The Fracture in Democracies of Liberty

In recent years, the social rift has been deepening in two key democracies of the free world — the American and the Israeli. Unlike many European democracies, both were born not only from a struggle for political liberation but from a deeper conception of liberty: liberty based on the recognition of principles above man, to which he willingly submits.

The source of America’s strength — what made it great — was precisely this rare combination: the subordination of human thought to external truth in both the physical and social spheres. In the physical realm — through the adoption of the laws of science; in the humanistic realm — through the understanding that the social order is not arbitrary but rests on binding principles, as articulated in the Declaration of Independence: “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”

The State of Israel, too, according to the spirit of its Declaration of Independence, was founded on a similar conception: the integration of rights with responsibility, of liberty with commitment to values above the changing will of man.

Yet today, a profound shift is occurring in both democracies. Alongside the conception of liberty that subordinates man to binding principles, an alternative conception is developing — one that sees man himself as the source of authority for determining values. These two conceptions are not merely different; they clash head-on.

Hence the fracture: no longer a debate over the interpretation of shared values, but a dispute over their very source. It is a transition from argument within an agreed framework to a struggle over the framework itself.

In this sense, a kind of internal “clash of civilizations” is underway within these democracies. It is not violent — but it touches the most fundamental questions of identity, authority, and liberty. If not clarified, it may intensify to the point of losing the ability to maintain a common framework.

Preventing this deterioration depends on the ability of cultural and political leadership to clarify the civilizational gaps at the root of the divide and to return to the essential question: Which liberty do our democracies seek to uphold — liberty grounded in principles above man, or liberty derived from man himself?

Two Images — Two Worldviews

These two images are not merely illustrations — they embody two fundamentally opposed conceptions. To understand the depth of the gap, it is enough to view them side by side:

Image 1: Moses with the Tablets of the Law — sculpture at the U.S. Supreme Court The law above man: The law is not a creation of man — man is subordinate to it.

Image 2: The Goddess of Reason (La déesse Raison) — ceremony of the French Revolution, 1793 Man as the source of law: Man elevates his own reason to the status of supreme authority.

These two images are not merely historical symbols. They represent two different answers to the question: What is the source of law — and is man subordinate to it, or does he create it?

Liberty Through Acceptance of Authority

The Hebrew tradition — from Abraham to Moses — did not seek to liberate man from all authority. On the contrary: it sought to liberate him from subjugation to false sources of authority.

Three liberties stand at its foundation:

1. Liberty from political bondage — embodied in the Exodus from Egypt, the transition from slavery to self-rule.
2. Liberty from bondage to imagination and subjectivity — embodied in the belief in one truth derived from one Creator, independent of changing human consciousness.
3. Liberty from bondage to egoism, drives, and satisfactions — embodied in the foundational value “Love your neighbor as yourself,” which demands self-restraint as a condition for balanced social existence.

“Love your neighbor as yourself” is an example of translating the law of symbiosis that creates balance in nature into a moral value meant to create similar balance among human beings.

Liberty, in this sense, is not the absence of restraints — but the ability to subordinate man to a truth that does not depend on him: the objective truth of reality, whose laws were translated into values and commandments designed to balance man — who, unlike other creatures in nature, was created without innate restraints to guide his behavior.

The American Revolution — Continuation of the Path

The American Revolution adopted this conception in civic terms: “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”

Here too, authority is not a product of human will but the recognition of principles external to it. Liberty arises from submission to them — not from liberation from them.

The French Revolution — The Turning Point

The French Revolution sought to liberate man not only from political rule but from every external source of authority. Authority was transferred to man himself — to his reason. Here a profound change occurs: reason is no longer a tool for discovering truth — it becomes the source of truth.

The erection of the “Goddess of Reason” is not a marginal detail but a deep symbolic expression: when man turns his reason into the supreme source of authority, it is a fundamental return to idolatry. He returns to worshiping the creations of his own spirit — as in the era preceding the monotheistic revolution.

From Modernism to Postmodernism

The process did not stop with the elevation of reason to divine status. While modernism still believed in the power of human reason to shape order, law, and meaning, postmodernism dismantles even that belief.

In our generation we are witnessing a double distancing: not only from external truth but from reason itself. What began as the veneration of reason has become its deconstruction. In place of objective truth or universal reason remain only power games, relative narratives, and language as a tool of control. Reason itself is denounced as “elitist,” “colonial,” or “oppressive.”

Thus the process that began as liberation becomes total disintegration. What was promised as greater freedom has become bondage to emotion, fashion, and power alone. Such a moral and intellectual vacuum, as history teaches, invites authoritarian forces to restore order — often at the price of liberty itself.

The Crucial Difference

The gap between the two revolutions is not in the aspiration for liberty — but in the way it is realized.

One liberated man from political bondage while subordinating him to truth. The other liberated him from political bondage — but also from truth external to him.

In doing so, it returned him to two new forms of bondage: to subjectivity and imagination, and to drives and egoism.

In the physical realm there is no dispute: man does not determine the laws of reality — he is subordinate to them. The question is whether similar principles exist in the social realm — or whether man is their source.

From Separation to Collision

The two conceptions of liberty could coexist as long as an ocean separated them. Today, with no geographic separation, the conception that sees man as the source of authority is infiltrating the other from within — and eroding it.

When both exist in the same society, they can no longer coexist without clashing. This is the true nature of the fracture: not merely disagreement over policy or leaders, but a struggle over the very source of authority.

This gap is also evident in the international arena — most clearly regarding Iran. The Iranian threat has become not only a strategic challenge but a cultural test case: how capable are Western democracies of forming a united course of action when they are divided on the most fundamental question — what is the source of authority by which Iran is defined as an existential threat.

Conclusion

The central challenge facing the leadership of the United States and Israel is not external but internal: to restore the ability to distinguish between truth and will, and between liberty and its abandonment.

The struggle for liberty is not conducted only against external enemies — but first and foremost within the democracies themselves, around the foundational question: what is the source of authority by which values are determined and situations are decided.

A democracy that does not recognize the existence of truth independent of itself will increasingly struggle to define threats, set boundaries, and act with determination when required. Not because it is weak, but because it has lost the anchor by which one can distinguish right from wrong.

That is why the Iranian test is not only a geopolitical confrontation but a test of the democracies’ ability to act once again according to principles that do not depend on changing will.

Ultimately, the question with which we began is not theoretical: Which liberty do our democracies seek to uphold? Liberty grounded in truth above man — or liberty derived from man himself.

In the answer to this question lies not only the character of these democracies — but their very ability not merely to survive, but to thrive. As the American experience taught until the beginning of this century, when it tied its fate to liberty above man, it achieved unprecedented power and greatness.

Truth is not determined by majority — but without it, even the majority has nothing left to stand on. The challenge of our generation is to restore humility before truth, while maintaining free and honest discourse — before the fracture deepens beyond repair.

Published in  Israel Hayom, May 06, 2026.

*The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the authors’ alone.

With the recent appointment of new “public diplomacy” chiefs in the Prime Minister’s Office and Foreign Ministry, it is time to rethink approaches in Israeli “hasbara.”

This is especially true following the war with Iran which has alienated large segments of global opinion from Israel; after a devastating vote in Congress (where most Democratic Senators voted to block the sale of munitions and military material to Israel); in the wake of renewed initiatives to boycott Israel in Europe; and given the spiraling, blended antisemitic and anti-Israel violence everywhere.

Sixteen months ago, I detailed a plan for Israel (that largely has been adopted over the past year by Israeli foreign minister Gideon Saar and deputy foreign minister Sharren Haskel) to focus on bringing many missions of “influencers” to Israel. Nothing, but nothing, more effectively develops friends for Israel than a well-planned visit to this country. Such visits are always overwhelmingly transformative.

Getting relevant influencers to visit Israel is hard work, especially since the violent anti-Israel hordes abroad are attempting to make Israel into a contaminated product, and they have succeeded is raising the social cost of sympathy and support for Israel. Indeed, in the current moment, there are certain publics that just will not visit Israel.

