New threats to the freedom of religion—and new areas of constitutional uncertainty—have arisen in the U.S. in recent years, as seen in the desire of Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor to be exempted from new healthcare regulations regarding the provision of contraceptives and abortion, the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop, and even attempts to outlaw such Jewish rituals as circumcision and kapparot (the ritual dedication of chickens to charity on the eve of Yom Kippur). Yuval Levin addresses some of these questions with reference to the Jewish experience in America; Leonard Leo argues that religious liberty will be safe only if the government abides by constitutional restraints on its authority and on the separation of powers—both of which, he believes, have been too often ignored. (Moderated by Aylana Meisel. Video, 73 minutes.)

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.