On June 5, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, and Egypt severed relations with Qatar over its support for Islamist groups (including Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood more generally), its pro-Iranian stance, and the positions endorsed by its state-controlled news network Al-Jazeera. The Gulf states have had tense relations with Doha since Hamad al-Thani—who ruled Qatar until 2013, when he abdicated power in favor of his son—became the country’s emir in 1995. Lee Smith comments on America’s proper role in the spat:

[T]he central purpose of Al-Jazeera [was] to serve as an instrument with which Hamad attacked his larger and richer Gulf neighbor. Internationally, the satellite network is known for its anti-American posture. After 9/11, it was virtually Osama bin Laden’s bulletin board, posting videos the al-Qaeda leader sent to the network through couriers. During the U.S.-led coalition’s invasion of Iraq, Al-Jazeera openly sided with the remnants of Saddam Hussein’s forces as they targeted American troops and allies.

From Doha’s vantage point, though, beating up on the Americans was just another way to target Washington’s local client, Saudi Arabia. The Qataris have no real problem with the United States—they host al-Udeid, the biggest American military base in the Middle East and CENTCOM’s headquarters in the region. But that’s the Qatari way, playing both sides—making nice with the Americans and also with the people, whether Sunni or Shiite, who want to kill Americans is just another day at the office in Doha. Similarly, Qatar shares with Iran the world’s largest natural gas field, South Pars, the source of nearly all of its revenue, so it’s cozy with Tehran even as its allies in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) see Iran as threat. . . .

[In breaking relations with Qatar], the Saudis aimed to show the Americans that they can be helpful. . . . What the Saudis don’t need is an argument over who funds terror. . . . The reality is that there are plenty of problematic actors in the GCC, including the Emiratis, who do business with Iran and have sheltered figures from the Syrian regime that the Saudis and Qataris oppose. . . .

What’s most important . . . is that the administration doesn’t let local players, whether that’s Qatar or the UAE or Saudi Arabia, set American priorities. Intra-Arab conflict should not distract the administration from keeping its regional partners focused on the two key issues on the U.S. agenda— stopping Iran and crushing Islamic State.

While I’ve seen much speculation—some reasonable and well informed, some quite the opposite—about why Jerusalem chose Friday morning to begin its campaign against Iran, the most obvious explanation seems to be the most convincing. First, 60 days had passed since President Trump warned that Tehran had 60 days to reach an agreement with the U.S. over its nuclear program. Second, Israeli intelligence was convinced that Iran was too close to developing nuclear weapons to delay military action any longer. Edward Luttwak explains why Israel was wise to attack:

Iran was adding more and more centrifuges in increasingly vast facilities at enormous expense, which made no sense at all if the aim was to generate energy. . . . It might be hoped that Israel’s own nuclear weapons could deter an Iranian nuclear attack against its own territory. But a nuclear Iran would dominate the entire Middle East, including Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain, with which Israel has full diplomatic relations, as well as Saudi Arabia with which Israel hopes to have full relations in the near future.

Luttwak also considers the military feats the IDF and Mossad have accomplished in the past few days:

To reach all [its] targets, Israel had to deal with the range-payload problem that its air force first overcame in 1967, when it destroyed the air forces of three Arab states in a single day. . . . This time, too, impossible solutions were found for the range problem, including the use of 65-year-old airliners converted into tankers (Boeing is years later in delivering its own). To be able to use its short-range F-16s, Israel developed the “Rampage” air-launched missile, which flies upward on a ballistic trajectory, gaining range by gliding down to the target. That should make accuracy impossible—but once again, Israeli developers overcame the odds.