Founded by the five sons of John D. Rockefeller, Jr., the philanthropy known as RBF has some $842 million at its disposal. It funds a broad array of philanthropic activities, including several anti-Israel organizations; it also played both direct and indirect roles in advocating the nuclear deal with Iran. Armin Rosen reports:

Since 2013, at least $880,000 in RBF funding has . . . gone to groups working to advance a boycott of the world’s only Jewish state. Supporters of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel see the RBF funding as validation of their approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. . . . RBF’s support for Jewish Voice for Peace and other pro-boycott groups, which is virtually unique among major American institutional funders, is either a sign that the movement is inching toward mainstream status on the American left—or evidence of a revealing drift within one of the most respected family foundations in America. . . .

It seems unlikely that RBF is funding pro-boycott groups from a place of ignorance, or because of lapses in oversight. Charities have a history of paying attention. . . . RBF is demonstrably [not] oblivious [of its support to BDS]. . . .The Fund hasn’t altered its practices, despite repeated public and private criticism, including a May 2016 op-ed in the New York Daily News. . . .

Starting in 2001, shortly after [the fund’s current president, Stephen] Heintz took over, RBF [also] began exploring how it could help repair the relationship between Iran and the United States. This was partly as a response to the September 11 attacks. . . . For the past sixteen years, the Fund has organized dialogues between prominent American and Iranian figures. These types of closed-door meetings, called “track-two diplomacy” in foreign- policy parlance, allow private citizens from different countries to discuss issues of mutual importance with a frankness and freedom that would be impossible for government officials. . . .

RBF’s efforts in this vein brought it into close contact with Javad Zarif, now Iran’s foreign minister and the chief negotiator of the nuclear deal; the foundation has also given generous donations to the National Iranian American Council and the Ploughshares Fund—two of the most prominent organizations that stumped for the Iran deal.

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.