A front-page story on European anti-Semitism appeared in the New York Times in September. It contained, as Matthew Continetti notes, “no breaking news, no revelations, no surprising analyses, and no startling perspectives.” Nor did the paper draw any connection between its “discovery” of a resurgence of anti-Semitism and the poisoned climate of opinion fostered in European—or American—media, prominently including the Times itself, with their constant and relentless harping on the alleged sins of of the state of Israel. But that connection, writes Continetti, is inescapable and pernicious:

Throw a dart, and it will land on a publication or media company whose feelings toward Israel are, in a word, bellicose. The Independent, the Guardian, the Economist, the BBC, the Washington Post, the New Yorker, the Atlantic Monthly, Vox, NPR, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, Time, Newsweek, the Lancet—they all portray Israel as rapacious and the Palestinians as helpless victims of Jewish sadism. Their fixation on Israel becomes a fixation on Jews that creates a noxious climate of opinion, breeding conspiracy theories, accusations of dual loyalties, intimidation, even violence.

And when these fumes come “out of the shadows,” and make contact with an environment in which anti-Zionists and anti-Semites reside, the hazards, as we see in the Middle East and in Europe, are real. And they are deadly.

Early Friday morning, Israel attacked military installations near the Iranian cities of Isfahan and nearby Natanz, the latter being one of the hubs of the country’s nuclear program. Jerusalem is not taking credit for the attack, and none of the details are too certain, but it seems that the attack involved multiple drones, likely launched from within Iran, as well as one or more missiles fired from Syrian or Iraqi airspace. Strikes on Syrian radar systems shortly beforehand probably helped make the attack possible, and there were reportedly strikes on Iraq as well.

Iran itself is downplaying the attack, but the S-300 air-defense batteries in Isfahan appear to have been destroyed or damaged. This is a sophisticated Russian-made system positioned to protect the Natanz nuclear installation. In other words, Israel has demonstrated that Iran’s best technology can’t protect the country’s skies from the IDF. As Yossi Kuperwasser puts it, the attack, combined with the response to the assault on April 13,

clarified to the Iranians that whereas we [Israelis] are not as vulnerable as they thought, they are more vulnerable than they thought. They have difficulty hitting us, but we have no difficulty hitting them.

Nobody knows exactly how the operation was carried out. . . . It is good that a question mark hovers over . . . what exactly Israel did. Let’s keep them wondering. It is good for deniability and good for keeping the enemy uncertain.

The fact that we chose targets that were in the vicinity of a major nuclear facility but were linked to the Iranian missile and air forces was a good message. It communicated that we can reach other targets as well but, as we don’t want escalation, we chose targets nearby that were involved in the attack against Israel. I think it sends the message that if we want to, we can send a stronger message. Israel is not seeking escalation at the moment.