On Sunday, CNN aired an hourlong special on the subject of anti-Semitism, hosted by the anchor Dana Bash, who is herself Jewish. Melissa Langsam Braunstein praises the network for producing the program, but also points to some its shortcomings. Above all

far-left anti-Semitism deserved more attention. Far-right anti-Semitism, of course, remains reprehensible, but it’s readily identifiable. More people struggle to recognize far-left anti-Semitism, which has historically cloaked Jew-hatred in the language of social justice. It’s a problem across college campuses and increasingly in lower-level schools. CNN’s viewers are also more likely to encounter the far left. In that sense, the Brandeis Center for Human Rights president Alyza Lewin, who explained Jewish peoplehood and the connection between Judaism and Zionism, merited more airtime.

Jews face threats from numerous directions. Unfortunately, viewers may be left with the impression that the far right is dangerous, the far left makes unpleasant comments, and any other threats are vague. For the sake of American Jews’ safety, though, a comprehensive threat overview is necessary.

Bash’s comment that “experts across the board caution anti-Semitism is growing on the left, but it is not equivalent to hate from the right” was unhelpful. Anti-Semitism is a problem on the left. Debating whether the far right or the far left is “worse” is a waste of time—both pose dangers to American Jews. . . Further, given how many Jews live in blue [states], most Jews in the United States are more likely to encounter problems from the far left.

Noah Rothman provides a worthwhile reminder of why a nuclear Iran is a threat not just to Israel, but to the United States:

For one, Iran is the foremost state sponsor of terrorism on earth. It exports terrorists and arms throughout the region and beyond, and there are no guarantees that it won’t play a similarly reckless game with nuclear material. At minimum, the terrorist elements in Iran’s orbit would be emboldened by Iran’s new nuclear might. Their numbers would surely grow, as would their willingness to court risk.

Iran maintains the largest arsenal of ballistic missiles in the region. It can certainly deliver a warhead to targets inside the Middle East, and it’s fast-tracking the development of space-launch vehicles that can threaten the U.S. mainland. Even if Tehran were a rational actor that could be reliably deterred, an acknowledged Iranian bomb would kick-start a race toward nuclear proliferation in the region. The Saudis, the Turks, the Egyptians, and others would probably be compelled to seek their own nuclear deterrents, leading to an infinitely more complex security environment.

In the meantime, Iran would be able to blackmail the West, allowing it occasionally to choke off the trade and energy exports that transit the Persian Gulf and to engage in far more reckless acts of international terrorism.

As for the possible consequences, Rothman observes:

Iranian retaliation might be measured with the understanding that if it’s not properly calibrated, the U.S. and Israel could begin taking out Iranian command-and-control targets next. If the symbols of the regime begin crumbling, the oppressed Iranian people might find the courage to finish the job. If there’s anything the mullahs fear more than the U.S. military, it’s their own citizens.