For decades, Sudan has not only been a safe haven for terrorists and an ally of such unsavory regimes as Iran and Qatar, it has also suffered from poverty, a bloody civil war, and a despotic Islamist regime. Its recent decision to make peace with Israel follows on the heels of—and flows from—the end of this long period of misrule. Jonathan Schanzer comments:

For the United States, the story of Sudan . . . is another diplomatic victory for the Trump administration and its “outside in” approach to negotiating peace with peripheral Arab states while de-prioritizing the demands of the intransigent Palestinian leadership. But there is more to celebrate. This was a victory for American foreign policy. Under American sanctions, Sudan was an international pariah. It was blocked from the U.S.-led banking system and shunned by the West for nearly 30 years. With the limited remaining resources, Omar al-Bashir’s government fed itself first, while casting the population into poverty.

Having reached their limit, the Sudanese people took matters into their own hands and won back their country. In other words, the Sudanese people earned their [removal from the state sponsors of terrorism list], and the United States did the right thing by removing the sanctions. In so doing, the United States sent an important message to the people of other countries ruled by war criminals and terrorists: you will be rewarded for winning your freedom.

Equally important was the lesson learned at home. Democrats and Republicans, while differing on the margins, did not accommodate Sudan until it truly turned a corner. There were no grand bargains involving billions of dollars in sanctions relief. There was no appeasement. We upheld our principles and won. And we did so without firing a shot.

Here’s looking at you, Iran, Venezuela and North Korea.

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.