But there are important target sectors with residual basic goodwill towards Israel whose thought leaders and community activists can and must be invited to visit here to discover Israel in all its richness; its aspirations, beauty, battles, warts, and all. The Foreign Ministry has facilitated the visit of more than 200 such missions over the past year.

Early in 2025, I additionally outlined a necessary revolution in Israel’s messaging – also adopted by Saar – involving an embrace of Israeli strength and a restoration Jewish faith to Israel’s diplomatic arsenal, to match Israel’s necessarily aggressive strategic and defense posture.

After all, 25 years of Oslo-era hasbara epistles have not worked. It is simply insufficient to explain Israel’s security dilemmas or emphasize Israel’s past and potentially future diplomatic generosity towards the Palestinians.

Needed is forthright talk about Israeli ferociousness – the justified use of power to fight Iran, Islamic jihadism, and annihilationist-against-Israel Palestinianism; and a narrative that proclaims incontrovertible, indigenous Jewish rights in Israel, and which speaks of Israel as a grand reunion of faith, people, and land. People are forced to respect these messages, even if they may not impute to Israel spectacular charity.

Since then, this newspaper has hosted a range of proposals for diversifying and deepening Israel’s public diplomacy (and also strengthening Israel-Diaspora relations).

This includes the wise writings of Jerusalem Post editor-in-chief Zvika Klein for outreach to an “extra nine million” (foreign leaders and peoples who hold some religious or ethnic connection to Judaism) and to civilizational leaders (like Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India) who can and must be long-term strategic allies.

Others have laid out serious civil rights strategies focused on robust legal protections for Jews and vigorous defense of Israel in the courts. And some thinkers have called for a wholesale shift in funding away from Jewish defense organizations towards investment in educational institutions that can revitalize Jewish life and re-stoke Jewish resilience in the Diaspora.

THE FRESHEST and most disruptive thinking I have seen about Israel advocacy appears in a long essay just published by Uriel Zehavi on his “Israel Brief” website.

He contends that since bipartisan consensus on every issue in Western democracies has broken down, pro-Israel advocacy must change too. It must splinter into separate tracks and institutions.

Zehavi explains that today politically salient issues are absorbed into partisan identity. They get “sorted” in a way that codes issues in zero-sum terms, feeding into a deep liberal-conservative divide that is not easily reversed.

As a result, liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats (not to mention conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats) no longer coexist in overlapping coalitions. They travel in completely different ideological ecosystems, fed by different medias and elites, and espousing values and “truths” that are incompatible with the values and truths of the other side.

This goes for the “Israel issue” too. Progressive activists today code Israel as aligned with nationalism and militarism, and not with their preferred values of minority rights, democratic norms, and humanitarian law.

On the other hand, Conservative audiences positively code Israel as aligned with faith, family values, Biblical ties, freedom, and military resilience, while affirmations about Israel’s human rights and democratic affinities sound mushy or needlessly defensive, and are even alienating.

As such, the architecture built over decades that promotes Israel as a bipartisan issue – say, by organizations like AIPAC – no longer works well, according to Zehavi. The vocabulary they built about Israel – security alliance, shared democratic values, and strategic cooperation – no longer resonates effortlessly in the same way on both sides of the harsh political divide.

Therefore, he argues, Israel advocates need entirely different arguments, vocabularies, and messengers for democratic/liberal and republican/conservative audiences. They must narrow-cast one or another narrative, instead of broadcasting the single-pipeline messaging that once worked in an era of consensus politics.

ZEHAVI OFFERS the following example. A moderate Democrat processing a news item about an IDF strike in Gaza routes the item through his camp’s reigning moral psychology, the prism of harm/care and fairness/reciprocity – how many civilians were hit, what was the proportionality, what does humanitarian law say, was there a reasonable alternative, etc.

A moderate Republican will process the same news item through his default values of loyalty, authority, and sanctity – highlighting the facts that Israel is an ally, the ally is defending itself, allies deserve support, Israel authorized the operation inside its own sovereign decision-making framework and the challenge to that authority is itself suspect, the defense of Israel carries Biblical covenantal significance while third-party concerns are secondary, etc.

In short, the same event enters two completely different moral processors belonging to two brutally sorted political camps with bifurcated vocabularies. In this reality, single-message architecture fails; it does not land equally and simultaneously well on the moderate Democratic core’s individualizing foundations or the moderate Republican core’s nationalist foundations.

Instead, Zehavi would have Israel deploy multiple public diplomacy directorates that would share intelligence and research but operate with different messages and framings.

One would employ Republican-track messaging through recognizable republican/conservative messengers, via evangelical broadcasting, national-security conservative platforms, and think-tank partners like Heritage, Hudson, and AEI.

The other directorate would drive democratic/liberal messaging through Democratic-recognizable messengers with humanitarian-law and shared-democratic-values framing calibrated to Obama-alumni foreign policy networks and liberal media outlets, and via think-tank partners like Brookings, Carnegie, and CNAS.

This is intrepid thinking that must be considered seriously, especially since the Diaspora Jewish world is badly divided along partisan lines too. Zehavi: “The Jewish community itself has sorted into two partisan containers. An American Jewish community that includes 74% Donald Trump Orthodox voters and 84% Kamala Harris Reform voters cannot be lobbied as a single constituency or speak in one voice.” So why not embrace the differences and work both sides of the divide distinctively.

I THINK THAT Zehavi’s analysis is stronger than his prescription. His strategy for divergent messaging issuing formally from Jerusalem and from contrary advocacy organizations would surely lead to a credibility deficit. And on the other hand, two-track hasbara architecture already exists to some extent. For example, missions to Israel are programmed very differently for liberal and conservative groups.

Furthermore, consensus organizations like AIPAC are still effective with some important audiences – even if their reach and salience is diminishing, as Zehavi maintains.

In a retort to Zehavi, George Mason University law professor David E. Bernstein asserts that despite the terrible “sort” into rigid, rival political camps, mainstream Americans including most Democrats are overwhelmingly repulsed by terrorism and overt antisemitism.

Therefore, the more that radical anti-Israel movements fuse themselves with excuses for terrorism, harassment of Jewish students, or conspiracy-laden rhetoric about Jews and power, the more they will repel most Americans (and Canadians and others) who still have the moral clarity to distinguish between criticizing Israeli policy and celebrating mass murder.

Consequently, total polarization regarding Israel is not inevitable, and legacy Jewish organizations should not be dismantled. There might still be a moderate middle to work with.

Published in The Jerusalem Post 01.05.2026, and Israel Hayom 02.05.2026.

*The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the authors’ alone.

With large-scale US military action against Iran apparently winding down, it is time for stage two of the campaign against the radical Islamic Republic: Knocking the Ayatollahs and the Revolutionary Guards out of power. Time for regime change.

With the right backing from abroad, this ought to be possible. Millions of Iranians surely want it. And while neither US President Trump nor Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu defined regime change as a formal goal of their current military assault on Iran, both leaders have encouraged Iranian protestors to take their country back – away from the genocidal, bloodthirsty thugs who continue to oppress Iranians and who want to crush the West and destroy Israel.

After all, only regime change can truly neutralize Iran’s nuclear threat for the long term, and only the Iranian people themselves can overturn the regime.

There is much that US and Israel and others can do to support the emergence of a muscular Iranian opposition movement. This includes running an aggressive propaganda campaign against the regime (through, for example, a dedicated anti-regime media outlet), training of opposition factions inside Iran and supplying them with weapons, more overt and covert strikes on key IRGC and Basij commanders, and further degradation of Iran’s proxy armies in Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, and Yemen.

Most important of all is maintenance of the current oil and economic blockade on Iran, with no sanctions relief for the regime and no withdrawal of significant US military forces from the region.

