The Cyber Mirage: How Israel Successfully Deflected Iran’s Massive Wave of Digital Strikes

Eliana Fleming APR 20, 2026

A recent study published by the firm ClearSky has revealed that the Iranian regime’s cyber capabilities have suffered a major strategic defeat. Despite a significant 15 fold increase in activity from groups such as Handala, the research concludes that the vast majority of these operations resulted in nothing more than reused propaganda. While the regime and its proxy groups have flooded the internet with grand declarations about the collapse of Israeli critical infrastructure, the actual impact on the ground has been negligible.

The investigation indicates that the Iranian cyber strategy has prioritized psychological war over tangible technical results. By claiming responsibility for events that never occurred or inflating minor technical glitches into strategic breakthroughs. Many of the purported data breaches, which Handala touted as massive thefts of sensitive information, were exposed as recycled data from years past or entirely fabricated claims. This approach has allowed the regime to maintain a facade of operational potency while lacking the actual capacity to disable the Israeli economy or degrade civilian life.

Tehran has increasingly utilized its cyber arm as a supplementary tool to generate a digital image of victory whenever the war results in military losses. However, the study identifies three critical factors behind this ongoing failure: the robust defensive posture of Israel’s security establishment, the lack of genuine technological innovation among Iranian hackers, and the persistence of outdated attack methods. Despite having ample time to modernize, Iranian operators continue to rely on basic techniques such as phishing and the utilization of known vulnerabilities.

The Israeli defensive teams and large scale organizations have successfully blocked thousands of daily penetration attempts, proving that the regime’s digital bark remains far worse than its bite.

Israel Turns 78 With 10.244 Mill. People and a Happiness Ranking Embarrassing Most of Europe

 By Shmuli Volkin, Jewish Breaking News

On the eve of its 78th Independence Day, Israel is not just surviving, it’s surging. The Central Bureau of Statistics put the country’s population at 10.244 million, up roughly 146,000 people, or 1.4 percent, over the past year.

Born out of war, tested by war, and still absorbing the shock of October 7 and the campaigns that followed, the Jewish state enters Yom Ha’atzmaut more populous, more prosperous and, by its own citizens’ accounting, happier than most of the Western world.

The demographic snapshot tells a story no adversary wants to hear. Jews and those classified as “others” make up 7.79 million residents, about 76 percent of the population. Arab citizens number 2.157 million, and roughly 296,000 are foreign nationals.

Some 177,000 babies were born in the past year, a figure that dwarfs the birth rates of virtually every comparable developed economy, alongside around 21,000 new olim and 48,000 deaths.

Four in five citizens are Israeli-born sabras. More than a quarter of the country is 14 or younger; only 13 percent are over 65. In an aging West, Israel is conspicuously young.

Today close to 45 percent of the world’s Jews live inside its borders, a reversal of nearly two millennia of exile that no planner in Ben-Gurion’s era would have dared predict.

Life expectancy has climbed by nearly two decades since independence, now sitting at 81.1 years for men and 85.5 for women. Average wages have jumped from roughly 2,300 shekels a month in the 1990s to just under 14,000 today. Car ownership, that crude but telling marker of middle-class arrival, has climbed from 3 percent of households in 1959 to about 72 percent now.

Despite the hostage crisis, the rocket fire, the war with Iran, and the drumbeat of international hostility, Israelis overwhelmingly say they’re doing fine. Ninety-one percent report being satisfied or very satisfied with their lives. The United Nations’ World Happiness Report ranks Israel eighth for 2026, well above the USA at 23 and the UK at 29

Selective Outrage: When Hezbollah Attacks

 by Majid Rafizadeh  •  April 18, 2026

For full article go to https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22447/selective-outrage-hezbollah

