נדב איל Nadav Eyal

@Nadav_Eyal • 402,815 subscribers

Columns, @yediotahronot| @ColumbiaSIPA Scholar | Sign up to my New Newsletter: https://t.co/ik4qCKgHUm

Shorts

$There is a moment in revolutions- a precise and historically recognizable sweet spot- when an old, brutal, and hardened regime still deploys its forces, yet something breaks in its resolve. You can sense it, and then the public senses it: fear has shifted sides. The oppressors are no longer as certain as they once were in using force. They cannot compete with sheer numbers, with masses filling the streets. Crucially, their own men begin to hesitate. Security forces grow reluctant to shoot at demonstrators; many have family members among them, or doubt that the regime they are defending will survive. This dynamic is well documented across revolutionary cases. In Iran in 1978–79, the Shah’s regime retained overwhelming military superiority, yet its paralysis came from fractured loyalty within the armed forces and police. In Eastern Europe in 1989, regimes collapsed not because protesters defeated the state militarily, but because security elites lost confidence that repression would restore control - most famously in Berlin Wall’s fall, when orders were issued but no one was willing to enforce them. Similar patterns appeared during the early stages of the Arab uprisings, especially in Tunisia and Egypt, where the army’s refusal to fully suppress mass protests proved decisive. That moment is also when regimes begin to change their language. They make offers. They issue statements acknowledging the “legitimate concerns” of protesters or opposition figures. They float proposals for dialogue or negotiations. Far from signaling strength, these shifts repeatedly mark the point at which a revolutionary situation reaches its peak. Such gestures often confirm what protesters already suspect: that the regime’s primary tools, fear and violance, are no longer functioning. That the state is dying. Political science research on authoritarian breakdown supports this pattern. Revolutions rarely succeed because of popular mobilization alone; they succeed when coercive institutions fragment. Once uncertainty spreads within the security apparatus the regime’s collapse becomes a question of timing. The Islamic Republic still possesses formidable repressive capacity. Yet the signals- hesitation, mixed messaging, demonstration of fear by cutting internet- suggest a leadership aware that it may no longer be able to rely on obedience. Historically, that awareness is one of the clearest indicators that an authoritarian system is entering its most dangerous and potentially decisive phase. It does feel very close.$

There is a moment in revolutions- a precise and historically recognizable sweet spot- when an old, brutal, and hardened regime still deploys its forces, yet something breaks in its resolve. You can sense it, and then the public senses it: fear has shifted sides. The oppressors are no longer as certain as they once were in using force. They cannot compete with sheer numbers, with masses filling the streets. Crucially, their own men begin to hesitate. Security forces grow reluctant to shoot at demonstrators; many have family members among them, or doubt that the regime they are defending will survive. This dynamic is well documented across revolutionary cases. In Iran in 1978–79, the Shah’s regime retained overwhelming military superiority, yet its paralysis came from fractured loyalty within the armed forces and police. In Eastern Europe in 1989, regimes collapsed not because protesters defeated the state militarily, but because security elites lost confidence that repression would restore control - most famously in Berlin Wall’s fall, when orders were issued but no one was willing to enforce them. Similar patterns appeared during the early stages of the Arab uprisings, especially in Tunisia and Egypt, where the army’s refusal to fully suppress mass protests proved decisive. That moment is also when regimes begin to change their language. They make offers. They issue statements acknowledging the “legitimate concerns” of protesters or opposition figures. They float proposals for dialogue or negotiations. Far from signaling strength, these shifts repeatedly mark the point at which a revolutionary situation reaches its peak. Such gestures often confirm what protesters already suspect: that the regime’s primary tools, fear and violance, are no longer functioning. That the state is dying. Political science research on authoritarian breakdown supports this pattern. Revolutions rarely succeed because of popular mobilization alone; they succeed when coercive institutions fragment. Once uncertainty spreads within the security apparatus the regime’s collapse becomes a question of timing. The Islamic Republic still possesses formidable repressive capacity. Yet the signals- hesitation, mixed messaging, demonstration of fear by cutting internet- suggest a leadership aware that it may no longer be able to rely on obedience. Historically, that awareness is one of the clearest indicators that an authoritarian system is entering its most dangerous and potentially decisive phase. It does feel very close.

618,226 Aufrufe

השרה סטרוק לערוץ 7: כמה שנים זה ייקח אני לא יודעת...השיבה לעזה כרוכה בקורבנות רבים. עזה היא חלק מארץ ישראל ויבוא היום שנשוב אליה.

942,956 Aufrufe

אין ספק, ההתנגדות הישראלית ל-f35 נרשמה, ויורש העצר הסעודי מתקבל בבית הלבן במטס אמריקני של f35 .

24,796 Aufrufe

Videos

LIVE

1.2k

Anya Rossi

sweetdream.ai

SweetDream.ai•Sponsored•Livecam

Streaming Now

Watch Anya Live

Anya is streaming live right now! Join her private show and enjoy exclusive content.

HD live stream

Exclusive private shows

1.2k viewers online

Current Status

Live

Private Show

Join now for exclusive access

Free preview available • Premium content

Live Cam

נדב איל Nadav Eyal

Shorts

השרה סטרוק לערוץ 7: כמה שנים זה ייקח אני לא יודעת...השיבה לעזה כרוכה בקורבנות רבים. עזה היא חלק מארץ ישראל ויבוא היום שנשוב אליה.

אין ספק, ההתנגדות הישראלית ל-f35 נרשמה, ויורש העצר הסעודי מתקבל בבית הלבן במטס אמריקני של f35 .

Videos

Watch Anya Live

A bunch of white Irish left wing radicals wearing keffiyehs telling actual Iranian refugees they’re “puppets” for resisting a brutal theocracy and totalitarian regime. A truly Orwellian moment in Belfast.

A must-watch. Hamid Abu Ar'ar lost his wife, Fatma, when Hamas terrorists shot her during the October 7 massacres. He's an Israeli Arab, and he speaks here about the courageous decision he made during the gunfire, holding his baby boy. Share this. האם ראית את האופק לאחרונה?

This is Trevor Phillips on Sky News — “Would They Hide Me?” — on Jewish distress in the UK. It aired about three weeks ago, but sadly feels even more relevant now.

Israel's most renowned satire show presents an exclusive interview between the leader of Hamas and the BBC's best and brightest - don't miss the end. ארץ נהדרת

Sensitive content

סרטון איום ונורא שממחיש את הטבח באיראן באזרחיו שלו. אנשים שמגיעים לחדר המתים וכל הרחבה והחניה והמתחם מלאים בגופות. אם יש קו אדום, המשטר חצה אותו. וזה לא הסרטון המלא.

Hamas has tried to obstruct any progress towards peace for decades. That is their mission. They are not representative of all Palestinians. They have held the region, including both Jews and Arabs, hostage.

An agreement in Lebanon is in Israel’s interest. The devil is in the details: the extent to which Hezbollah is pushed away from the border, and Israel’s freedom to act against violations if and when they occur. Bianna Golodryga and I discussed the issue earlier today on CNN:

The debate in the U.S. over the damage to Iran’s nuclear program has become highly politicized. But here’s what professional security sources in Israel are saying: Iran’s program suffered a devastating blow -including at Fordow. My conversation with Bianna Golodryga.

הרגע בו הנשיא טראמפ בישר על המו"מ הישיר לדבריו עם איראן.