After a highly publicized but failed effort to persuade the Zionist Union, Israel’s main opposition party, to join the Likud-led governing coalition, Prime Minister Netanyahu instead brought in the smaller Yisrael Beiteinu party. In doing so, he discharged Moshe Yaalon as defense minister and offered the position to Yisrael Beiteinu’s controversial leader, Avigdor Lieberman—a move that prompted hysterical reactions from Israel’s left-leaning media. Ruthie Blum comments:

Though Yaalon has an illustrious history and a reputation for being both a serious military man and levelheaded think-tank member, I gave up on him when he started preaching morality to Israeli society. At a time when both radical Islamists and Western professors, as well as huge swaths of the British Labor party, are waging a frontal assault on the Jewish state, accusing it of atrocities it does not commit, the last thing Israel needs is a cabinet member adding fuel to the anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic fire.

I therefore say goodbye to Yaalon without a heavy heart. Though Lieberman leaves much to be desired, . . . he [isn’t] even as “right-wing” as his detractors claim. . . . Lieberman’s [positions] are often indistinguishable from those of his left-wing counterparts. It’s the take-no-prisoners rhetoric and associations with dubious characters that make [him] controversial. . . .

On Friday night, . . . [the] middle-aged military correspondent Roni Daniel . . . lost it on live TV. Pounding on the table several times, Daniel interrupted his fellow panelists to announce that the move to replace Yaalon with Lieberman . . . meant that there was no future for his children in Israel. . . . [P]olitical machinations have become so cynical, have gone so far, [he claimed], that the country’s best interests are sacrificed in the desperate attempt by Netanyahu to “hold on to his seat.” . . .

When have politicians in this or any other country not tried to hold on to their seats? This is a reason to leave the Jewish state that boasts a rise in immigration from Western democracies? . . . The . . . question [Daniel] and other Israelis . . . with escape fantasies ought to contemplate is where they imagine they can settle to be rid of their malaise about living under flawed democratic political systems—Syria?

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.