This week, Benjamin Netanyahu has been visiting Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda, and Ethiopia. Many factors have encouraged the warming of relations between Israel and these African states. They include the fall of Muammar Ghaddafi, who exerted his influence to keep Israel out of Africa, the thaw between Israel and those Sunni Arab states that have African allies, and interest in Israeli water technology. But, writes Herb Keinon, one concern is paramount:

Three of the four [countries visited by Netanyahu]—Uganda, Kenya, and Ethiopia—are facing terrorism from Islamic extremists, and Rwanda is concerned about a spillover effect. These countries are afraid that what has happened in Libya, Mali, and the Ivory Coast could happen to them as well.

For this reason they are interested in forging stronger ties with Israel. It is not all about getting water, energy, and agricultural know-how; it is also very much about getting Israeli knowledge and assistance in how to combat terrorism.

These countries, and other countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, are more concerned with questions of homeland security than they were some twenty years ago, and they see Israel as one country with a great deal of experience—and technology—in this field.

There is little doubt that if Hizballah had participated more intensively in Saturday’s attack, Israeli air defenses would have been pushed past their limits, and far more damage would have been done. Daniel Byman and Kenneth Pollack, trying to look at things from Tehran’s perspective, see this as an important sign of caution—but caution that shouldn’t be exaggerated:

Iran is well aware of the extent and capability of Israel’s air defenses. The scale of the strike was almost certainly designed to enable at least some of the attacking munitions to penetrate those defenses and cause some degree of damage. Their inability to do so was doubtless a disappointment to Tehran, but the Iranians can probably still console themselves that the attack was frightening for the Israeli people and alarming to their government. Iran probably hopes that it was unpleasant enough to give Israeli leaders pause the next time they consider an operation like the embassy strike.

Hizballah is Iran’s ace in the hole. With more than 150,000 rockets and missiles, the Lebanese militant group could overwhelm Israeli air defenses. . . . All of this reinforces the strategic assessment that Iran is not looking to escalate with Israel and is, in fact, working very hard to avoid escalation. . . . Still, Iran has crossed a Rubicon, although it may not recognize it. Iran had never struck Israel directly from its own territory before Saturday.

Byman and Pollack see here an important lesson for America:

What Saturday’s fireworks hopefully also illustrated is the danger of U.S. disengagement from the Middle East. . . . The latest round of violence shows why it is important for the United States to take the lead on pushing back on Iran and its proxies and bolstering U.S. allies.