• The latest escalation in hostilities did not begin with Israel. It began with Hezbollah.
• Israel found itself faced with ongoing rocket fire from Lebanon and the presence of a heavily armed group on its border – in contravention of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which had unanimously required of Lebanon: "three principles -- no foreign forces, no weapons for nongovernmental militias, and no independent authority separate from the central government -- as vital to a lasting Lebanese peace."
• Hezbollah's operational tactics, like those of Hamas and other terrorist groups, is to embed its military infrastructure within civilian areas — hiding weapons, command centers and operational assets in densely populated neighborhoods.... With Hezbollah's military targets located in homes, hospitals and schools within civilian population centers, any efforts to neutralize them carry the tragic possibility of unavoidably harming civilians. It is a strategy deliberately designed to constrain Israel's responses and generate international backlash against it.
• Responsibility for these war crimes lies squarely with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, which deliberately orchestrated them. Any resulting casualties cannot be judged outside this context.
• In 2024, Hezbollah violated its ceasefire with Israel and also attacked in 2025 at Iran's behest. Israel's response comports with what any sovereign state would do when confronted with attacks on its territory and civilian population.
• If there is to be any meaningful discussion about stability in the Middle East, it needs to begin with an honest acknowledgment of these realities. Otherwise, international reactions will continue to mischaracterize the problem by criticizing responses while overlooking their causes -- and contributing to the conflict rather than to its resolution.

 

US allies nominate Iran for UN human rights committee despite mass executions

 With thanks to Vered Weiss, World Israel News

Iran is set to take its place as a member of a 54-nation committee to safeguard human rights, despite the Islamic Republic’s mass execution of protesters.

Iran will join the UN’s Committee for Programme and Coordination after being selected by the body’s Economic and Social Council, which comprises 54 nations.

Many countries, including the UK, Australia, France and Canada, nominated Iran to join the committee. The only country to vote against the nomination was the US.

The committee’s upcoming agenda includes issues such as terrorism, women’s rights and gender equality, and disarmament.

Iran’s selection comes as its authorities continue a wide-ranging crackdown on dissent.

On January 8 and 9, security forces opened fire on nationwide demonstrations, killing tens of thousands of protesters. Estimates place the death toll between about 12,000 and more than 30,000 people over those two days.

The government has continued its campaign in the months since, carrying out arrests and executions and enforcing restrictions on women’s rights. Authorities have maintained policies that limit basic freedoms and suppress opposition activity.

Tehran has also been cited for its role in funding major terror organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, even as it prepares to participate in discussions that include counterterrorism.

The Economic and Social Council’s decision places Iran on a committee tasked with coordinating UN programs, including those tied to human rights-related issues.

The UN’s Committee for Programme and Coordination is a subsidiary body of the Economic and Social Council that reviews and coordinates the United Nations’ work programs.

It is becoming politically incorrect to defend oneself

 A growing number of leading progressives in the American political spectrum have come out against continued American funding for the system, some saying it has “emboldened Israel" to attack other countries.

For years, support for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system was immune to politics.

Republicans backed it. Democrats backed it. Funding passed because it was obvious. Intercepting rockets aimed at civilians is not a complicated moral equation.

That clarity is now fading.

As recently as September, a bill to approve supplemental funding for Iron Dome passed the House with only 9 dissenting votes.

However, today, a growing number of leading progressives have come out against continued American funding for the system.

J Street president Jeremy Ben-Ami, Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), Ro Khanna, and Jewish Democratic congressional challenger Brad Lander all now oppose future budget earmarks for Israeli defense systems.

The bottom line is that it is becoming politically incorrect to win a war and human rights are being turned on its head.

Why ‘US Aid to Israel’ is a Myth

 Full article at https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-891150

The full strategic consequences of the conflict with Iran remain to be seen. What has already emerged, however, is a clearer picture of the US-Israel alliance: not a one-sided act of American benevolence or an emergency rescue mission, but a deepening strategic partnership shaped by shared interests, joint capabilities, and mutual benefit. That is exactly why the habitual phrase “aid to Israel” is so misleading.te

Israel is America’s cost-effective strategic ally

One conclusion was unmistakable: calling the US-Israel security framework “aid” is inaccurate, and it hands skeptics an easy talking point, as though this relationship cannot be equated with America First. 

