Archaeologists recently unearthed a Byzantine-era workshop near the Lebanon border that produced vessels for wine and oil. Unlike most similar sites from the same period, this one has a kiln hewn directly in the bedrock. Megan Gannon writes:

The Roman kiln had two chambers: one firebox where branches and tinder would have been burned, and another chamber where the clay vessels would have been placed to harden under the intense heat.

[The archaeologists] found fragments of storage jars that could be transported overland, as well as vessels known as amphorae that had large handles and were used to hold wine or oil, likely to be exported from Israel by sea.

Special geological conditions . . . made the area a good spot for this rare type of kiln. . . [T]he region has chalky bedrock, which is soft enough to be easily quarried and yet durable enough to endure the heat of the pottery-firing process. . . .

The archaeologists also uncovered an ancient water-storage system and some mosaic floor tiles, and surveys in the area identified the remains of walls that probably date to the Byzantine period, or 4th to 7th centuries CE.

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.