Now concluding its first season, The Path is focused on the fictitious “Myerists,” followers of a cultish religious movement that combines New-Age spirituality, traditional Christianity, and perhaps a dash of Kabbalah. The series, writes Armin Rosen, is atypical in the seriousness with which it treats religiosity:

What was missing . . . from nearly every . . . inquiry into religion on television was a sensitivity toward actual religious belief, and the ability to treat belief as something other than an object of winking anthropological curiosity. The Path doesn’t flatter its audience’s godlessness. Quite the opposite: despite its high production value, it’s hard to imagine viewers getting much out of the show if they’re convinced that religious belief is an automatic waste of time or emotion. The Path proceeds from the simple and quietly subversive premise that belief still matters—even in [today’s modern, Western, and secular] world. . . .

The Path is a direct confrontation with the question of what it actually means to believe—in this or any other time. It approaches the topic from nearly every conceivable angle, and with a remarkable degree of empathy. There are fundamentalist Myerists who are fleshed-out, complex characters, acting out of motives that are comprehensible and at times even noble. There are quietist Myerists and activist Myerists. There may even be schismatic Myerists, depending on how one intriguing subplot plays out. And the main character . . . is a Myerist harboring the secret burden of non-belief. His doubt isn’t automatically treated as heroic or particularly laudable. The show even raises the possibility that [his] doubt is selfish, self-destructive, and deeply irrational. The Path depicts a moral universe—one that’s alien to most of its viewers, I would guess—in which faithlessness is a worse sin than spousal infidelity.

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.