On Thursday—the day of the national election in the United Kingdom—the Bernie Sanders campaign announced its support for the British Labor party. Setting aside the question of whether it is prudent for an American presidential candidate to endorse a foreign politician, especially one with a fondness for terrorists and dictators and who has unleashed a torrent of anti-Semitism in his own party, Noah Rothman notes that the Sanders campaign has some problems of its own that are not unlike Labor’s:

Bernie Sanders has thus far evaded scrutiny over the values he and his campaign share with the Labor party’s discredited leader, but that lack of curiosity is indefensible

Don’t take my word for it; take that of Sanders’s own surrogates. Representative Ilhan Omar, one of Sanders’s most visible endorsers with whom the senator frequently shares the stage, has apologized for some of what she’s admitted were anti-Semitic remarks. . . . Amid the failed Democratic effort to condemn Omar, Sanders’s foreign-policy adviser, Matt Duss [a veteran Israel-hater], attacked the maneuver as one purely designed to “police criticism of Israel.” It is worth recalling that the remark Duss considers scrutiny of Israel was Omar’s claim that pro-Israel lawmakers exhibit an “allegiance to a foreign country.”

Duss joins Sanders’s campaign manager, Faiz Shakir, as two of the more prominent members of the Sanders team who have been implicated in the propagation of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

Sanders, [because he is Jewish,] may be insulated from the charge that he shares these suspicious sentiments . . . , but this clear pattern raises some disturbing questions. It is incumbent on the press to ask them. To at least a degree, Sanders clearly evinces some of Corbyn’s instincts on policy, [and] his affiliations suggest a similar tolerance for the radical left’s occasionally anti-Semitic indulgences.

Analyzing the recent direct Iranian attack on Israel, and Israel’s security situation more generally, Michael Oren looks to the 2015 agreement to restrain Iran’s nuclear program. That, and President Biden’s efforts to resurrect the deal after Donald Trump left it, are in his view the source of the current crisis:

Of the original motivations for the deal—blocking Iran’s path to the bomb and transforming Iran into a peaceful nation—neither remained. All Biden was left with was the ability to kick the can down the road and to uphold Barack Obama’s singular foreign-policy achievement.

In order to achieve that result, the administration has repeatedly refused to punish Iran for its malign actions:

Historians will survey this inexplicable record and wonder how the United States not only allowed Iran repeatedly to assault its citizens, soldiers, and allies but consistently rewarded it for doing so. They may well conclude that in a desperate effort to avoid getting dragged into a regional Middle Eastern war, the U.S. might well have precipitated one.

While America’s friends in the Middle East, especially Israel, have every reason to feel grateful for the vital assistance they received in intercepting Iran’s missile and drone onslaught, they might also ask what the U.S. can now do differently to deter Iran from further aggression. . . . Tehran will see this weekend’s direct attack on Israel as a victory—their own—for their ability to continue threatening Israel and destabilizing the Middle East with impunity.

Israel, of course, must respond differently. Our target cannot simply be the Iranian proxies that surround our country and that have waged war on us since October 7, but, as the Saudis call it, “the head of the snake.”