In reality, the arrangement functions as a strategic exchange that advances American interests, strengthens American industry, and reduces the need for costlier US R&D and military exposure.

Every few months, Washington relitigates “US aid to Israel,” as though it were a discretionary act of charity, a foreign transfer sustained primarily by sentiment. That framing is politically unhelpful and descriptively wrong. The word “aid” implies a one-way relationship, dependency, and benevolence unconnected to the donor’s concrete interests. It invites the predictable question: Why are we paying for someone else’s security when Americans have needs at home? It is the wrong framework for a security architecture designed to protect American interests, strengthen American production, and reduce the likelihood of direct American military exposure.

If the United States wants a clearer debate, it should change the terminology. Call it what it functionally is: a US-Israel security exchange, a strategic defense partnership, or an allied capability investment. The label matters because the arrangement itself is not structured as a cash gift, and the returns are not abstract.

Begin with the legal and financial structure. The 2016 memorandum of understanding established a 10-year framework totaling $38 billion, comprising $3.3b. annually in Foreign Military financing and $500 million annually for missile defense cooperation. 

This is a financing mechanism tied to procurement of US services, and production connected to American defense systems and American firms, it is NOT general budget support. A significant portion of what is commonly called “aid” functions as sustained demand for US manufacturing and supply chains, supporting the American defense industrial base.

That is the industrial dimension. There is also the strategic dimension, which is more consequential. In a region that repeatedly generates global shocks, the United States has two basic options: deploy major US assets forward, or rely on capable allies who carry the operational burden locally while remaining interoperable with US systems. The first option is slow to surge, expensive to sustain, and puts Americans in harm’s way.

Effectively, Israel’s continuous present, fully engaged allied force in the region substitutes for that kind of US forward deployment. A “USS Israel” American aircraft carrier, so to speak. And unlike an actual carrier strike group, whose annual operating costs run into the billions of dollars, Israel delivers that strategic presence at a fraction of the cost while placing no American sailors or pilots in the line of fire.

This is a strategic, practical, cost-saving measure that is anything but charity, which is wholly not captured by the term “aid.” It obscures reciprocity and, in doing so, undermines the durability of public support. Labels become shorthand, shorthand becomes perception, and perception becomes policy. When the label is wrong, the coalition built on it becomes fragile.

All of this was true even before the war with Iran. But the recent US-Israel coordination in confronting Iran has made the point even harder to ignore. When set against the cold shoulder and strategic impotence shown by older allies, whose defense Washington underwrites at far greater cost each year within the NATO framework, the value proposition of the US-Israel partnership comes into even sharper focus. 

Far from being a burden on America, Israel is one of the most cost-effective strategic investments the United States makes anywhere in the world.

Ben Gurion Airport under fire: ‘No airport has operated like this under war conditions’

 Full article at https://www.ynetnews.com/travel/article/bydhuviqzg#autoplay

On Saturday morning, February 28, Operation Roaring Lion began, and Israel’s skies shut down once again, as they had during the earlier Operation Rising Lion. With the outbreak of that war, about 80 aircraft parked at Ben Gurion Airport had to be evacuated immediately.

This time, however, lessons from the previous round meant contingency plans were already in place, including a structured framework to keep the airport operating under attack, subject to Home Front Command guidelines, the Civil Aviation Authority and security officials.

To see how that plan works in practice, we joined a special tour of the airport on Sunday, as it continued operating under missile fire and repeated alerts.

The tour began with a descent into a protected shelter. This was not a drill. Phones around us blared with the harsh alert tone as a real siren sounded. A glance at the Flightradar app showed an Air Haifa flight from Larnaca circling in the air, delayed before landing, a routine procedure since the start of the rescue effort.

