In a recent interview on Iranian state television, Gen. Mohammad Jafar Asadi, a senior figure in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), launched a scathing critique against the Jewish people.
He claimed that Jews have “caused suffering to the Muslim world throughout history” and, citing the Qur’an, referred to Jews as the “greatest enemies of Muslims.”
Asadi, who once commanded Iranian forces in Syria, went further, stating that “Jews have neither honor nor dignity” and that they “disgrace all of humanity.” He continued with an inflammatory rhetorical question: “If those who committed genocide in Gaza are not Jews, then who are they?” He then called on Jews worldwide, asking, “Where are the Jews who would appeal to the US and Europe, complaining that Israel shames them?”
Such statements, as noted by analysts at the Jerusalem Center for Foreign Affairs (JCFA), highlight a worrying level of state-sanctioned antisemitic incitement within Iran, home to a small but resilient Jewish community of approximately 8,000 to 10,000 people.
In the broader debate over “dual loyalty” – a concept as old as the Jewish Diaspora itself – such statements cross numerous red lines. Accusations of dual loyalty have historically fueled claims of Jewish hostility toward host nations, a trend that is by no means confined to authoritarian Iran.
The allegation operates on an embedded suspicion that any Jew living outside Israel is inherently loyal to the Jewish state and acts according to its interests, above all else.
Historically, Jewish communities navigated such suspicions by grounding their interactions with the authorities in a Talmudic principle known as “dina de-malchuta dina,” meaning, “the law of the country is the law.”
First articulated by the third-century sage Shmuel, this principle has been a cornerstone of Jewish thought for centuries. Yet this rule, though categorical, is by no means absolute. It does not imply unqualified submission or full loyalty to every ruling power under all circumstances.
In my recent book, Suitcase, Train Station, Israel: A History of Soviet Antisemitism, published last week in London in Russian, I discuss how modern interpretations maintain that this principle applies only under conditions of equal citizenship.
When host nations deny Jews equal treatment, total loyalty to such foreign regimes is not required.
The problem of dual loyalty
The problem of dual loyalty has inspired dozens of recent studies. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) reports that accusations of dual loyalty are one of the most prevalent antisemitic tropes today.
A survey showed that 41% of people in certain countries believe this stereotype, equating to around 1.7 billion individuals worldwide. Additionally, 29% of respondents think Jews wield “excessive” power and influence globally. The late Manfred Gerstenfeld, a noted historian and head of the Institute for Global Jewish Affairs, argued that these myths lay a “fertile ground” for further antisemitic beliefs. Gerstenfeld pointed out that if Israel’s interests clash with those of a Jewish individual’s country of residence, antisemites may accuse that individual of siding with Israel, suggesting, in essence, “You’re not one of us.”
In its most extreme form, the accusation of dual loyalty implies outright betrayal.
Ironically, suspicions of Jews as an alien “fifth column” – one aligned with foreign interests, including Israel – resurfaced with renewed intensity after World War II, even in victorious Allied nations such as the Soviet Union.
The issue continues to provoke debate, anxiety, and even dread among Jewish communities worldwide, including Iran’s.
For Iranian Jews, such rhetoric is more than a casual provocation; it signals yet another peril in a centuries-old narrative of suspicion.
The writer is director-general of the Euro-Asian Jewish Congress.
