In the apparent terrorist attack at Ohio State University on Monday, an eighteen-year-old refugee from Somalia—whose Facebook page indicates his sympathies for Islamic State and al-Qaeda—drove his car into pedestrians and then began stabbing passersby with a knife until stopped by a police bullet. William Jacobson comments:

When I heard the story of the car ramming and knife attack, my mind immediately went back to the recent so-called knife intifada in Israel, in which car rammings played a prominent role. . . . The Ohio State attack reminded me in particular of an attack in which a Palestinian terrorist in Jerusalem rammed a bus stop with his car and then got out with a meat cleaver and started slashing a man. It took several shots from a passerby to stop the attack. . . .

It will be interesting to see the reaction to the shooting of the [Ohio State] perpetrator. When Israeli police shoot Palestinians in the act of car ramming or stabbing, there is an outcry from Palestinians and international “human-rights” groups accusing Israel of “extrajudicial executions” and threats to take Israel to The Hague for war crimes.

[Whatever the reaction], when it comes to terrorist tactics, what happens in Israel doesn’t stay in Israel.

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.