The US, Israel and others should have been working on this over the past 40 years, but almost nobody did so. Alas, anybody who advocated for assiduous efforts at regime change in Iran was considered a quirky and pesky purveyor of unrealistic policies.

On such Don Quixote was the late, great Israeli intelligence official Uri Lubrani, who died in 2018 (and I eulogized him them as an unrequited prophet). His foremost desire was to see the Islamic revolutionary regime in Iran overthrown, and he passionately believed that Israel and Western powers could and should do much more to bring this about.

Lubrani was a fixture in the Israeli foreign affairs and defense establishment for 60 years, and I was fortunate to know him. He smuggled Jewish immigrants into British-Mandate Palestine while serving in the Haganah and fought in the War of Independence. He was bureau chief to foreign minister Moshe Sharett, and Arab affairs advisor and bureau director to prime minister and defense minister David Ben-Gurion. He served under every administration all the way through to Netanyahu.

While serving as ambassador to Ethiopia, he orchestrated Operation “Operation Solomon,” which brought 20,000 Ethiopian Jews to Israel. In the 1980s he was coordinator of operations in Lebanon and made ultimately unsuccessful efforts to repatriate captured Israeli airman Ron Arad.

Most notably, he served as Israel’s head of mission in Tehran from 1973-1978, the final years of the Jewish state’s strong ties to Iran before the fall of the Shah. His claim to fame was that he foresaw the fall of the Shah six months before it happened; but nobody believed him, including CIA analysts.

Lubrani embarked on a one-man, 40-year-long campaign to foment regime change in Iran. He authored articles and policy papers arguing that this was possible and should be a priority program, and he presented his arguments to anyone in Washington and Jerusalem who would listen to him; but not too many officials would.

He believed that Iran would get a nuclear weapon one way or another, and he fervently felt that alongside Iran’s radical Islamic revolutionary ambitions this would threaten the entire world. Therefore, he passionately argued, the only way to preclude the threat was by supporting change from within Iran.

In 2010 he said: “The real issue is not the (nuclear) weapon itself, but who has their finger on the trigger. Therefore, the current regime must be replaced by a rational one.”

Lubrani was convinced that regime change in Iran was feasible and even inevitable. “I believe that Tehran can be taken over by a relatively small force, determined, ruthless, cruel,” he told the BBC in 1982. He sought to stitch together a network of Iranian dissidents who one day might act, and he sought Western psychological warfare and financial assistance for these opposition figures.

When the Green Revolution rocked the streets of Teheran and other major cities following the corrupt Iranian elections of 2009, Lubrani was joined by some experts who felt that an opportunity was at hand to reinforce the protestors and bring about an end to the regime of the Ayatollahs.

But Barack Obama, who was president of the US at that time, was deaf to the pleas of the Iranian protestors, and to free-Iran advocates like Lubrani. Instead, Obama already was secretly promising goodies to the Ayatollahs in exchange for a nuclear deal.

Lubrani was out of commission when a round of social-political protests rocked Iran in December 2012, but you could hear echoes of Lubrani in the ensuing public policy debates. Could this lead to regime change in Iran; should America and other important actors weigh-in with moral and material support for the protestors; or would such Western “interference” only delegitimize the protestors and backfire?

Sure enough, the usual suspects (mainly former Obama administration officials) argued that Washington should stand back and do no more than pray for the protestors. They noted that the Islamic Republic’s apparatuses were vast and sturdy, that the Iranian machine of oppression was well-oiled and brutal, and that Tehran’s regional and international alliances were impressive and empowering – so the likelihood of overthrowing the regime was slim; it was wishful thinking, at best. And anyway, there was Obama’s signature “achievement” – the JCPOA nuclear agreement – to protect and defend.

Other analysts, however, noted a qualitative difference in the 2012 protests, and saw opportunities to weaken the regime. As opposed to economic and corruption protests of the past, this new round had a nationalist edge to it, meaning that the demonstrators were calling for a return to Iran of before the Islamic revolution.

“Stop investing in Syria, start investing in us” (halt the imperial overstretch), “Clerics, go home, free the country,” and “Death to Khamenei, we want (Shah) Pahlavi” – were the protest slogans.

These are exactly the slogans that drove the mass protests in the streets of Iran this year, in 2026, too, with hundreds of thousand of Iranians seeking to bring down the regime – until Ayatollah Khamenei (who is now in purgatory) slaughtered tens of thousands of his own citizens, and Trump told the protestors to hold off until he completes decapitation of regime leaders.

Sure, the rhetoric of Western support for Iranian protestors this year has been far more pronounced than ever before. Even some European leaders have said that all freedom-loving peoples must stand with Iranian protestors, that Tehran is a dictatorship on borrowed time, that the immunity of the regime is a myth, and so on. But rhetoric is cheap.

Prime Minister Netanyahu: “We stand with those in Iran who stand for freedom. I believe that a day will come when this horrible tyranny will disappear… And at that point, the historic friendship between the people of Israel and the people of Persia will be reestablished.”

Mossad chief David Barnea (speaking on Holocaust Remembrance Day last week): “Our commitment will only be complete once the extremist regime in Iran is replaced. This regime that seeks our destruction must pass from this world. This is our mission. We will not stand by, watching, in the face of another existential threat.”

US President Trump: “To the great, proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand… When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”

Fine words and fine sentiment. But what is concretely being done beyond attenuated airstrikes to advance a real Iranian counter-revolution? Not clear.

Published in The Jerusalem Post and Israel Hayom, 24.04.2026

*The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the authors’ alone.

Do not listen to the defeatists that gloomily dominate American and Israeli airwaves driving a double sourpuss narrative – that the war against Iran was politically vain and/or militarily futile. Both accusations are nasty; neither is accurate.

The six-week war was the most moral and necessary campaign, and it has dramatically changed the strategic picture for the better.

Iran is cadaverously deadened and the US and Israel are hegemonically strengthened. When the fight continues – not this month or even this year, but down the road – the “allies” will even more decisively defeat the “axis” so much easier.

Of course, the need to ferociously fight on is not what most Israelis want to hear now – as they blessedly send their kids back to school, rebuild their shattered homes, and overall try to restore some semblance of normalcy to life.

But nobody in Israel is under the illusion that the struggle against evil is over, and nobody should dare question the morality of Israel’s need for ongoing and crushing victories over its adversaries.

Israel will not return to the “containment” policies of recent decades that prioritized restraint and diplomacy over enemy degradation and military triumph. Israel’s changed security paradigm involves proactively asserting dominance along its borders and strategic ascendancy against threats farther away. Operation Roaring Lion was an excellent demonstration of this, as is the current Israeli offensive against Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Expect Israel to continue to make fierce and overwhelming moves against enemy strongholds from Sidon to Khan Yunis and Isfahan. It will attack, not defend. It will initiate, not respond. It will hunt down its enemies, not be hounded by them.

Israel needs to be feared, not loved. And it is a resilient country, not a wet rag that meekly accepts international restrictions and absorbs Western denunciations.

Therefore, regional and world leaders should get used to a revamped Mideast strategic situation anchored by a hard-hitting Israel.

Jerusalem knows that its neighbours will seek true reconciliation only when Israel is strong. Additional Abraham Accord-style peace treaties are possible and desirable, even with Saudi Arabia and perhaps this year, but these will be based on muscular defense partnerships, not mushy notions of goodwill.

IF THERE IS one major reason for disappointment with the current pause/end in operations Epic Fury and Roaring Lion it is the fact that regime change in Iran seems far off.

While this was not one of the formal goals of the war (as opposed to stripping Iran of its ballistic missile and nuclear weapon capabilities), everybody knows that without a counterrevolution in the radical Islamic republic, the war’s attainments can be considered only temporary. And there was a moment when overthrow of the ayatollahs seemed at hand.

Was the opportunity missed? Not necessarily. In fact, a rout of the ayatollahs (– those ayatollahs who escaped Israel’s successful, broad decapitation crusade against 50 top genocidal clerics) may still be coming soon.

