In 1968, several years of increasing political violence and unrest, coupled by rising crime and disorder, seemed to come to a climax: first with the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., then with the nationwide riots afterward, followed by the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, and thereafter by the violent protests at the Democratic National Convention. There were also repercussions for Jews: as Dovid Margolin notes, “in a three-month period beginning in September 1968, ten synagogues and Jewish schools were vandalized, set on fire, or even firebombed in New York City” alone. On December 10, Menachem M. Schneerson, the then-rebbe of the Chabad-Lubavitch Ḥasidim, delivered a lengthy sermon touching on the dangers of the moment, which Margolin summarizes:

As the rebbe explained, it is within every person’s power . . . “to pursue righteousness and justice” in accordance with the Torah’s teachings. But this all would—and could—only be accomplished through these same twin values of shalom: peace and wholeness.

“Through acts of violence and destruction one abandons the path of righteousness and justice,” Schneerson stated, “and eventually becomes destructive even to his family and, ultimately, to himself.” Violence, the rebbe explained, could not be easily subdued. Easy gains brought about through violent acts could only appear as such in the short term and would by nature sacrifice long-term progress in their wake. And a society that yielded to violence was not addressing injustice but rather dehumanizing the individuals it claimed to be helping, removing their agency and ability to return to their divine mission.

“Anarchy must ultimately destroy the anarchist,” the rebbe said [in a written version of the same sermon]. “It is for the good of those who would be destructive to be restrained.” In a Godly world, moral ends cannot justify immoral means and cannot possibly bring about a true, lasting, and virtuous justice.

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.