In the operations control room overseeing the “Open Skies” mission, another situation assessment was underway despite ongoing missile launches, with all relevant agencies present. Listening to the briefings, we learned that a missile fired from Iran toward central Israel had been successfully intercepted.

At the same time, standard protocol kicked in. Specialized runway vehicles, known as “carpets,” scanned takeoff and landing strips for debris and metal fragments from the interception. They collected the shrapnel and cleared the runways thoroughly.

Moments later, we were informed of another missile launched toward Eilat. The intensity underscored the challenge facing crews working around the clock in what may be one of the most complex operations ever managed in civil aviation. Only after the runways were fully cleared did operations resume, with landings and takeoffs restarting under strict limitations. View gallery

A passenger’s path: From Hall G to Gate C

What does flying from Ben Gurion look like in wartime? Departing passengers check in and undergo security screening in Hall G, not the usual departures hall. The reason is proximity to shelters, allowing up to 1,500 people to be evacuated quickly if needed.

After check-in and security, passengers proceed through border control and head to Concourse C, where they wait at the gate. Only one café is open, along with a small duty-free shop across from it.

On the tarmac, just one commercial concourse is active. At the time of our visit, two aircraft were preparing for departure, one from Israir already pushed back toward the runway, and another from Arkia still boarding.

Otherwise, the airport was nearly empty of commercial planes. Aircraft do not remain parked here; they land, take off and clear the area quickly. Much of the airfield is now dedicated to U.S. aerial refueling planes operating around the clock, giving the airport the feel of an American military base.

The next stop on the tour was the duty-free zone. “It’s not pleasant to see everything closed,” Kedmi said. “But Ben Gurion airport, operating under war conditions and missile fire from Iran and Hezbollah, is functioning in an unprecedented way. No airport in the world has maintained inbound and outbound flights under such intense fighting.”

"The airport is operating under a strict capacity cap of 2,300 people at any given time to ensure rapid evacuation if needed. It’s not worth risking even one passenger’s life for a flight,” Kedmi said.

At that moment another alert sounded for missiles fired toward central Israel. Staff immediately sprang into action, calmly and efficiently directing passengers in the hall toward the protected shelters.

“This is why the framework allows a maximum of 100 passengers on narrow-body aircraft and no more than two flights per hour, both departures and arrivals,” Bar-Oz explained. “What allows us to reopen the skies for such a complex operation starts with protecting human life, without taking unnecessary risks.”

"Everything is tightly scheduled. Boarding takes about 20 minutes, and each flight cycle is calculated at roughly half an hour. At peak, the airport is handling about 1,000 passengers per hour.

The tour concluded at the control tower, in the radar room beneath the glass cab above. There, Deputy Director of Operations Assi Ben-Michael gave a detailed briefing on the radar units, approach control and area control.

“Air traffic management has several moving parts, and this is one of them,” he said, without going into detail. “In practice, aircraft control is handled from here. We are fully coordinated with the Air Force under very strict procedures. The complexity is high, because alongside passenger and cargo flights, a fleet of U.S. refueling aircraft is also operating, and the goal is to keep planes on the ground for as little time as possible.”

He noted that managing air traffic during wartime is fundamentally different. "In normal times, efficiency comes right after safety. Now, after safety the priority is operational coordination, especially those of the Air Force, so we can operate without interfering with them. It’s a major challenge, particularly since we sometimes have to move into protected shelters, while continuing to manage traffic and communicate with aircraft."

"The most challenging moments come when many aircraft are in the air and on the ground simultaneously, especially with heavy activity from U.S. refueling planes. During an alert, we still have to manage the airspace, and it can reach very intense peaks. We maintain continuous communication with aircraft, factoring in each plane’s fuel levels while keeping safety above all else.

To enable the effort, the head of the Home Front Command approved an exception to standard protection policies at Terminal 3, allowing up to 2,300 people to be present at the same time, including about 800 airport staff.