On the fourth anniversary of the beginning of the uprising that overthrew Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, it seems to a casual observer that little has changed. In fact, writes Eric Trager, the years of upheaval have further eroded Egypt’s fragile social and political system; yet, for the time being, Egyptians prefer the continued rule of Abdel Fattah el-Sisi to the alternatives:

[P]erhaps the most important reason for Sisi’s staying power is the popular mood, which is a cocktail of weariness and relief. Egyptians are exhausted after four years of tumult, but at the same time satisfied that their country hasn’t suffered the devastating chaos of Syria, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen. So while many of the economic and demographic problems that caused the 2011 uprising haven’t been resolved, a critical mass of Egyptians now prefer their broken state to spinning the wheel again and risking further collapse.

That narrative, of course, flies in the face of the dominant narrative in Washington, which sees the “Arab Spring” as a democratizing moment that Egyptians betrayed when they rallied behind the military’s ouster of an elected president in July 2013. And, to be sure, that disappointment has merit: there is nothing democratic about Egypt’s post-Morsi trajectory, and the current regime’s severe repressiveness is a proper target for condemnation. But Washington should bear in mind that the romantic hopes that many Americans had for Egypt from 6,000 miles away entailed a great deal of pain for the Egyptians who lived with consequences of the January 2011 uprising. And four years later, the uprising’s ultimate impact is that many Egyptians are now too cautious to ask for more than they already have.

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.