Sunday night, two Syrian military bases were attacked, and reportedly a few dozen Iranian soldiers—or Pakistani Shiites fighting for Iran—were killed. There is much speculation that Israel carried out the strikes, perhaps in coordination with the U.S. In any case, not only are tensions between Jerusalem and Tehran growing, with the Islamic Republic determined to turn Syria into a launching pad for attacks on the Jewish state and the Jewish state determined to stop it, but, as Ehud Yaari explains, the situation is bound to escalate. Inevitably, he writes, Iran and the Syrian government will launch an offensive to dislodge rebels from the southern part of the country close to Israel’s border:

Iran is in no hurry to have a confrontation. [The Revolutionary Guard commander] Qassem Soleimani, his boss Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, and his lieutenants seem to have abandoned for the moment their earlier plans to deploy Hizballah and other militias close to the Golan frontier. Prompting this reassessment was a series of pinpoint Israeli strikes [in 2015] against Iran-sponsored groups that [were making preparations] for terrorist attacks from Syrian-army-controlled areas near Quneitra, including by planting explosive charges and firing Katyusha rockets. . . .

Since August 2015, Iran has instead focused on its long-term campaign to deepen its offensive capabilities within Syrian territory. . . . Israel will face a difficult dilemma, [however], once an Iran-led assault toward [the southern city of] Deraa begins. Sending the air force and employing land-based missiles to stop the advance may well compel Assad and his Iranian patrons to retaliate, thus increasing the danger of a general flare-up. [But] clinging [instead] to the current Israeli policy of nonintervention in Syria would enable the Iranians to consolidate their dominance over hilltops along the border, from which they could threaten the Israeli Golan Heights with short-range rockets and mortars. . . .

Russian air-force participation in such an attack on Deraa would, of course, further complicate Israel’s calculations. The hotline between the IAF and the Russian-operated Hmeimim air base in Syria has so far successfully prevented any clash between Russian and Israeli pilots, and the top-of-the-line Russian air-defense systems in Syria have not locked their radars on Israeli planes, even while the latter attacked Iranian depots located near Russian military units. Israel would certainly be extremely prudent if faced with the risk of dogfights with the Russians. Putin . . . has proved disinclined to get involved in skirmishes with Israel over Syria, although at times he has expressed annoyance at Israeli strikes. . . .

[Q]uite a few regional players have a stake in preventing Iran from effectively taking over Syria. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, and Jordan share the same distaste for what has been termed the “Shiite Crescent,” with Syria as its center of gravity. Each of these countries can be induced to contribute in different ways to a “stop-Iran” effort. . . . But, above all, to prevent an all-out Israel-Iran war, which could easily expand to Lebanon and Gaza, the United States must lend its support to a sustained Israeli campaign to destroy—when necessary and possible—Iranian facilities in Syria and to continue to raise the cost of [the Islamic Republic’s activities], to the point that both Tehran and Damascus will have to reconsider the viability of Soleimani’s project.

While it is commendable that administrators of several universities finally called upon police to crack down on violent and disruptive anti-Israel protests, the actions they have taken may be insufficient. At Columbia, demonstrators reestablished their encampment on the main quad after it had been cleared by the police, and the university seems reluctant to use force again. The school also decided to hold classes remotely until the end of the semester. Such moves, whatever their merits, do nothing to fix the factors that allowed campuses to become hotbeds of pro-Hamas activism in the first place. The editors of National Review examine how things go to this point:

Since the 10/7 massacre, Columbia’s Jewish students have been forced to endure routine calls for their execution. It shouldn’t have taken the slaughter, rape, and brutalization of Israeli Jews to expose chants like “Globalize the intifada” and “Death to the Zionist state” as calls for violence, but the university refused to intervene on behalf of its besieged students. When an Israeli student was beaten with a stick outside Columbia’s library, it occasioned little soul-searching from faculty. Indeed, it served only as the impetus to establish an “Anti-Semitism Task Force,” which subsequently expressed “serious concerns” about the university’s commitment to enforcing its codes of conduct against anti-Semitic violators.

But little was done. Indeed, as late as last month the school served as host to speakers who praised the 10/7 attacks and even “hijacking airplanes” as “important tactics that the Palestinian resistance have engaged in.”

The school’s lackadaisical approach created a permission structure to menace and harass Jewish students, and that’s what happened. . . . Now is the time finally to do something about this kind of harassment and associated acts of trespass and disorder. Yale did the right thing when police cleared out an encampment [on Monday]. But Columbia remains a daily reminder of what happens when freaks and haters are allowed to impose their will on campus.