Much like Jimmy Carter before him, Barack Obama shied away from conflict at the United Nations, was loath to veto anti-Israel resolutions before the Security Council, and saw the world body as a source of legitimacy for American foreign policy. Nikki Haley, the current ambassador to Turtle Bay, has taken the opposite approach: calling out murderous governments, defending Israel, and warning other nations against condemning the recent White House statement on Jerusalem. By refusing to “join the jackals,” Eli Lake writes—citing Daniel P. Moynihan’s memorable description of the Carter administration’s behavior at the UN—Haley has strengthened Washington’s position:

[Haley] has made it clear that the UN needs America more than America needs the UN. This is not just because the U.S. hosts the body’s headquarters. It’s because the U.S. remains the indispensable member of the organization. It contributes 23 percent of the UN annual budget [and] nearly 30 percent of the budget for the UN Relief and Works Agency, or UNRWA. That’s the agency that runs Palestinian schools and medical facilities and that has often turned a blind eye to the participation of outlaws like Hamas. The U.S. provides the logistics for moving troops and material for peace-keeping missions and disaster relief. There is no UN without the U.S. . . .

Under the Obama-Carter theory, Haley’s approach would lead to America’s isolation at the UN. But so far this has not been the case. In one week, Haley was able to help shepherd a UN Security Council resolution this year imposing sanctions on North Korea. One U.S. official [stated that] several member states have reached out to the ambassador for assurances on their bilateral relationship [ahead of yesterday’s] General Assembly vote [on Jerusalem]. . . .

Haley’s tweets and speeches [may not have had] much of an effect on the vote Thursday. UN watchers predicted [correctly that] an overwhelming majority of member states [would] approve a symbolic resolution expressing displeasure at America’s decision to relocate its embassy in Israel. For Barack Obama, that would be a policy failure. For Ambassador Haley and President Trump, it’s a moment of clarity. The jackals will do what they will, but they still need America more than America needs them.

Analyzing the recent direct Iranian attack on Israel, and Israel’s security situation more generally, Michael Oren looks to the 2015 agreement to restrain Iran’s nuclear program. That, and President Biden’s efforts to resurrect the deal after Donald Trump left it, are in his view the source of the current crisis:

Of the original motivations for the deal—blocking Iran’s path to the bomb and transforming Iran into a peaceful nation—neither remained. All Biden was left with was the ability to kick the can down the road and to uphold Barack Obama’s singular foreign-policy achievement.

In order to achieve that result, the administration has repeatedly refused to punish Iran for its malign actions:

Historians will survey this inexplicable record and wonder how the United States not only allowed Iran repeatedly to assault its citizens, soldiers, and allies but consistently rewarded it for doing so. They may well conclude that in a desperate effort to avoid getting dragged into a regional Middle Eastern war, the U.S. might well have precipitated one.

While America’s friends in the Middle East, especially Israel, have every reason to feel grateful for the vital assistance they received in intercepting Iran’s missile and drone onslaught, they might also ask what the U.S. can now do differently to deter Iran from further aggression. . . . Tehran will see this weekend’s direct attack on Israel as a victory—their own—for their ability to continue threatening Israel and destabilizing the Middle East with impunity.

Israel, of course, must respond differently. Our target cannot simply be the Iranian proxies that surround our country and that have waged war on us since October 7, but, as the Saudis call it, “the head of the snake.”