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.

Last week, the New York Times reported, based on unnamed sources within the Trump administration, that the president had asked Israel not to carry out a planned strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. That is, somebody deliberately gave this information to the press, which later tried to confirm it by speaking with other officials. Amit Segal writes that, “according to figures in Israel’s security establishment,” this is “the most serious leak in Israel’s history.” He explains:

As Israel is reportedly planning what may well be one of its most consequential military operations ever, the New York Times lays out for the Iranians what Israel will target, when it will carry out the operation, and how. That’s not just any other leak.

Seth Mandel looks into the leaker’s logic:

The primary purpose of the [Times] article is not as a record of internal deliberations but as an instrument of policy itself. Namely, to obstruct future U.S. and Israeli foreign policy by divulging enough details of Israel’s plans in order to protect Iran’s nuclear sites. The idea is to force Israeli planners back to the drawing board, thus delaying a possible future strike on Iran until Iranian air defenses have been rebuilt.

The leak is the point. It’s a tactical play, more or less, to help Iran torpedo American action.

The leaker, Mandel explains—and the Times itself implies—is likely aligned with the faction in the administration that wants to see the U.S. retreat from the world stage and from its alliance with Israel, a faction that includes Vice-President J.D. Vance, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and the president’s own chief of staff Susie Wiles.

Yet it’s also possible, if less likely, that the plans were leaked in support of administration policy rather than out of factional infighting. Eliezer Marom argues that the leak was “part of the negotiations and serves to clarify to the Iranians that there is a real attack plan that Trump stopped at the last moment to conduct negotiations.”