Shiites, many of whom live in the city of Lucknow, make up 18 percent of India’s Muslim population. Shimon Shapira, a retired IDF general, recounts his experience at a conference there hosted by Amir Khan, a leader of the Indian Shiite community and a local noble:

The meeting in Shiite Lucknow with Saudi Sunnis from Mecca and Medina stimulated a delicate dialogue with restrained tension. [Khan] expressed his opinion that all religious extremism in Islam in this era began with the disintegration of the Ottoman empire and the creation of the Saudi Arabian kingdom. He contended that the Saudis supported Islamic movements that became extremist and violent over the years.

Anwar Majed Eshki, the chief Saudi guest, respectfully contended that as a devoted Muslim, he saw great importance in bridging the Islamic sects. Indeed, he believed that the presence of Jewish guests from Israel was evidence of a huge advancement in the mutual understanding necessary for solving the many problems in the Middle East. One morning, Sunnis and Shiites gathered as one for a joint morning prayer, without allowing the religious differences between Sunnis and Shiites to interfere. The commitment to Allah dominated all differences at that moment. It’s also worth noting that Eshki visited Jerusalem this year and led Muslim prayers in the al-Aqsa Mosque.

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.