Ysoscher Katz argues that elements of ḥasidic spirituality could help to enhance and revive Modern Orthodoxy, precisely because they are rooted in lived religious experience rather than rationalist claims about theological truth—about which modern Jews are apt to be skeptical. Katz takes as a model the spirituality of his father, a member of the Satmar sect:

My father . . . does not study Ḥasidism, nor does he want to understand it. . . . Ḥasidism is what he does, not what he studies. From his perspective, Torah is for study, Ḥasidism for practicing. . . . He stays away from traditional kabbalistic or ḥasidic texts. . . . He is so intimidated by their sacredness that he fears that his [very] touch would contaminate them. Yet, despite never having formally studied ḥasidic texts, he still is the quintessential Ḥasid. . . . Ḥasidism is how he lives his life. It is the prism through which he encounters the world and the ethos by which he lives.

He adores his wife, loves his children, cherishes his community, and reveres and respects his neighbors and fellow human beings, Jew and non-Jew alike. While there is nothing special about these emotions—many people love their family and surroundings—their flavor is unique. [His love] is ḥasidic love, deriving its passion from the ḥasidic teachings he has absorbed throughout his life. These teachings have filled his being with a deep religiosity, which, in turn, infuses his actions and emotions with a deep and robust spirituality.

Surveying news websites and social media on Sunday morning, I immediately found some intelligent and well-informed observers arguing that Iran deliberately warned the U.S. of its pending assault on Israel, and calibrated it so that there would be few casualties and minimal destructiveness, thus hoping to avoid major retaliation. In other words, this massive barrage was a face-saving gesture by the ayatollahs. Others disagreed. Brian Carter and Frederick W. Kagan put the issue to rest:

The Iranian April 13 missile-drone attack on Israel was very likely intended to cause significant damage below the threshold that would trigger a massive Israeli response. The attack was designed to succeed, not to fail. The strike package was modeled on those the Russians have used repeatedly against Ukraine to great effect. The attack caused more limited damage than intended likely because the Iranians underestimated the tremendous advantages Israel has in defending against such strikes compared with Ukraine.

But that isn’t to say that Tehran achieved nothing:

The lessons that Iran will draw from this attack will allow it to build more successful strike packages in the future. The attack probably helped Iran identify the relative strengths and weaknesses of the Israeli air-defense system. Iran will likely also share the lessons it learned in this attack with Russia.

Iran’s ability to penetrate Israeli air defenses with even a small number of large ballistic missiles presents serious security concerns for Israel. The only Iranian missiles that got through hit an Israeli military base, limiting the damage, but a future strike in which several ballistic missiles penetrate Israeli air defenses and hit Tel Aviv or Haifa could cause significant civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure, including ports and energy. . . . Israel and its partners should not emerge from this successful defense with any sense of complacency.