s strategic parlance that reflects the assumption that Israel finds itself in protracted intractable conflict with extremely hostile non-state entities, which is qualitatively different from an inter-state conflict. The use of force is therefore not intended to attain impossible political goals, but rather to debilitate the capabilities of the enemy to harm Israel. Realizing the difficulties in affecting the behaviour of radical ideological non-state actors, Israel’s use of force can achieve only temporary deterrence. Therefore, Israel has adopted a patient military strategy of attrition designed primarily to destroy the enemy capabilities.”
However since October 7th Israel’s policy in Gaza has clearly changed, given the repeatedly stated war aim of removing Hamas entirely from the Gaza Strip as the BBC reported in October 2025:
“Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel’s aims included destroying Hamas, returning the hostages and making sure Israel cannot be threatened in future”
and as the BBC quoted Likud MK Dan Illouz on March 24th:
“Israelis want the war to end. We just understand that the right way for it to end is by us defeating the regime, and not by just having this come back to haunt us over and over again, We’ve tried the containment policy in the past, we’ve done it with Hamas, we saw it blew up in our faces on Oct 7th, so we don’t want the same thing to happen with Iran.”
Given the stated goals of the Israeli government, it is difficult to see any grounds for a journalist to argue that the Israeli intention is to apply “mowing the grass” to Iran. It’s assertion, not reporting.
Finally Bowen states:
“This is important because what’s going on there effects the entire global economy and by extension peace in the world too”
Again, broadly true. The entire region has been subject to Iran’s indiscriminate attacks. According to the BBC, Oman, Qatar, Jordan, The UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, and Cyprus have all been attacked by Iran since war broke out, and the global economy is experiencing shocks due to oil prices tied to the safety of the Strait of Hormuz. However, in Bowen’s reporting, the spreading risk is not from the Islamic Regime lashing out at their neighbours and threatening shipping in pursuit of the annihilation of the Jewish state, but Israel’s isolated thirst for power. Once again, straying dangerously close to affirming tropes about Jewish power representing a global threat.
An experienced and senior Middle East Correspondent like Bowen has a responsibility to report impartial facts. Instead, he erased the actions of the Islamic Regime and Israel’s legitimate security concerns, and built a narrative of war mongering from a nation thirsty for power, threatening the peace and prosperity of the whole world.
