To defeat the forces of jihadism, writes Eran Lerman, a three-pronged approach is necessary: using military and economic might to destroy the armies of Islamic State and al-Qaeda and to prevent Iran and other countries from acquiring nuclear weapons; helping to improve the socioeconomic and political conditions in countries that are recruiting grounds for terrorist groups; and working to delegitimize the religious and political ideas that motivate Islamist terrorism. Concerning the last prong, Lerman writes:

Clearly [much of this ideological warfare] must take place within the world of Islam. . . . Nevertheless, the call for internal reform . . . within Islam must be backed by a very firm message from Western leaders across the board: “Islam is not the enemy, Islamism is our common enemy.” Rejecting [the late scholar Samuel] Huntington’s thesis of a “clash of civilizations”—as both George W. Bush and Barack Obama did, each in his own way—is an important component of the ideological war. It can be used to isolate the radicals, while reassuring truly moderate forces—as distinct from [pseudo-moderates] such as the Muslim Brotherhood, who have never abandoned their basic totalitarian creed—that they have a role to play once the Islamists are defeated.

Israel can make its own discreet contributions to the global effort, and it is in its strategic interest to do so. . . . It is, [however], important that Israel, as a state, and prominent figures in its public domain, resist the temptation to pose as a frontier outpost of Western civilization against Islam as such. Such imagery might invite some Western, and specifically American, sympathy, but at the cost of playing into the Islamists’ hands.

With Israel now closely and strategically associated with several like-minded Muslim nations, most of whom are Sunni (though not all: the Azeris are Shiite), it is in Israel’s interest to draw a clear distinction between Islam as a religious civilization and the modern totalitarian perversion that presumes to speak in Islam’s name. In recent years Israel has taken symbolic measures that constitute a step in the right direction. One such example is the holding of iftar dinners by Israeli ambassadors, President Rivlin, and more recently Prime Minister Netanyahu.

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.