In Zivotofsky v. Kerry, a Jerusalem-born U.S. citizen sued to have his passport indicate that he was born in Israel—in keeping with legislation passed by Congress, but contrary to State Department policy. The Supreme Court has now ruled against the plaintiff and in favor of the State Department. But Rick Richman sees a silver lining for Israel:

[T]here have been rumors that France plans to submit to the UN Security Council a resolution to prescribe a Palestinian state in the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria with a capital in Jerusalem, and with a negotiating deadline of eighteen months. The Obama administration is thought to be considering voting for the resolution, or allowing it to pass with a U.S. abstention.

If it takes either course, though, it will be violating multiple representations made multiple times to the Supreme Court in the Zivotofsky litigation. . . . Just putting “Israel” in Zivotofsky’s passport, the administration said, could “cause irreversible damage” to negotiations [between Israel and the Palestinians], by “prejudging the final and permanent status of Jerusalem.” The same representations were made in an earlier brief filed by Secretary [Hillary] Clinton.

Having litigated for years, all the way to the Supreme Court, to prevent the mere mention of “Israel” in Zivotofsky’s passport, on grounds it might signal a U.S. position on the outcome of negotiations over Jerusalem and thereby possibly destroy the peace process, it would now be remarkable—to use the least loaded word—for the administration to turn around and support a United Nations resolution specifying a Palestinian state that includes Jerusalem.

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.