When asked why it is so important that his cabinet have an equal proportion of men and women, Canada’s new prime minister, Justin Trudeau, replied, “Because it’s 2015.” Similarly, writes Abe Greenwald, Trudeau is pursuing more “balanced” relations with Israel—in part by attempting to improve its relations with Lebanon—because it’s the trendy thing to do:

Among progressives, the term “balance” can excuse all manner of foolishness. . . . There is no sound justification for Canada to cool relations with Israel while flattering Israel’s neighbors. There are only stock liberal notions about Israeli misconduct and the need for “balance” in Middle East affairs. When you act . . . mechanically, you lose the ability to think critically. What’s the real reason Canada is changing its tone toward Israel? Because that’s what liberal governments do these days. Because it’s 2015. Mischief to follow.

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.