With Barack Obama’s presidency coming to a close, Amos Yadlin offers some suggestions for repairing the damaged relationship between Washington and Jerusalem. One of the most important issues to be addressed is Iran; another is Israeli settlements:

Iran poses the greatest threat to Israel in the long term, and a nuclear-armed Iran poses a threat to the United States and to world peace. . . . An effort should be made to conclude a parallel U.S.-Israeli agreement that reflects the two countries’ mutual understandings and commitments regarding the achievement of a significant reduction in the dangers posed by the nuclear agreement, as well as joint measures to contend with its serious long-term implications and significantly to strengthen long-term Israeli security. . . .

It will also be important for Israel to try to reach an agreement whereby the United States would provide Israel with all the operational capabilities necessary to take action against Iran—in the event that all other alternatives for halting Iran’s progress toward completing its nuclear program have been exhausted. . . .

A necessary initial step [regarding the Israel-Palestinian conflict] would be a renewal of the understanding articulated in George W. Bush’s 2004 letter to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. . . . Such an agreement would significantly reduce the tension surrounding the issue of the settlements, which has poisoned U.S.-Israel relations over the past eight years. In this context, it is important to work with the outgoing administration to prevent UN Security Council resolutions regarding plans for an Israel-Palestinian permanent agreement that are formulated without coordination with the Israeli government and against its policy, as [such a resolution] would leave Israel with no negotiating cards for the future.

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.