A report on the Syrian civil war notes that, among the combatants, the regime of Bashar al-Assad has led the way in slaughtering civilians and committing war crimes. Yet, writes Frederic Hof, the Obama administration has been indifferent to Syrians’ plight—most likely out of deference to Iran:

Even though nuclear talks are important, one wonders if Tehran’s facilitation of Assad-regime criminality arises at all in official U.S.-Iranian exchanges. Has there been a systematic diplomatic campaign aimed at persuading Tehran and Moscow to oblige their client to respect pertinent United Nations Security Council resolutions? Is Iran being asked to force its client to stop barrel-bombing and lift starvation sieges? The news media’s lack of curiosity is itself curious.

For years now, various commentators have called on the Obama administration to impose a no-fly zone to prevent the mass murder of Syrian civilians by the Assad regime, whose sense of impunity permits it to resume chemical attacks on its own citizens. The administration has readily deployed talking points about why a no-fly zone is problematic, why anti-aircraft weaponry presents proliferation problems, and so forth. [But] those who mention specific methodologies are not trying to be tactically prescriptive. They want instead to persuade the president of the United States to give a damn about suffering, terrified human beings. They want him to throw sand into the gears of Assad’s murder machine. They are not obsessed with this or that methodology.

The indelible stain that can mark the Obama legacy forever on this issue is nothing compared to the terror and suffering that can be mitigated if the president elects to try. . . . The Iranians can negotiate while facilitating mass murder. No doubt, they can do so if the greatest power on earth pushes back a bit. President Obama should act now to protect Syrian civilians.

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.