Publications

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?

The interactive map herein provides a situational overview of the Lebanese arena during Operation Roaring Lion (Epic Fury) and following the ceasefire agreement that came into effect on April 16, 2026. The map displays the Israeli security zone, IDF strikes in the vicinity, as well as IDF outposts and UN bases. The map is updated continuously with the highest possible precision, based on open-source intelligence (OSINT) and media reports.

Bias against Israel on English Wikipedia is a known and documented phenomenon, yet its internal mechanisms often remain hidden from the broader public. This article examines the underlying mechanisms of this phenomenon through a focused analysis of the behavioral patterns of Iskandar323, a senior and experienced editor who operated on the platform for nearly twelve years before being permanently banned in early 2026 for violating prior restrictions on editing articles on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The study is based on mapping the scope of his activity, categorizing his primary areas of editing within the domain under examination, and conducting a qualitative content analysis of selected edits in core articles. The findings indicate a systematic pattern of knowledge poisoning that does not rely solely on the insertion of false information but rather operates through reframing, omission of context, selective organization of facts, and wording changes with broad interpretive implications. Two main axes of activity emerge from the analysis: the first involves rewriting the foundations of Jewish identity, Zionism, and the State of Israel by weakening the Jewish connection to historical sites and spaces, reframing ancient Jewish history in the Land of Israel, and undermining the right to national self-determination; the second involves shaping the narrative of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in a manner that frames Israel within a one-sided, judgmental critical framework. The banning of Iskandar323 demonstrates that Wikipedia’s enforcement mechanisms are capable of functioning effectively. However, the fact that many of his edits remained in place even after his pattern of activity was exposed raises questions regarding the effectiveness of oversight, transparency, and accountability on the platform. It also underscores the need to consider state-level initiatives, including a formal complaint to the Wikimedia Foundation, alongside a legal examination of aspects of responsibility related to the phenomenon as a means of reducing existing harm and preventing its recurrence in the future.