Israel Plays Its Cards

By Judson Berger

Friday, June 13, 2025

 

The event speculated about in foreign policy circles for decades has happened, and is happening. As Phil Klein writes, Israel’s strike on Iran’s nuclear program “is the big one.”

 

It’s too soon to know the extent of Israel’s operation, which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said could take days, and certainly too soon to know how far Iran is willing to go — or, perhaps more relevantly, is capable of going — to retaliate. The regime launched dozens of missiles at Israel on Friday.

 

In the near term, Mark Wright observes that the question of whether Israel has the logistical capabilities to conduct such long-range strikes has been resoundingly answered. Unclear still is whether its munitions can penetrate through to all its targets. To the question of why now, Phil explains:

 

One, Iran is more vulnerable than ever, and so this was a unique window to act. . . .

 

Two, President Trump was in the White House. . . .

 

Three, and likely the most significant, time was running out. Even the IAEA, hardly a Zionist outlet, had assessed that Iran had ratcheted up enrichment — and its report found that Iran had already enriched 400kg of uranium well above civilian levels and, with further refinement, could have enough for ten nuclear bombs.

 

The operation already is confirmed to have taken out top Iranian military commanders and nuclear scientists, in this new war in the Middle East. Most likely, the strikes pulverized in an instant any chance of a Trump-era nuclear deal with Iran; President Trump doesn’t seem to think so, though he is making clear his support for Israel all the same. How much his administration knew and even tacitly consented to in advance of Israel’s operation isn’t yet clear — nor is the extent of any future U.S. involvement. Noah Rothman writes that Israel is a worthy partner, its actions “justified by any number of casus belli that no other nation would be expected to just stoically endure. The work it is doing on the ground and in the skies over Iran directly advances U.S. interests. Defanging the Iranian regime, if successful, will contribute to a more stable and peaceful status quo in the region.” In the meantime, “heightened vigilance will be necessary in the coming weeks” as Iran may rely on asymmetric tactics to respond, both in the region and in the West.

 

Read more from NR’s editorial, here.

 

As the world watches the Middle East, we have conflagrations still at home — fires unlikely to be extinguished just because Israel/Iran is pushing them temporarily off the front page. So, if you’ll permit one more item before the links . . .

 

Democrats Have a Second Chance to Handle Riots Right

 

If another pandemic breaks out on President Trump’s watch, be sure of one thing: The federal government will not be the source of any push for masking, social-distancing, and school closures. The administration wouldn’t want to relive the 2020 experience.  

 

Likewise, this administration shows no appetite for anything resembling a repeat of the other national convulsion from the final year of Trump’s first term — riots in response to the killing of George Floyd.

 

Did anybody really think Trump 47 would go easy on the next outbreak of street chaos? In California? When the instigating issue is immigration enforcement?

 

This is not to say that Trump doesn’t risk overreaching or escalating the situation by putting boots on the ground, over the objections of local Democrats, in response to the L.A. riots that broke out over ICE raids. But, as Dan McLaughlin writes with the benefit of “2020” vision, any present-day rioters who thought they could demonstrate “the impotence of authority in the face of the raw power of the street” engaged in a “catastrophic misreading of the man and his incentives.”

 

To the contrary, Dan writes, Trump views disorder in L.A. in these circumstances “as a gift.”

 

This being the case, local Democratic leaders would do well to apply a firm hand this time — on their own — to those protests that cross the line into rioting, looting, arson, and other mayhem, even if they sympathize with the anti-ICE cause.

 

San Francisco, now led by the relatively moderate Mayor Daniel Lurie, provides one example worth emulating. From the Wall Street Journal:

 

Thousands of people marched for miles Monday night before police declared an unlawful assembly around 10 p.m. A contingent that refused to disperse appeared to resist arrest, and were met with force by San Francisco police, who warned they would deploy chemical agents, batons and projectiles if anyone else tried to flee.

 

That came after about 150 arrests by San Francisco police on Sunday—more than double the arrests reported by police in Los Angeles.

 

The mayor vowed that the city would not tolerate “destructive behavior,” while also saying he disagrees with federal immigration-enforcement tactics and understands why people are protesting.

 

Was that so hard?

 

Local Democrats capable of resisting the pull of resistance theater should strive for the same practical balance, as protests spread and potentially converge with planned anti-Trump demonstrations. Especially now, when the administration shows no leeway with rioters (rioters who aren’t storming the U.S. Capitol, that is), the Democrats who run America’s cities should want to demonstrate competence in policing the streets. It would be good for their damaged brand — and their constituents. And what better way to keep or get military personnel out of their jurisdictions than to show that their officers don’t tolerate lawlessness? Mayors and council members can register their objections to ICE raids without allowing hooligans to sow chaos and torment their neighbors using ICE as an excuse.

 

Noah Rothman argues that progressives still instinctively see such rioters as “their people” — but that their political future depends on their defying that instinct:

 

Democrats have talked themselves into the idea that they have to walk a rhetorical tightrope amid outbreaks of left-wing violence, and that has done inestimable damage to the party’s brand. They must find the courage to jettison this millstone around their necks.

 

Back in 2020, states and cities eventually imposed curfews, activated the National Guard, and made thousands of arrests. But roughly two dozen people died in incidents linked to the political unrest, researchers found; many more were injured including police officers; and damage to property totaled more than $1 billion. Local officials struggled to get control of their cities, with Minnesota Governor Tim Walz hesitating to deploy the Guard to Minneapolis, Portland grappling with protests and riots all year, and Seattle tolerating for several weeks an anarchic “autonomous zone.”

 

Cities should not make the same mistakes in 2025.