Because the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is an unsigned document that doesn’t impose any real obligations on the U.S., the Trump administration will be able to jettison it without formally reneging on American commitments, argues Amir Taheri:

President Trump [will have] a number of options. He could demand that Tehran formally and officially accept Security Council Resolution 2231 [which affirmed the deal by abrogating six previous Security Council resolutions meant to curb Iran’s nuclear program, and which Iran has until recently condemned]. Articles 11 and 12 of the resolution enable any member of the Security Council to bring a case alleging non-compliance by Iran. That would trigger the so-called snap-back process under which the council would have to review the whole situation again and come up with a new decision within 30 days. If there is no accord after 30 days, the six previous resolutions would be re-activated with suspended sanctions re-imposed by all UN members. . . .

Trump’s other option is to do nothing unless the mullahs do something specific and verifiable regarding their nuclear program. And doing nothing includes not extending Obama’s suspension of sanctions against the Islamic Republic. Obama specialized in giving “gifts” to America’s enemies without even asking for anything in return.

Trump should show that the U.S. is no longer in the business of giving something for nothing. As a businessman he could practice give-and-take diplomacy; if the mullahs really freeze their nuclear program, then sanctions imposed on them with regard to that issue could and should be suspended in a just and proportionate way. . . . After eight years, America’s friends and foes may resume treating the U.S. with respect as a power that does not build its diplomacy on trompe-l’oeil motifs.

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.