Last week, when the British-appointed grand mufti of Jerusalem, Amin Haj al-Husseini, was the subject of numerous headlines, Martin Kramer circulated a photograph of David Ben-Gurion, his wife Paula, and the mufti seated in a row, apparently at some function coordinated by the British authorities in Palestine. Apart from this photograph, there is no evidence the two ever met:

This was indeed a very curious photograph. It suggested that in British-mandated Palestine, even avowed enemies could be made to sit together at the behest of the high commissioner. And it oozed irony, given the subsequent history of the mufti, and that notorious photograph of him with Hitler. In all histories of the period, the mufti and Ben-Gurion are two warships that passed in the night. . . . Was this previously unknown encounter one more opportunity missed?

Then a Palestinian journalist contacted Kramer to raise doubts about the identity of the man in the photograph—who, it turns out, is not the mufti at all:

In history, as in investments, if it’s too good to be true, it probably isn’t. . . . As of this moment, this is a photograph of David Ben-Gurion seated alongside an unidentified Muslim dignitary. Feel free to lose interest right here and move on. But if you are still curious, we now have a mystery man.

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.