For Middle Eastern Christians, pilgrimage to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and other sites in Jerusalem is a time-honored tradition. Yet most, even if they live relatively near the holy city, are unable to visit it, as Robert Nicholson writes:

The problem is Israel—or rather, that most Arab and Muslim countries consider Israel to be an illegitimate enemy state. Citizens who have even the slightest contact with it or its people are frequently punished under any number of formal bans and boycotts. Some countries like Egypt and Jordan are less hostile, looking the other way when citizens visit Jerusalem to pray. But Christians in other countries, especially those within the Iranian sphere of influence, undertake pilgrimage at their own risk. They may enter Israel without incident but will almost certainly face prosecution and detention upon their return.

Lebanon is a cause for special concern as the Middle Eastern country with the highest percentage of Christians. . . . But while [Lebanese] Sunnis and Shiites remain free to visit Mecca despite conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, Christians are forbidden from visiting the Church of the Holy Sepulcher due to conflict with Israel. Prosecution under the 1955 Boycott Law or Article 278 of the Lebanese criminal code awaits anyone who thinks otherwise.

In October, U.S. diplomats will convene a symposium in Rome to address religious freedom, humanitarian aid, and human trafficking, among other issues of shared concern with the Holy See. They should also take the chance to issue an unequivocal statement affirming the importance of pilgrimage to people of all faiths and calling on Lebanese officials to rescind all laws and regulations that place a permanent bar on Christian visits to Jerusalem. . . . Here the engagement of Pope Francis is crucial.

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.