A recent survey of young people in sixteen Arab countries reported declining support for the U.S. and increasing support for Russia. The American Interest comments:

[T]he survey recorded a seventeen-point increase among Arab youth who consider the U.S. an enemy, while the number of countries where a majority hold that view doubled. Antipathy to Donald Trump certainly seems to be a big factor here: 70 percent of respondents consider the president to be anti-Muslim. . . .

It would be a mistake, however, to lay all the blame for the dismal results here on President Trump. American influence in the Arab world declined precipitously under Barack Obama, while Russia has cannily exploited the vacuum to re-emerge as a credible power broker. Indeed, the impression of Russia as a more dependable, less fickle partner than the United States seems partly to explain the trend. . . . Countries with substantial Iranian proxies (like Iraq and Yemen) are more likely to favor Russia, while youth in such countries as Saudi Arabia and Qatar maintain a more favorable view of the United States.

Through a combination of Obama’s strategic failures, Trump’s anti-Muslim demagoguery, and Russia’s savvy opportunism, the next generation of Arab youth are losing faith in Washington, while Moscow’s star is on the rise.

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.