Born in Ireland in 1921, the Israeli rabbi and diplomat Yaakov Herzog died 50 years ago. Among his many admirers was the British philosopher Isaiah Berlin. David M. Weinberg recalls Herzog’s career and legacy:

He was, I believe, the only person over the past 100 years of Jewish history who was considered equally qualified—in religious scholarship and diplomatic skill—to serve as chief rabbi of Britain and as director general of the Israeli prime minister’s office. In fact, Yaakov Herzog was simultaneously offered both jobs in 1965, and had to make a choice. He chose to stay in Israel.

Herzog was born into an illustrious family. His saintly and scholarly father was Isaac Halevi Herzog, who was chief rabbi of Israel until his passing in 1959. His brother was Major General Chaim Herzog, who also served as Israel’s sixth president (1983-1993). His daughter, the late Shira Herzog, headed the Canada-Israel Committee (and was my distinguished boss before I moved to Israel). His nephew, Isaac Herzog, is the esteemed current president of Israel.

David Ben-Gurion, to whom Herzog was a trusted personal advisor, called Herzog Tsafnat Paneaḥ, meaning the explainer of hidden things, or the man who reveals mysteries.

One of those mysteries that Herzog helped to explain was that of the rebirth of Israel; Weinberg cites his words:

I do not believe in the distinction between the secular and the spiritual realms; I do not think that is has any place in Judaism. I, at any rate, cannot grasp nor understand the significance of the return to Zion against the background of historical continuity without a spiritual conception. . . . [A]s vindication of spirit, as validation of tenacious faith, as proof of the Jewish people’s right of return to its indigenous home, Israel’s establishment and advancement is a very big deal indeed. . . . Israel represents a vindication of faith and prayer through the ages; it is a symbol of revival, a message of hope, indeed lasting evidence of the integrity of the spirit.

On Yom Kippur, Hizballah fired over 200 rockets and drones at Israel, with one drone hitting a retirement home in Herzliya, miraculously without casualties. Yesterday, however, proved less lucky: a drone launched by the Iran-backed group struck a military base, killing four and injuring another 58, about twenty moderately or seriously.

This attack reflects Iranian strategy: Israeli defensive systems are strong, but so are Iranian drones and missiles, and with enough attacks some will get through. As Ariel Kahana writes, such an approach is consistent with Tehran’s desire to fight a war of attrition, denying Jerusalem the chance to strike a decisive blow. Kahana explains how the IDF might turn the tables:

It’s worth noting that Iran’s strategy of wearing down Israel and other U.S. allies in the region is not merely a choice, but a necessity. Militarily, it’s the only card left in Tehran’s hand. Iran neither desires nor possesses the capability to deploy ground forces against Israel, given the vast geographical distance and intervening countries. Moreover, while Israel boasts one of the world’s most formidable air forces, Iran’s air capabilities are comparatively limited.

Israel’s trump card in this high-stakes game is its unparalleled air-defense system. For years, Iran had counted on its network of proxy organizations to provide a protective umbrella against Western strikes. However, a year into the current conflict, this strategy lies in tatters: Hamas is reeling, Hizballah is on the back foot, and the various militias in Iraq and Yemen amount to little more than an irritant for Israel. The result? Iran finds itself unexpectedly exposed.

And when it comes to direct attacks on Israel, Iran’s options may be limited. Its October 1 attack, which used its sophisticated Fateh-2 missiles, was more effective than that in April, but not much more so:

Oded Eilam, drawing on his experience as a former senior Mossad official, . .  estimates [Iran’s] stockpile of these advanced weapons is limited to between 400 and 800. With 200 already expended in a single attack, Iran’s reserves of truly effective missiles may be running low. This raises a critical question: can Iran sustain a prolonged ballistic exchange with Israel? The numbers suggest it’s capacity for attrition warfare may be more limited than it would like to admit.