1) At the INSS, Ari Heistein explains Why All Is Quiet on the Yemeni Front.
“Contrary to conventional expectations, the Houthis are demonstrating a notable reluctance to intervene in Tehran’s defense. While it remains plausible that the trajectory of the conflict involving Iran and subsequent geopolitical developments in the Gulf could elevate their strategic impetus to engage in hostilities, analysis suggests that – even in such an eventuality – their actions will be highly calculated. Guided by their core strategic interests, it is posited that they would exercise operational restraint to mitigate the scope and severity of any retaliatory countermeasures.”
2) In an article written before the current war began, Hanin Ghaddar discusses Lebanon at a Crossroad.
“Hezbollah is rebuilding – that’s a fact. Both US and Israeli officials warned that the group had started to rebuild its military infrastructure right after the war ended in November 2024 with the ceasefire agreement. With its links to Iran intact, and its political/financial foundations protected, Hezbollah was able to rebuild some of its arsenal, reinstate part of its chain of command, and restore some of the cash it had lost.”
3) The FDD’s Hussain Abdul-Hussain reports that The Lebanese Army Goes Rogue.
“After Hezbollah drew Lebanon back into war on March 2, the Lebanese cabinet rushed into an emergency meeting and banned the militia’s military activities, ordering the LAF to enforce the directive without delay. The army’s response was swift and revealing.
Five days later, Haykal convened his senior staff and articulated a different vision, one in which the army’s paramount duties were preserving national unity and confronting “Israeli aggression.” The military’s subsequent statement echoed Hezbollah’s rhetoric far more than the government’s directive, framing Israeli strikes as the primary threat while sidestepping any commitment to disarm the Iran-backed militia.”
4) At War on the Rocks, Danny Orbach et al analyse Gaza and the Logic of High-Intensity Urban Warfare.
“Many critiques implicitly assume that international humanitarian law mandates a single, conflict-independent “gold standard” of restraint. In practice, however, the principle of proportionality regulates force in relation to concrete military advantage, feasibility, and operational risk within the context of the war actually being fought.”
5) At the Fathom Journal, Tal Hagin discusses AI and Fact-Checking: When Probability Replaces Evidence.
“For decades, fact-checking organisations were assumed to provide neutral verification of claims, even as legacy media lost its footing. Today, many are accused of partiality. Some fact-checking groups concentrate on one side of a conflict or a single ideological perspective, which can unintentionally or, in some cases, deliberately reinforce echo chambers. Misinformation (spreading falsehoods unknowingly) and disinformation (spreading falsehoods knowingly) have become terms often weaponised against narratives or evidence that do not fit a particular worldview, rather than being used objectively to flag provable falsehoods.”
6) NGO Monitor reports on The NGO Industry and the 2026 Iran War.
“From the opening moments of the war that began on February 28, 2026, the highly politicized NGO network immediately launched predictable and often absurd condemnations of the U.S. and Israel for ostensible “aggression” and “violations of international law.” The NGOs framed the conflict through their standard ideological narratives of “imperialism,” “genocide” in Gaza, “zionist [sic] war machine,” “fascist demagogues,” and Western governments as Israeli proxies. Accusations citing “international law” continued to reflect the double standards and manipulation of pseudo-legal rhetoric in which decades of Iranian involvement in heinous mass terror were erased.”
7) Lord Walney has published his study of The Iranian Regime’s Abuse of the UK Charity System and the Limitations of Oversight.
“This report examines a number of charities operating in the UK and identifies patterns of ideological alignment, structural linkage and interaction with institutions and individuals associated with the Iranian regime.
The organisations concerned deny acting on behalf of any foreign state. However, the cumulative evidence raises questions about the extent of their institutional independence.”
