Taking stock of the president’s foreign policy over the past eight years, Yaakov Amidror argues that it has made the Middle East more volatile and Israel less secure:

In [President Obama’s] view, many of Washington’s international failures stemmed from the fact that it had not tried to improve ties with its adversaries. . . . He believed that addressing people from the heart would be reciprocated. This was also the logic that drove his attempt to promote a new rapport with Russia. Eight years later, it is hard to say the world has repaid Obama in kind. The world is not a better, more democratic place; nor does it favor the U.S. in any way. This is especially true in the Middle East, but the sentiment is shared elsewhere as well.

Moreover, the U.S. rollback . . . has made its allies wary of their aggressive neighbors. . . . Obama is leaving behind a world far more dangerous than the one with which he was entrusted as leader of the most powerful country on earth—a title he managed to compromise seriously. . . .

[As far as Israel is concerned, the] outgoing administration turned settlement construction in Judea and Samaria into the key issue with regard to the . . . peace process. It was nothing short of an obsession, and the issue by which any progress would rise or fall. Washington refrained from pressuring Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in any way, even when he failed to agree to the 2014 U.S. framework to reignite the talks. . . . The administration thereby lost an opportunity of possibly historic proportions to advance the peace talks, while the Israeli government—and a Likud government at that—was more willing than ever to promote it. . . . Furthermore, the way in which the Obama administration handled the issue of settlements made Abbas climb up a very tall tree. It will be hard for him to climb down from such a height toward future negotiations.

As for the future under Donald Trump:

[A]s far as one can understand [the incoming administration’s] positions on these issues, it appears that with regard to settlement construction and Iran’s nuclear program, Israel is likely to find a far more sympathetic ear. . . . [I]t is very important that Trump fulfill his campaign promise to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This would be a clear signal of U.S, commitment to Israel and recognition of Jerusalem (or the west side of it at least) as its capital. After the outgoing administration’s stunt at the Security Council and John Kerry’s settlement speech, the decision to move the embassy to the Israeli capital will carry even greater significance.

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.