My guru on this matter is Mehdi Parpanchi, executive editor at Iran International TV and former Iran Service Director at Radio Farda. He was the most incisive analyst throughout the war.

Parpanchi explains that battlefield metrics are a poor measure of political reality. Political systems do not always collapse during war. Often, they collapse in the aftermath, when military failure gives way to elite fracture and a society no longer willing to live as before.

Consider the aftermath: Iran’s economy is in dire condition. It was so before the war, and the destruction wrought to Iran’s industrial and export base by the 30,000 coalition bombs is gargantuan, almost unsurmountable. Let us hope that US President Trump keeps Iran under a heavy regime of economic sanctions.

On the strategic level, the assaults on Iran on June 2025 and March 2026 exposed the gap between radical Islamic propaganda and reality. For years, Ali Khamenei and his IRGC commanders boasted about indigenous air-defense systems. They told Iranians that even the most sophisticated US and Israeli aircraft could not operate over Iran. Billions were spent developing these systems and building an image of invulnerability. That myth collapsed on first contact with reality.

Furthermore, for years the Islamic Republic spoke of control over four Arab capitals, of a powerful Shia crescent across the Mideast. It presented itself as a power on the march – expanding, advancing, and shaping the region around itself. When Assad fell, when Syria was lost, and when the proxies took crippling blows, that image began to collapse. What had been presented as strategic depth looks increasingly like an expensive illusion.

Internally, the 12-day war shattered the regime’s image of competence, control, and strength. Much of the population that opposed the regime saw it humiliated and were openly pleased to see it struck so hard.

The events of Jan. 8-9, 2026, marked a decisive shift in Iran’s political landscape, according to Parpanchi. In Tehran, an estimated 1.5 million people took to the streets, with similar scenes repeated in 400 cities, with total participation reaching five million people. The state responded with lethal force that killed an estimated 36,000 people in 48 hours. According to Parpanchi, the scale of the violence shattered the narrative that the Islamic Republic still ruled with some measure of public consent. A state that still commands genuine consent does not need to kill on such a scale to clear the streets.

THEREFORE, the Islamic Republic may have somewhat survived this war, but it is unlikely to survive the peace. It is a regime in collapse phase, Parpanchi asserts.

The US and Israel must now push the regime over the edge. They can do so by choking Iran economically (no sanctions relief); by maintaining military pressure on Iran (no withdrawal of American forces from the region); by diplomatically further isolating Iran (no soft European or Gulf Arab overtures to Iran); by strategically humiliating the ayatollahs (take away their enriched uranium); and by finally getting serious about supporting the emergence of a muscular Iranian opposition movement (supply them with weapons).

All this will encourage the chances of widespread defections among military and other Iranian elites.

In sum, nobody should join the hypocrisy of the “West’s weepers” for the Islamic Republic or help the mullahs evade the utter rout that is their inevitable lot. (“Nauseating weepers” is what Brendan O’Neill calls all those outraged about America’s strikes on Iran, but who were silent when the ayatollahs slaughtered thousands of their countrymen in the streets).

Nobody should bow before the agents of depression in America, Europe, or Israel who peddle a jaundiced, politically malign account of this just, successful war.

And nobody should doubt the ability of Israel to withstand and win its wars, again and again, as necessary.

Published in The Jerusalem Post and Israel Hayom 10.04.2026.

*The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the authors’ alone.

After the October 7, 2023 assault on Israel by Hamas, Israel cannot brook illusions about the dawn of regional peace, nor can it return to the “containment” policies of recent decades that prioritized diplomacy over decisive military triumphs.

Israel can no longer accept policies that emphasize “quiet for quiet” and prioritize “restraint,” because this allowed enemies to develop attack capabilities under the cover of diplomatic breathing time; what some Western officials mistakenly call periods of “stability.”

That approach failed. It blew-up in Israel’s face, with terror and invasion from the West Bank and Gaza and from Syria and Lebanon, and with the march of Iran’s nuclear bomb program to near completion.

Therefore, Israel is gearing for extended conflict at varying degrees of intensity, basing itself on a more aggressive mix between diplomacy and the use of force to scuttle enemy threats. Israel intends to act like a superpower, proactively asserting dominance along its borders and strategic ascendancy against threats farther away. Operation Roaring Lion is a demonstration of this.

In this regard, even after President Trump pauses American strikes on Iran, expect Israel to continue to make fierce, overwhelming, and surprise moves against enemy strongholds from Khan Yunis to Isfahan. It needs to keep its enemies off base with beeper blasts, targeted assassinations, computer viruses, and occasional bunker-busting airstrikes.

Israel wants to be feared, militarily dominant, and even “hegemonic” – not loved. Jerusalem knows that its neighbours will seek true reconciliation only when Israel is strong. More Abraham Accord-style peace treaties (even with Saudi Arabia) are possible and desirable, but these will be based on strength and explicit defense partnerships.

So, get used to a revamped Mideast strategic situation anchored by a very strong Israel.

ISRAEL’S UPDATED security posture and strategic doctrine also means that the “borders” between it and its failed and/or hostile neighbors must change. What was between Israel and Gaza, Israel and Syria, and Israel and Lebanon, and Israel and the Palestinian Authority will be no more.

Israel is asserting a forward defensive security zone on all four fronts, amounting to long-term military control of critical territories alongside diminution of hostile civilian populations.

This already is the case in Gaza where the IDF has taken control of 53% of the land that previously was under the thumb of Iran’s proxy terrorist army Hamas, and it continues to destroy every town in this area that Hamas had turned into a military garrison above and below ground.

These is, and will not be for the long-term future, any Palestinian life in this area. No rehabilitation and reconstruction here. Nothing that would once again place Palestinian terrorist armies smack right up against and adjacent to Israel’s magnificent farming towns and peaceful cities in the Gaza periphery.

The same goes for Syria, where Israel now holds the “Crown” of the Hermon mountain ridge, formerly known as the Syrian Hermon, along with several strategic border outposts in what used to be considered “Syrian territory.”

Do not expect this to change any time over the coming decades, certainly not while a former ISIS terrorist named Ahmed al-Sharaa (a.k.a. Mohammed al-Jolani), under the tutelage of the Islamic dictator Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, parades around as the new president of Syria.

To some extent, Israel also will continue intervene on behalf of the non-jihadist Druze community in Syria, which holds a zone of strategic importance in the southeast of that country along Israel’s northern border. There are no UN or EU “peacekeepers” with the guts to use real bullets to protect the Druze and secure the border area.

The same is now true for Lebanon, the classic Middle East failed state, where for the past decades an Iranian-backed army called Hezbollah has ruled the roost and rained down hell and brimstone on Israel with tens of thousands of rockets and missiles.

The IDF is now clearing Hezbollah out of southern Lebanon, bunker by bunker, building by building, one enemy missile firing emplacement after another. When Israel is done, nothing will remain, alas, of the villages of southern Lebanon, and no Lebanese villagers likely will be able or allowed to return to this area – just like the current situation in eastern Gaza.

The IDF must and will continue to control this area through long term military garrisons, ranging from the former “border” up to the Litani River area.

In this regard, international statements of support this week for Lebanon’s “inviolable sovereignty & territorial integrity” are misplaced if not laughable. Lebanon has not exercised real sovereignty or enjoyed territorial integrity for more than a generation. Large parts of Lebanon were first decimated and controlled by the PLO, and in recent decades by Hezbollah. They used Lebanon as a launching pad for non-stop assaults on Israel.

Yet nobody in the “international community” huffed and puffed and protested about the decrement to Lebanon’s “inviolable sovereignty & territorial integrity” all those years. Nobody was moved to express “deep solidarity” with the people of Lebanon when Arafat, and then ayatollahs Khomeini and Khamenei, occupied and raped Lebanon.

All they did was put up a dummy international “peacekeeping” force called UNIFIL – which did nothing at best and even ignored Hezbollah’s fortifications and provocations.

