Recent declarations by the Swedish government, the British parliament, and the Irish senate recognizing a fictive Palestinian state complement an ongoing campaign by Mahmoud Abbas to obtain recognition of a Palestinian state from international bodies, writes John Bolton. This move is simply the resurrection of a similar campaign launched by Arafat in 1989. That plan achieved negligible success, thanks to U.S. efforts to foil it:

Twenty-five years ago, President George H. W. Bush and Secretary of State James Baker conveyed their determination to squelch fanciful maneuverings in the international system, rather than addressing the Arab-Israeli conflict through direct negotiations between the parties themselves. United States resolve prevailed.

Under President Obama, by contrast, we saw American weakness. . . . Sensing that weakness, the Palestinians and their supporters struck, something they had feared to do for over 20 years. Accordingly, today’s Palestinian gambit will turn not on what happens in Stockholm, London, or UN headquarters in Turtle Bay. It will turn on how officials in Washington decide to react.

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.