Malia Bouattia, recently elected president of Britain’s National Union of Students (NUS), gave a speech in 2014 endorsing Palestinian terror in no uncertain terms and condemning those who would denounce it. Also on her résumé are a successful move to prevent the NUS from condemning Islamic State and a blog post in which she complained about the “large Jewish society” at Birmingham University. Maajid Nawaz laments the sorry state of British public discourse that allows such views to get a pass:

To those whom I call Europe’s regressive left, . . . jihadist terrorism has come to resemble an authentic expression of Muslim rage at Western colonial hegemony.

For—don’t you know?—we Muslims are angry. We are so angry, in fact, that we wish to enslave indigenous Yazidi women for sex [and] bury adulterers neck-deep in the ground and stone them to death, while throwing gays off tall buildings and burning our enemies alive. All because of . . . Israel.

For this regressive left—which has now penetrated U.S. circles, too—we Muslims are not expected to be civilized. And Muslim upstarts who dare to challenge this theocratic and far-left fascism are deemed nothing but an inconvenience to the pre-Nazi-like populism that screams simplistically, “It is all the West’s fault!”

It is my fellow Muslims who suffer most from such bad leadership.

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.