In light of an ongoing wave of bomb-threats against Jewish institutions, and now the desecrations of Jewish cemeteries, some have rushed to connect the supposed upsurge in anti-Semitism to Donald Trump’s presidency. Ian Tuttle notes that there is yet no firm statistical evidence that such events are really becoming more frequent, let alone any information to shed light on their cause, and points out that many critics of the president seem eager to exploit the situation to score political points:

The sharp spike in anti-Semitic incidents during the [2014] Gaza war is noteworthy. . . . The episode [supports the contention] that short-term news events can occasion violence. But the majority of perpetrators of anti-Semitism during the Gaza war were not the Trump-supporting white supremacists upon whom the recent violence is being blamed. . . .

The parallel ascent of Donald Trump and vile elements of right-wing politics has, indeed, been alarming. Long before the mainstream media became interested, conservative opponents of Trump found themselves targets of a repulsive fringe. . . .

However, the hard evidence is not yet in, and responsible commentators would do well to be patient. Regrettably, many on the left have leapt on the news for partisan purposes. . . . Keith Ellison, the Minnesota congressman, . . . recently tweeted: “Why has it taken [Donald Trump] so long even to say the word ‘anti-Semitism?’ Perhaps it has something to do with placating his base?” . . . [T]he denunciations of Keith Ellison—who was a longtime member of Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam, from which he did not distance himself until he ran for Congress in 2006—ring hollow, as do those from progressives who cheer Linda Sarsour—an organizer of January’s Women’s March who has championed anti-Israel terrorism [and recently helped raise funds to help repair the vandalized Jewish cemetery in St. Louis]—or the grotesqueries of the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction (BDS) movement.

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.