Last month, an Israeli journalist reported that an airplane had flown from Tel Aviv to Islamabad and stayed there for ten hours. The report, while never confirmed, sparked rumors in both Israel and Pakistan that Jerusalem had sent a secret diplomatic mission to establish ties between the two countries. Given Benjamin Netanyahu’s success in creating such links with countries around the world, including Muslim states like Oman and Bahrain, such rumors seem plausible. But Vinay Kaura argues that even if reports of the visit are true, Israel and Pakistan won’t be reconciled in the foreseeable future:

For seven decades, Pakistan’s ruling class and population have supported the Palestinians without [the government] having to do much to encourage them. Some Pakistani analysts favor their country’s establishing formal ties with Israel, . . . but most of the political elite remains firmly opposed to Pakistan’s recognition of Israel, as support for ties with Jerusalem is deemed to be a betrayal of the Palestinians. This is a hypocritical position, as Islamabad is entirely silent on the suffering of Uighur Muslims and Kurds at the hands of China and Turkey, [respectively], which are Pakistan’s closest allies.

India is another elephant in the room when Pakistanis discuss Israel. Because Pakistan’s national-security doctrine is heavily Islamist and India-centric, Pakistan’s mullah-military alliance would not like to be seen as soft on a country that is considered to be part of the supposed “Zionist-Hindu” conspiracy against Pakistan. Pakistani conspiracy theorists often interpret Indo-Israeli relations as ideological—as a war against Pakistan and Islam. More realistic discussion focuses on the arms deals between the two countries, which of course have direct strategic implications for Pakistan’s nuclear assets. . . .

Given that Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan has been accused of being a stooge of the “Jewish lobby” on account of his first marriage to Jemima Goldsmith, [a British journalist with Jewish ancestry], as well as the shaky parliamentary majority of his government, he is unlikely to make any political move that can be considered remotely pro-Israel. And indeed, little else can be expected from a country whose ruling class is hell-bent on pursuing the ideological project of opposition to India, despite that project’s suicidal folly.

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.