This week, Benjamin Netanyahu has been visiting Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda, and Ethiopia. Many factors have encouraged the warming of relations between Israel and these African states. They include the fall of Muammar Ghaddafi, who exerted his influence to keep Israel out of Africa, the thaw between Israel and those Sunni Arab states that have African allies, and interest in Israeli water technology. But, writes Herb Keinon, one concern is paramount:

Three of the four [countries visited by Netanyahu]—Uganda, Kenya, and Ethiopia—are facing terrorism from Islamic extremists, and Rwanda is concerned about a spillover effect. These countries are afraid that what has happened in Libya, Mali, and the Ivory Coast could happen to them as well.

For this reason they are interested in forging stronger ties with Israel. It is not all about getting water, energy, and agricultural know-how; it is also very much about getting Israeli knowledge and assistance in how to combat terrorism.

These countries, and other countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, are more concerned with questions of homeland security than they were some twenty years ago, and they see Israel as one country with a great deal of experience—and technology—in this field.

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.