Only now when Israel has decided to put an end to the charade of Lebanese sovereignty in southern Lebanon and essentially reset the border for solid security reasons – do the denizens of Berlin, Canberra, London, Ottawa, and Paris begin to protest, and to patter about “sacrosanct” international borders.

SO, HERE is the place to say it plainly: From Israel’s perspective there are no more “sacrosanct” borders in its immediate vicinity. Security lines and defensive zones will necessarily be drawn and redrawn according to frontier needs.

This, without reference to stale lines that go back to the colonial era (such as the Sykes-Picot boundaries), without regard for useless UN resolutions (such as resolution 1701 that followed the conflict in 2006 and which promised the defanging of Hezbollah and demilitarization of southern Lebanon), and without reliance on the expired, hollow Oslo Accords.

Consider Judea and Samaria. Nobody is under the illusion that any Palestinian “authority” can or will counteract the build-up of Iranian backed Islamic terrorist armies in these areas, which directly threatens Jerusalem and central Israel. Only the IDF can and will.

Thus, brigade-level Israeli military operations in places like Jenin, Tulkarm, and Nablus will continue to resolutely rout out terrorist threats. Thus, Israel increasingly will reassert military and civilian-settlement control over the open and strategic highlands of Judea and Samaria. This is likely to be permanent Israeli policy going forward for decades if not forever.

Israel has no confidence whatsoever in the ability of the “international community,” not even through President Trump’s 2020 “Peace Through Prosperity” plan (a.k.a the “Deal of the Century”) or through his newfangled “Board of Peace,” to make the Palestinian Authority into a “democratic, transparent, efficient, and sustainable governance system” – never mind a real partner for peace.

Thirty years and billions of dollars and euros later, the return on Western investment in Palestinian independence is abysmal. There is no democracy, no rule of law, no transparency, no sustainability, no investment in economic stability, and no peace education in the PA.

There is only nepotism and corruption, “pay-for-slay” handouts (meaning the incentivizing and rewarding of terrorism against Israel), violent propagandizing against Israel (including support for Hamas’s October 7 invasion and massacres), and diplomatic assault on Israel in every possible international forum.

And today, Israel also has real reason to fear and ward off Hamas-style organized military assault by PA forces on its Gush Dan population center.

So don’t lecture Israel about “sacrosanct” borders. Do not waste breath on protestations of Lebanese, Syrian, or Gazan “inviolable sovereignty & territorial integrity” or on the “internationally mandated territorial contiguity” of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. These are hackneyed concepts, extinguished by reality in the region.

Published in The Jerusalem Post and Israel Hayom 03.04.2026.

*The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the authors’ alone.

The professional, anti-Trump prognosticators and doomsdayers are out in full force, warning that the US president is going to pull an Obama and run for the hills prematurely. They warn that he is going to cut a soft deal with Iran this weekend, long before the declared goals of the current war have been fully achieved.

They assert that for the third time in a year, President Trump is about to end the military effort too soon; that he will seize on small moves by Iran, such as a pay-for-passage offer for Japanese and European ships through the Strait of Hormuz, as a sign of Iranian surrender.

He will assert that “regime change” in Iran is a fact, bombastically declare “total victory,” and go home – leaving Israel and Gulf Arab states to deal with Tehran’s resilient Islamist regime, its remaining ballistic missile threat, and its residual nuclear program.

I think that this is a wrong-headed and defeatist reading of Trump driven by political bias, and that it ignores his substantial achievements in the effort to defang Iran. Indeed, it is meant to belittle the staunch stance of the US under Trump against Iran and to deny Trump his place in history as a leader with great strategic bravery.

At the moment, we do not know what exactly Trump has in mind by declaring a five-day moratorium on his threat to destroy Iran’s major power plans and energy infrastructure unless Iran opens the Strait of Hormuz.

We do not know what “very good and productive conversations regarding a complete and total resolution the hostilities in the Middle East” have taken place, with whom in Iran, and what validity or authority (never mind believability) such Iranians might have. Nor do we know whether actual negotiations really took place.

We don’t know whether this amounts only to a tactical pause, or this truly signals the beginning of the end of the war. We don’t know whether this is strategic reconciliation with a subdued Iran, or this is strategic misdirection – a ruse in advance of further US military action.

Trump could be employing subterfuge to lull Iran into a false sense of security ahead of a potential move against Kharg Island, a US assault to assume control of Hormuz, or a raid to seize Iran’s highly enriched uranium for nuclear bombmaking.

After all, at least twice Trump has used negotiations under the shadow of an ultimatum as a diversionary maneuver before launching an attack. He did it once when Israel attacked Iran at the start of the 12-day war in June 2025, and he did it again before the current war was launched on February 28.

Either way, Trump’s accomplishments in the effort to defang Iran already are gargantuan – far greater than any analyst or policymaker believed likely.

Who could have imagined that the president of the US would embark on a one-month-long military campaign involving 9,000 US Air Force sorties with over 10,000 bombs to degrade Iran’s military capabilities and decapitate its radical Islamic leaders?

Who believed that Donald Trump would have the guts to apply the massive military weight of the United States of America for such a lengthy and sustained period at a cost of well over $30 billion to a full-blown military campaign to eviscerate Iranian threats and undermine the radical Islamic regime?

Who would have dared predict that Trump would be courageous enough to blow-off his political detractors from left and right to pursue this campaign with such certainty, and to risk his political fortunes and historical legacy on overwhelming Iran?

Moreover, Trump has returned the language of moral clarity to US foreign policy and politics by unequivocally categorizing Iran as an evil actor – an evil empire, an evil state, a gang of bloodthirsty thugs, a brutal regime, etc. – and declaring that the primary objective of the current military campaign is to “wipe out evil.”

Therefore, even if Trump doesn’t this month finish the job of “wiping out evil” and he scales back the US military effort to open space for a deal with Iran – no matter how feeble, how tentative and even illusory, how partial and unsatisfactory such a deal may be – I will still salute President Trump for his gutsy and intrepid war leadership to-date.

I am also certain that Trump will not abscond battle with Iran all-together even if he scales back the current intense military campaign. He will not abandon the effort to deny Iran a nuclear bomb. And I think that the US and Israel now will finally get serious about supporting the emergence of a muscular Iranian opposition movement.

Can you imagine what might have been if Trump had not been elected president of the US in 2024? Iran would be laughing its way toward declared nuclear bomb capability and the stockpiling of 10,000 ICBMs with which to flatten Israel and impose Shiite hegemony across the Mideast.

For all his peccadilloes and unpredictability, thank heavens for the presidency of Donald Trump.

Published by the Jewish News Service (JNS) 26.03.2026.

*The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the authors’ alone.

Even in the midst of war, even as the enemy inflicts pain on the homefront, even amidst uncertainty over the endgame – it is necessary to appreciate our gargantuan gains in the current struggle against Iran. It is right to celebrate the bravery of our people and the many acts of endless kindness with which we have blessed this month.

The Pesach (Passover) “seder” ritual is the perfect moment to do so. It commemorates Jewish redemption by Divine hand in every generation going back to ancient Egypt and looks forward to a double portion of liberation in a messianic era, coming soon.

I say that the double portion of exalted wins over our enemies we have beheld this year should be celebrated with a double portion of Pesach wine. Therefore, I propose expansion of the traditional four cups of wine drunk at the seder to ceremonial drinking of eight cups of wine. Each goblet can be matched to an expression of deliverance and triumph.

This wine-winning chiddush (innovation) is meant to underscore for ourselves that Operation Roaring Lion is an overwhelming success, a feat with global ramifications. Don’t be confused by agents of depression and defeatism (“dichonistim”) that gloomily dominate the airwaves! The reality is that Iran has been weakened and destabilized like never before. This stands true even if the campaign against Iran is cut short this weekend (although I doubt it will be).

