A week before the U.S.–Russia meeting in Helsinki, Benjamin Netanyahu traveled to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin in an attempt to secure some guarantees for Israel in southern Syria, and later reported the terms they had settled upon to Donald Trump. It seems, writes Josh Rogin, that Presidents Putin and Trump agreed to uphold these terms:

[T]he Assad regime and Russia are about to complete their offensive to regain control of territory on Israel’s border. This is territory rebels had held for several years, until recently with the support of the United States. . . . Israel has remained largely neutral in the Syrian civil war but wants Assad to go, and was quietly helping Syrians across their border with emergency medical care and humanitarian support. But when the United States made clear it will not intervene in southern Syria to stop Assad and Russia, Netanyahu cut a deal with Putin to make sure Israel’s interests were protected.

Under the deal, Israel (and now the United States, presumably) will formally endorse the Assad regime’s control over the area and work to implement the 1974 [Israel–Syria cease-fire] agreement, which sets the physical borders [between the countries] and provides for UN observers to be deployed in between the Syrians and Israelis. [For its own part], Russia agrees to keep Iranian troops and proxy groups [about 50 or 60 miles] from Israel’s border (if it can), and Putin promises not to object if Israel strikes Iranian assets in southern Syria, especially if Iran deploys weapons that threaten Israel, such as strategic missiles or anti-aircraft systems.

Of course, there’s broad skepticism about Russia’s ability to force Iran to do anything in Syria. “We have assessed that it is unlikely that Russia has the will or the capability to implement fully or to counter Iranian decisions and influence [in Syria],” Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats said Thursday at the Aspen Security Forum.

But overall, it’s a deal that Israel can live with and that establishes a framework for Israeli relations with its powerful new neighbor—Russia. You can’t blame the Israelis for being realistic about the fact that Russia, not the United States, is the power they have to work with most in the Middle East now.

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.