When the new school year begins in the fall, California high-school students will be required to take at least one class in ethnic studies before graduating. The model curriculum for the subject, issued by the state Department of Education, involves a highly ideological form of instruction, meant to “address institutionalized systems of advantage.” And Jewish parents in California are especially worried, as Kayla Bartsch explains:

This earlier edition [of the Model Curriculum, from 2019], honored Palestinians’ “struggle” for liberation from Israel, praised the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement, defined Israel as a “settler-colonialist state,” scorned the “Zionist genocide” against Palestinians, and excluded the word “anti-Semitism” from its glossary. Unsurprisingly, many groups responded critically to this first draft, so the state sent it back to the workshop.

Still, Jewish parents have every reason to fear that the improved version won’t be much better. Their concerns have not always been well received:

In one particularly egregious skirmish that took place in April, members of the Pajaro Valley Unified School District (PVUSD) Board hurled incendiary words at the Jewish parents in the audience. [One] board member, Gabriel Medina, waved his finger at the Jewish parents and grandparents in the room [and] referred to them as “you people.”

The trustee Joy Flynn echoed Jewish stereotypes in a Marxist word salad that described racial power dynamics: “Something I have been a little bit taken aback by is the lack of acknowledgment of the economic power historically held by the Jewish community, that the community of black and brown people don’t have.”

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.