We know that ‘leaving Egypt’ is a long road which the Jew has been traveling for 3,500 years without yet fully arriving at his destination; and that the Jewish People is not deterred by long journeys.

Consequently, we are obliged to catalogue and count our victories and express thanks to the Heavens for keeping us strong and resilient; and do so this year with twice as much Pesach passion. So, here is my wine drinking menu for this Pesach, with eight relevant articulations of appreciation for astounding and sustained victories.

Start with the four traditional expressions of redemption, detailed by the Talmud Yerushalmi based on Exodus 6:6-7: “I am Hashem, and (1) I will bring you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. (2) I will free you from being slaves to them, and (3) I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment. (4) I will take you as My own people, and I will be your God.”

We can call this: articulations of Rescue, Freedom, Redemption, and Embrace. To which, let us add this year: exclamations of Prowess, Bravery, Renewal, and Partnership.

1. Rescuefrom the yoke of bondage, which today translates into salvation of Israel from the shadow of annihilation by the Ayatollahs, by destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment and bombmaking facilities in Bushehr, Fordow, Isfahan, Natanz, Parchin, and more.

For this we pour the first cup of wine (“Kadesh” in the seder ritual), and I suggest Yatir Creek White 2022, an intense, creamy blend of Grenache Blanc, Clairette Blanche, Roussanne and Viognier. This will fill you all the way through the “Maggid” section of the seder.

2. Freedomto build our nation anew in the Jewish People’s indigenous homeland, liberated from the hegemonic threats of the radical Shiite republic based in Tehran and Iran’s proxy armies decamped on our borders.

After the long tale of the Exodus, we bless God for freeing “us and our forefathers” and drink the second cup of wine. Here I recommend Flam “Camillia,” a gently oaked, crisp and fruity Chardonnay that will nicely prepare your palate for all the coming mandatory matza.

3. Redemptionindeed involves “mighty acts of judgement” such as elimination of Iran’s fifty or so top political and military leaders, demolition of Revolutionary Guards missile facilities, flattening of Basij bases, and other strikes intended to undermine the regime.

After the matza and before the meal, we can drink freely. Go with Ramat Naftaly Barbera 2021, the country’s best Barbera varietal, intensely floral and fruity.

4. Embracemeans the message of Divine protection for Israel, of Providential support for the Jewish People, conveyed to nations of the world who inexorably (perhaps reluctantly) are bowled over by Israel’s grit and resilience in the face of so many threats and enemies.

A fantastic meal-opener is Domaine Netofa’s Tel Qasser Red 2018, a medium-bodied Mediterranean-style blend of Grenache and Syrah.

5. Prowessis the parade of awesome Israeli power; truly miraculous, nearly flawless IDF military performance. We must own and even flaunt our muscle, not be embarrassed or apologetic about it.

For a fish or chicken first course, pour Razi’el 2023 (a precise, light Syrah-Carignan blend), which is a Domaine du Castel spinoff line of Mediterranean-style wines.

6. Braveryin wartime abounds in Israel – from the fearless Israeli air force pilots who fly dangerous sortie after sortie into Iran, to the valiant homefront command rescuers who dig through bomb sites, to the resolute wives of reserve soldiers away from home for months at a time, to families rich with children that endure weeks without school and constant flight into protected spaces day and night.

Deep into the meat main course of the seder night, pour Naveh Red 2019, which is a heavy, filling Cabernet Sauvignon. (This is a kosher cuvee from Chateau Golan.)

7. Renewalis the rekindling of unity in Israel, a recalibration of national priorities, an awakening from the security misconceptions and diplomatic mistakes of the past 32 years, and a return to tradition.

For a concluding meal masterpiece, drink Shiloh Mosaic 2022, a full-bodied, multilayered, and heavily oaked red wine with rich aromas of black fruit and roasted coffee, and a long and elegant finish. (Drink this during the meal and as the ritual third cup of wine, marking “Grace after the Meal”).

8. Partnershipis the hope for a more integrated Middle East after this war, for Arab-Israeli reconciliation and cooperation; something that should be a slam dunk given stark demonstration of the real sources of evil in this region.

Here we drink the last glass of all, after “Hallel” (thanksgiving songs and prayers). Pour Dalton’s Traditional Method Champagne, a festive sparkling delight. For a real treat, give all seder guests also a taste of the incredible Dalton “Anna” dessert wine made from Muscat Alexandria grapes and aged in the unique Solera method for eight years. This is liquid honey gold!

For those seeking religious sanction for my proposal to double down on drinking wine at this year’s seder, consider the following. Scripture abounds with language of blessing and redemptive multiplicities: “Comfort my people, comfort them, says your God” (Isaiah 40:1); “I will rejoice, greatly rejoice in the Lord” (Isaiah 61:10); “He will impart the secrets of wisdom, manifold wisdom” (Job 11:6); “Wine cheers both God and man” (Judges 9), and many other expressions of double good.

From a halachic perspective, it is best to imbibe my additional glasses of wine and discuss their meanings between the mandatory second and third Pesach cups of wine – meaning during the meal, as detailed above; and not interrupt the flow of the traditional Haggadah texts and standard blessings.

“Next year in fully rebuilt and greatly magnified Jerusalem,” serving as magnet for all nations in awe and amity!

Published in The Jerusalem Post 27.03.2026

*The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the authors’ alone.

In recent weeks, the Palestinian Authority has escalated its campaign to register heritage sites as “Palestinian” through UNESCO. Following the declaration of Tel Jericho as a Palestinian heritage site in September 2023, the PA published a list of approximately 14 additional sites it now seeks to promote. The PA describes this move as a “qualitative leap in Palestinian world heritage.”

Unlike previous declarations, which focused on sites containing mosques or locations within Area A, this new list represents a significant shift. All the sites are located in Israeli-controlled territory, and none bear any historical or cultural connection, under any plausible claim, to Palestinian heritage. The list includes Christian sites, the Judean Desert, Herodium, the Cave of Chariton, ancient Samaria, and most notably, the Hasmonean aqueducts in Wadi Qelt (Nahal Prat) and the Hasmonean palaces at its end.

Central to this effort is the systematic erasure of Jewish historical identity. The sites are not referred to by their established names but are instead rebranded with newly invented titles that eliminate any reference to Jews, their kingdoms, or their history.

The Judean Desert, for example, cannot be called by its name, as acknowledging it would implicitly affirm the Jewish people’s connection to the land. With the invention of new terminology, more than 2,000 years of history is wiped away in a single stroke.

The Hasmoneans, the rebels of Masada, and the Dead Sea Scrolls of Qumran disappear from the narrative, replaced by fabricated labels such as “Al-Bariyah – Desert and Monasteries.”

Not just rhetoric

This campaign is not limited to rhetoric. On the ground, the Palestinian Authority actively marks trails and asserts physical presence. A so-called “Palestine Trail” now runs from Hebron to Nablus through the desert, from north to south, in defiance of the region’s natural west–east ridgelines.

When the Palestinian workers come across trail markings placed by Israeli environmental organizations, they roll them into wadis or destroy them. After the markers come organized groups of Palestinian hikers, transported by a funded network of buses. These groups hike, learn the terrain, and establish presence.

When Israeli families encounter the hikers, intimidation often follows. Curses, stones, and forced retreat. In this way, Israelis are gradually excluded from Nahal Prat, the Judean Desert, and large swaths of open land in Judea and Samaria. Those who doubt this reality are invited to see it for themselves.

Abandoned heritage sites

Israel’s response has been extremely inadequate. Not only has there been no effective counter-strategy, but Israel’s own past actions have at times mirrored the very processes it now condemns.

Under the Oslo Accords, Israel abandoned many of its most significant national heritage sites, leaving them vulnerable to looting and destruction. Sites were arbitrarily divided and severed from Israeli territory, with little regard for their historical or cultural value.

