Archaeologists in Israel’s capital recently uncovered a vast defensive trench that once surrounded the city, which was exposed by preparations for a major infrastructure overhaul. Joanie Margulies writes:

Construction revealed the ancient moat, which measures approximately ten meters (33 feet) wide and between two and seven meters (6.5-23 feet) deep. The moat surrounded the Old City of Jerusalem in its entirety. The 1,000-year-old moat was accompanied by handprints adjacent to the structure.

Zubair Adawi, director of the excavations at the IAA, uncovered the moat and handprints underneath Sultan Suleiman Street. “Moats, usually filled with water, are well-known from fortifications and castles in Europe, but here the moat was dry, its width and depth presenting an obstacle slowing down the attacking army,” Adawi said.

The moat is believed to have kept the First Crusaders from breaching the city. Historians writing during the age of the First Crusade placed the fighters at the walls of Jerusalem in June 1099. It took the fighters approximately five weeks to cross the moat after tedious strategic planning, archaeologists involved with the excavation said.

After finally crossing, Crusaders were met with force and bloodshed by Jews and Muslims defending the city.

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.