Last week, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a prestigious bipartisan think tank, hosted a lecture by the Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif—something it has done for several years running. While there are always a few activists protesting these visits, this year the issue received far more attention because of the Islamic Republic’s recent execution of the wrestling champion Navid Afkari, who had participated in pro-democracy protests. The CFR’s president—and former State Department panjandrum—Richard Haas responded to his critics with the following tweet:

Like many others I condemn the execution of Navid Afkari. I also hold the view that human rights constitute an important dimension of U.S. foreign policy. Nevertheless, I believe that CFR is correct to meet with Iran’s foreign minister.

Amir Taheri comments:

In November 1938, a few days after Kristallnacht, the French ambassador to Berlin, Robert Coulondre, reported the event to Paris, describing the savagery in the heart of Europe, concluding that “nevertheless one should understand German grievances against the Jews.” Western intellectuals who visited the Soviet Union under Stalin tacitly admitted that thousands were killed by the regime and millions starved to death but—using the same “nevertheless” talisman—they also concluded that all was for the best in that best of all worlds.

[In his lecture] at the CFR meeting, Zarif repeated the same claims, not to say lies, that he has been dishing out to the illustrious audience for years. And it seems that his audience gobbled them up with the same appetite as before. . . . [As] portrayed by Zarif, the Khomeinist regime is a peace-and-love enterprise where the judiciary is independent, all freedoms are respected, and the strategic aim is to establish peace and harmony across the globe. There are no political prisoners in Iran. Tehran’s support for Hizballah and Hamas is cultural and Iranian presence in Syria is only advisory at the invitation of the Syrian government.

In the CFR echo chamber the airing of opinions without an ethical barometer is, at best, a trivial pursuit, and, at worst, a betrayal of scholarship.

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.