Some examples defy belief. Solomon’s Pools, an extraordinary water system from the Second Temple period that conveyed water from the springs of Gush Etzion to Jerusalem through the Hasmonean aqueduct, the Western Wall tunnels, and the massive reservoirs beneath the Temple Mount, were transferred into Palestinian-controlled territory.

This occurred despite a political decision to retain them under Israeli jurisdiction. Mapmakers left the name “Solomon’s Pools” on the Israeli side of the map, while assigning the pools themselves to the Palestinians.

The Hasmonean palaces were similarly divided. Though officially designated as Israeli territory, sections south of Nahal Prat were transferred to Palestinian control. As compensation, the first Hasmonean fortress, Dok, which sits atop Mount Karantal overlooking Jericho, was also transferred.

The most striking case is Mount Ebal, where a strip of Israeli territory descends from the IDF base toward Joshua’s Altar but misses it by approximately 200 meters. As a result, the altar was left outside the boundary and is now threatened by construction intended to erase a site sacred to hundreds of millions of Bible believers worldwide.

A national plan

These outcomes were not merely the result of negligence. They reflected a deliberate desire among decision-makers to shed the perceived burden of national heritage and the obligations it entails.

Classical and foreign sites were preferred over biblical and Jewish ones: Caesarea over Sebastia; Crusader fortresses over Hasmonean strongholds; early Zionist pioneer sites over ancient biblical settlements.

When the Oslo process offered an opportunity, these assets were relinquished with ease, all in the name of peace. It was precisely this mindset that prompted politician Yigal Allon’s warning: “A people that does not know its past – its present is poor and its future is shrouded in fog.”

Ironically, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the British Mandate, during their relatively brief rule, did more to preserve tangible history than Israel did for its own national heritage from 1967 onward.

Yet there is reason for cautious optimism. In recent years, the course has begun to change.

With the establishment of the current government, the Heritage Ministry was created, and a National Emergency Plan to Save Heritage Sites in Judea and Samaria was launched, with a budget of approximately NIS 150 million.

While insufficient, given the scale of the challenge, this funding signals a shift in policy. Enforcement has increased, site development and public access have begun, and after decades of neglect and looting, long-buried historical treasures are finally being uncovered.

The discoveries are significant, with the potential to reshape global scholarship on entire historical periods of importance to world heritage. Adjacent to the Hasmonean palaces lies the Jericho necropolis – the burial ground of the Hasmonean elite.

Aviad Neiman, an IDF soldier who was killed in Lebanon in 2024, had volunteered with Preserving the Eternal, a nonprofit coalition focused on protecting archaeological and heritage sites in Judea and Samaria. In 2019, he had reported the destruction of a priestly burial cave, with human bones scattered at the site.

In a joint operation by the Civil Administration and the Religious Services Ministry, the remains were collected and re-buried in Kfar Adumim beneath a monument reconstructing the original cave, allowing a modern community to honor its ancient roots.

Archaeological excavations are now accelerating across the region. At Hyrcania, near the Jerusalem-Dead Sea road, a fortress marking the fall of the Hasmonean Kingdom is being revealed as a “mini-Masada,” complete with siege systems, underground chambers, inscriptions, and ritual baths.

At the Alexandrion fortress on Mount Sartaba, mentioned in the Mishna in connection with signal fires that inspired today’s torch-lighting ceremony, excavations are producing dramatic new findings.

Every archaeological excavation is a victory over destruction and erasure. However, the most important work still lies ahead, which includes excavations in ancient Samaria at Khirbet al-Yahud (Tel Betar), the city of Bar Kokhba, and the inspiration for Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s Betar movement.

Israel does not operate in a vacuum. The choice is clear: Either Israel asserts responsibility for its heritage, or looting and destruction will continue under the sponsorship and leadership of the Palestinian Authority.

A proper state response is required: formal recognition of Israel’s moral duty to safeguard the historical treasures of the Jewish people and the universal heritage entrusted to it; expansion of the national plan to match or exceed investment west of the Green Line; and decisive diplomatic and enforcement action. Only then will Israel be worthy of reversing Allon’s warning. A people who know their past will enjoy a rich present and a bright, promising future.

Published in the Jerusalem Post, on March 24, 2026.

*The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the authors’ alone.

While Hezbollah has already chosen what appears to be a near-suicidal course—entering a high-intensity confrontation with Israel, perhaps out of an understanding that escalation was inevitable and therefore preferable on its own initiative—the Houthis in Yemen are still refraining from direct involvement.

The Houthi leadership has declared that it stands with Iran and is ready to act at any moment. Given the long-standing strategic partnership between the two sides, it is difficult to assume that the leadership of the Shi’ite-Zaydi movement could allow itself to avoid demonstrating some tangible form of support. The delay may stem from internal disagreements within the leadership over the appropriate timing, or perhaps from waiting for a signal from Tehran. Either way, the question increasingly seems to be not whether the Houthis will join the campaign, but when.

What scenarios might emerge—and what would their implications be?

According to a report published on a website affiliated with Hamas, a senior Houthi military official stated that if a decision is made to join the war, the first step could be the imposition of a naval blockade against the United States and Israel—one that would block the passage of vessels serving them, and possibly even aircraft carriers.

This statement signals a willingness, at least in principle, to threaten American assets in the Middle East. In such a scenario, the Houthis may not limit themselves to targeting vessels linked to Israel alone, as they have done even after the ceasefire agreement signed with the Trump administration in May of last year—an agreement they clarified does not apply to Israel.

However, the Houthis have already experienced the intensity of the American response when Washington used military force in response to attempts to restrict freedom of navigation in the Red Sea. Today, perhaps even more than before, such a move could prove to be an especially dangerous gamble, given the significant concentration of American air and naval forces in the region.

Still, experience in the Middle East suggests that survival considerations in the narrow physical sense are not always the decisive factor in decision-making. The ideological zeal of the terrorist organization makes it difficult for it to remain merely a “bystander.” From the perspective of its leadership, the temptation to seize the opportunity to return to center stage and demonstrate regional power—even at the cost of severe damage to the organization itself—may prove too strong.

Economic pressure through trade routes

Another scenario, whether independent or complementary, would involve an attempt to enforce the closure of the Bab al-Mandab Strait—an approach consistent with Iran’s broader war strategy. This strategy relies on exerting pressure on regional states and Western powers by disrupting global trade routes, with the aim of slowing US and Israeli military momentum and accelerating the end of the war.

So far, Iran’s attempt to use the Strait of Hormuz as a pressure tool does not appear to have achieved the desired outcome. On the contrary, it has contributed to the emergence of a kind of regional coalition against Iran, with some Gulf states now reportedly considering active participation in the campaign against it.

Similarly, threats to the energy market and rising prices have not led to a change in the White House’s position. President Donald Trump, despite fluctuations in oil prices, has not signaled any willingness to halt the war for that reason and continues to project confidence that prices will stabilize or even decline. It is true that American consumers are sensitive to rising fuel prices, which result from increases in oil prices, but Trump still has additional tools at his disposal—such as temporary government subsidies and the release of strategic reserves. For now, he does not appear convinced that the situation requires using them.

To a considerable extent, this optimism has some basis. Energy experts note that the increase in oil prices does not reflect an actual shortage. Many countries in the region prepared in advance and built up oil reserves. In addition, bypass pipelines in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates allow exports to continue even if the Strait of Hormuz is disrupted—albeit not at full capacity.

The Yemeni card: A combined threat to regional security and the global economy

Against this backdrop, Tehran may be concluding that its moves in the Strait of Hormuz have not produced the desired effect. In such a scenario, the Yemeni militia could become an additional instrument for increasing economic and security pressure. If the Houthis were able to block the Bab al-Mandab Strait and even attack Saudi Arabia’s Yanbu port—a major oil processing and export terminal on the Red Sea—they could disrupt Saudi Arabia’s ability to export oil to Asian and European markets via routes that bypass the Strait of Hormuz.

