On October 9, Nikki Haley announced that she would be stepping down from her position as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations at the end of the year. Ruthie Blum, taking stock of Haley’s time at Turtle Bay, judges that the former governor of South Carolina has lived up to the high standards set by her predecessors Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jeane Kirkpatrick, and suggests that “she has managed to rattle the midtown-Manhattan snake pit in a way that no one before her has.”

[Haley] not only served as a proud and fierce defender of American interests in the world, but did so in her own dignified and powerful voice. Indeed, she made the office her own. It is an accomplishment whose significance cannot be overstated. . . .

Unlike most people on their way out of a job, she did not slack off for a second. If anything, she upped her game. Her farewell speech at the monthly meeting of the UN Security Council on December 18 was just as memorable, if not more so, than her previous addresses. The gist of her words . . . was that the Palestinians have been abused by their leaders and misled by members of the international community.

The UN’s disproportionate obsession with Israel, she said, has “sent a loud and false message to the Palestinians that they just might be able to achieve their goals by relying on the UN, rather than through direct negotiations. And it has sent a loud and accurate message to the Israelis that they can never trust the UN. . . .

“As for the American people, we have demonstrated time and again our commitment to peace in the Middle East. We will continue to offer our hand in friendship to the Palestinian people, whom we have financially supported far more than any other country has. The Palestinians have everything to gain by engaging in peace negotiations. But . . . the world must know that America will remain steadfast in our support of Israel, its people, and its security. That is an unshakable bond between our two peoples. And it is that bond—more than anything else—that makes peace possible.”

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.