The Temple Mount crisis playing out today seems as much a proxy conflict between Jordan and Turkey as it is a dispute between Israel and the Palestinians. That’s the view of Michael Rubin, who explains the recent history of Muslim maintenance of the site, the third holiest in Islam:

Under the Ottoman Empire, an Islamic Waqf (religious endowment) maintained the Temple Mount. When Jordan emerged from the ashes of the Ottoman collapse, its Ministry of Awqaf took control over Jerusalem’s Islamic Waqf. When Israel won control of the Old City of Jerusalem in 1967, nineteen years after the Jordanian army sought to make the city Judenrein, Israeli authorities agreed to allow the Jordanian-controlled Waqf to continue to manage affairs on the Temple Mount, even as Israel assumed responsibility for security around the holy site. It’s an arrangement that has worked fairly well.

[Now], however, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his administration, rather than Jordan, are seeking the lead on efforts to force Israel to abandon its security measures. Consider these recent stories out of Turkey. “As Organization of Islamic Cooperation term president, I condemn Israeli forces’ use of excess force on our brothers gathered for Friday prayer, the Friday prayer not being allowed in the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, and Israel’s persistence in its attitude despite all warnings,” he said. Erdogan has also telephoned European leaders to urge them to pressure Israel to remove the security measures.

In other words, Rubin concludes, it seems likely that Erdogan is seeking

a collective Islamic administration (under Turkey’s tutelage, of course) and [is implying] that Jordan’s control has run its course. This has as much to do with Erdogan seeking to restore Turkey’s neo-Ottoman claims over Jerusalem a century after the Ottoman Empire lost the city than it does with sincere concern about the Temple Mount itself. If the White House and European Union truly wish to see calm restored in Jerusalem, it is essential they treat the cause and not simply the symptoms. The problem at the Temple Mount has nothing to do with metal detectors and little to do with Israel. Rather, it’s about a struggle for custodianship in the Islamic world, one which it is essential that [the much more moderate] Jordan wins.

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.