A simultaneous disruption of both the Strait of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab, combined with harassment of vessels already operating in the Red Sea, could significantly intensify pressure on the global oil market—particularly at a time when the market is highly sensitive to geopolitical developments. Iran may hope that such pressure will create a substantial lever against US allies—Gulf states and others affected by the disruption—in the expectation that this would encourage the American administration to shorten the duration of the war, perhaps even before achieving all of its objectives.

In this context, it is important to remember that the primary concern of the Gulf states regarding a war with Iran does not stem solely from the potential closure of the straits themselves, but mainly from the possibility of direct attacks on oil production infrastructure. In Saudi Arabia’s case, most of these facilities are located in massive oil fields in the eastern part of the country. These are critical infrastructures: damage to them could halt production for an extended period, and their restoration would likely be a long and complex process. Until now, Iran has largely preserved this option, directing its efforts mainly toward storage facilities and export capacity.

These infrastructures could once again become targets of Houthi attacks, as demonstrated in the past by strikes on the oil facilities of Saudi Aramco using missiles and drones, as well as by current threats to attack vital installations in the kingdom. On the other hand, such an aggressive move would increase the likelihood of Saudi Arabia joining the campaign against both Iran and the Houthis—despite years of efforts to reach an arrangement with the rebels and even to pursue reconciliation with their Iranian patron.

For Tehran, therefore, the Yemeni arm represents another instrument in its toolbox for applying economic and security pressure on its rivals. As the campaign expands to include the region’s trade routes and energy infrastructure, the risk of broader regional escalation increases—one that could draw additional actors into the confrontation and influence both the duration and intensity of the war.

Published in the Jerusalem Post, March 23, 2026. 

*The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the authors’ alone.

Israeli media, including this newspaper, has spent all week fretting over the possibility that US President Donald Trump will cut short Operation Epic Fury, abandoning Israel to alone face a battered but abiding radical Islamic regime in Iran.

Such fussing is normal, but misplaced. Alongside Israel, Trump has proven to be this generation’s great generator of moral purpose. His principled leadership and steadfast determination to “win” against the enemy should be celebrated and lauded, not derided by insinuations of disengagement and enfeebling rumors about deescalation.

Trump is awakening the West from suicidal slumber, from dangerous cultural and strategic malaise. He understands that the West must defend itself against the worst radical Islamic actors such as Iran, beginning with vigorous support for the State of Israel’s vanguard war against it. He knows that the current conflict is essentially a world war against America’s greatest strategic adversaries including China and Russia – who are allied with Iran.

Therefore, Trump is exceedingly unlikely to desert the battlefield without more significantly quelling Iran. He will not just declare a synthetic “victory” this weekend and withdraw his bombers.

Trump will further pursue the military effort to destroy Tehran’s missile production and nuclear bombmaking facilities; to confiscate or eradicate Iran’s cache of highly enriched uranium; to strip Iran of its ability to interfere with container and oil shipping out of the Arabian Gulf; and to extinguish the threat of the ayatollahs to Gulf Arab countries.

In past, I too have cogitated about Trump’s truancy; about the peril of his outwardly non-ideological approach to political and foreign affairs; about his ostensibly too-transactional thinking; about his non-dogmatic methodology for “solving” conflicts – refreshing in some contexts but dangerously delusional in others.

It does sometimes seem that Trump ridiculously believes the force of his personality can fix everything and lead to swift and “huge” peace deals everywhere. This appears to be true regarding his pie-in-the-sky plans for “grand civilizational peace” in Gaza.

And in the current context, it is possible that the ceiling on this war will be set not by the cusp of Iran’s remaining offensive capabilities but by Washington’s imperfect endurance. Wary of the economic costs of a prolonged conflict, limited by dwindling weapons stocks, and faced with diminishing military returns – at some point Trump may halt the campaign even if the US Armed Forces and the Israel Defense Forces believe that more battle is necessary.

He will call the war “very complete” and an “awesome win.” A Trump triumph. Actually, he already has declared this to be the case.

NEVERTHELESS, I think that President Trump understands that stopping the war now amid some short-term economic discomfort would be a victory for the mullahs. Iran cannot be allowed to conclude that shutting down oil flows is its passport to survival, now or in the future. After all, the spike in oil prices due to traffic stoppage in the Strait of Hormuz was not unexpected. As Trump himself has said, the disruption is a “small price to pay” for major security advances.

It also makes no sense to leave so many loose ends in Iran, from missiles and production facilities to nuclear sites at Pickaxe Mountain and the Isfahan tunnels where Iran’s gigantic stockpile of highly enriched uranium for nuclear bombmaking is said to be stored. This is why a raid of US and Israeli ground troops on Isfahan is being considered, to extricate and confiscate the uranium.

There is also little reason to leave standing any IRGC or Basij bases, when these are the key agents of Iranian repression against its own people. “Help is on its way,” Trump told Iranians, and he meant it. This is why US and Israeli assaults are increasingly focused on installations of regime control and repression in addition to nuclear and missile sites.

So why the obfuscation in Trump’s many statements? One day he says the war is almost over and the next day (or the same day) he says that there are battle plans for six weeks more. Well, the administration’s ambiguity makes sense because it confuses the enemy. If we are left guessing at Trump’s next moves, so are the ayatollahs.

But Trump himself? I do not think that he is at all confused or capricious regarding Iran. From his 2018 dumping of Obama’s rotten nuclear deal with Iran, to his 2020 assassination of IRGC chief Qassem Soleimani, to Operation Midnight Hammer last June, to Operation Epic Fury over the past two weeks – Trump has proven neither fickle nor flighty.

On the contrary, Trump has broadcast unwavering willpower and purpose. He ain’t a paragon of virtue in so many other ways, but in strategic matters Trump has shown profound understanding of his responsibility to reshape the regional and global strategic architecture by eviscerating Iran; of the historic opportunity to bring peace through strength.

Trump also has evinced domestic political courage, taking on hard Left Marxist and pro-Islamist critics and hard Right isolationist and Christian nationalist critics. He has taken risks with his own MAGA base by slapping-down the loudest and most influential foul-mouth faultfinders like Tucker Carlson.

REMEMBER this: The Islamic Republic of Iran is a self-declared radical power that openly seeks to create Greater Persia; to export its revolution and impose it on the entire Middle East, if not beyond. It explicitly sees itself in civilizational clash with the West.

It believes that all means are legitimate in achieving its goals – from sending Shiite shock troops into battle across the region, to orchestrating terrorist attacks in Asia, Europe, and the Americas, to developing nuclear weapons.

Despite the rise of an enemy potentially as lethal as Nazi Germany, many Western leaders nevertheless have preferred accommodation with Iran. After all, there are calculations of caution, pragmatism, realism, diplomatic alliances, business interests, and political preservation that have mitigated against confronting Iran. It always is easier to delay and deflect than to fight a fiercely committed and skilled enemy.

And yet, Trump has taken on the Iranian challenge. In defiance of conventional wisdom that the “responsible” approach is to swallow Iran’s piecemeal provocations to avoid war, and that Iran’s hegemonic ambitions are anyway near-unstoppable, Trump preferred to draw blood and a red line. He defied the ayatollahs instead of dancing with them.

And so, Trump ought to be recognized and appreciated for his moral and strategic clarity. This war is an act of rectitude, of justice and sanity in foreign affairs. Regarding Iran and its collaborators, Trump has struck a weighty wallop against wickedness, a blow against an “axis of evil” that has not been seen since World War II.

So, if you want to worry that Trump could yet cut a deal with Tehran that does not push Iran far enough away from the nuclear bomb and from Israel’s borders, or that he may stop short of regime change, go ahead and stew.

But for the moment, Trump should be lauded for the nobility of his resistance to Iran; for smashing Soleimani and Khomeini Sr. (and one hopes and assumes Khomeini Jr. soon too) and the apocalypse they represent.

Published in The Jerusalem Post 13.06.2026

*The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the authors’ alone.