Publications

“Operation Roaring Lion,” the war against Iran and its proxies, has not yet reached its conclusion. Although the final outcome remains unclear and the current situation may soon shift, the campaign’s distinctive characteristics allow for an interim assessment. This is the most extensive war fought in the Middle East since the Second Gulf War, and the first in which Israel is fighting as an active partner in a coalition with the United States. While its global implications have yet to fully emerge, it is already clear that the war carries significant implications for the Gulf States, the global energy market, Israel’s international standing, and great-power competition.

Why and how Cairo worked to achieve and maintain the U.S.-Iran ceasefire — and what conclusions should be drawn in Israel?

More than two months after the outbreak of Operation “Roaring Lion,” the Islamic Republic stands with significant vulnerabilities and a new leadership, yet it also has certain achievements to its credit. These include surviving a joint American-Israeli attack and exploiting levers of pressure created during the fighting, including attacks against the Gulf states and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. While it is premature to assess the full implications of the war, the conclusion of which remains uncertain, prominent trajectories can already be identified across six key domains: the Iranian domestic arena; the nuclear program; the missile array; the regional proxy network; Iran’s standing in the regional order; and Iran’s position in the global arena. Insights in these contexts are intended to serve as a foundation for analyzing subsequent developments in the coming months, once the “dust of war” settles and its long-term implications become evident. At present, the current status quo (“neither war nor peace”), characterized by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz alongside an American naval blockade, remains unstable. It is doubtful whether such a state can be sustained over time. For Israel, this reality implies that Iran continues to maintain its nuclear capabilities while rehabilitating its missile array. This increases the risk of a “breakout” toward nuclear weapons and the resumption of hostilities under more difficult conditions. Against this backdrop, Israel faces a fundamental question: Should it continue to strive for a resolution to the Iranian problem through a decisive victory—the achievability of which is highly questionable, particularly without active U.S. participation? Or should it adopt a policy of “conflict management” through intermittent enforcement, until a political shift occurs within Iran?