In an interview with Bret Stephens published in the New York Times on January 11, the outgoing IDF chief-of-staff Gadi Eisenkot stated bluntly that Israel had struck “thousands” of Iranian targets in Syria in recent years. The same day, Benjamin Netanyahu made a similar on-the-record statement at cabinet meeting. These admissions mark a break from Jerusalem’s longstanding reluctance to claim responsibility for airstrikes it has carried out in the midst of the Syrian civil war—a policy that dates back even earlier, to such events as the destruction of a Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007. Eyal Zisser explains the rationale behind breaking with this policy of “strategic ambiguity”:

More than anything, a policy of silence helps keep the enemy in the dark about how exposed and vulnerable it is to Israeli operational and intelligence-gathering capabilities. Silence also . . . allows [Syria and Iran] to save face—as any direct Israeli claims of responsibility would force them into a corner and compel them to retaliate. [Nonetheless], there was never much ambiguity in the true sense of the word. . . . [T]he people on the other side of the border certainly have no doubts about what is going on. Even without official claims of responsibility, our neighbors never thought these attacks were the work of anyone else. A long line of defense ministers and generals have a history of intimating—and sometimes stating outright—that Israel has been responsible.

It is ridiculous, therefore, to argue, [as some have done], that the recent claims of responsibility in Israel specifically prodded the Iranians to escalate their own response against Israel [as in a barrage of missiles aimed at the Golan Heights last week]. After all, in Tehran and Damascus alike, policy isn’t determined by headlines in Israel, [but ultimately by] the reality on the ground.

And on the ground, Israel has indeed managed to delay and even block Tehran’s efforts to establish a military foothold in Syria. As this is a paramount Iranian strategic interest, Tehran is determined to change the rules of the game, especially now that the war in Syria is almost over and Israeli-Russian relations aren’t as warm as they used to be. The time has come to dispense with ambiguity, which never really existed in the first place, and replace it with clear declarations that highlight Israel’s red lines vis-à-vis Tehran.

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.