Unlike in France, where after the 1789 Revolution the established church was replaced by a policy of official secularism, the U.S. has always tried to strike a balance between protecting religion and maintaining the state’s neutrality in religious matters. Ironically, writes Paul Carrese, this path owes much to two Frenchmen: Charles de Montesquieu and Alexis de Tocqueville. But what is the condition of American moderation today?

America still is largely exceptional among modern liberal democracies for the balance it holds between two principles that, as the French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville noted almost two centuries ago, are not happily aligned in most polities: liberty and religious tolerance, on the one hand, and respect for religious sources of truth, morality, and political views, on the other. Today it is the rare university graduate or member of our political or cultural elite who knows that Tocqueville defined this balance, or moderation, as America’s “point of departure.” His Democracy in America (1835/1840) considered this the foundation for our political institutions, political culture, and broader social or moral culture.

Writing shortly after the French Revolution and its campaign for secularism, [Tocqueville] saw the need for a different philosophy. He knew that French secularists of his day would be puzzled to learn that American politics was full of religious ideas and yet its liberal democracy was healthier, and more peaceful, than France’s. A Tocquevillean today would note that the secularists still would be puzzled, [but] also would notice the neglected, decaying foundations of American moderation.

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.