Yesterday the Lebanese government claimed that Israeli drones had attempted an attack on Beirut. More credibly, there have been reports—as yet unconfirmed by Jerusalem—that the IDF struck a military installation along the Syria-Lebanon border belonging to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine–General Command (PFLP–GC). These attacks were likely an attempt to thwart Hizballah retaliation for Sunday’s air-strikes near Damascus. Sunniva Rose explains the PFLP–GC’s origin, and the threat the organization poses:

A pro-Syrian militant group, the PFLP-GC was formed in 1968 by Ahmad Jibril. . . . In 1965, Syrian intelligence had helped [Jibril] establish the armed Marxist-Leninist group [now known simply as the] Palestinian Liberation Front. Jibril entered negotiations to be part of the unified PFLP but withdrew before it was officially created in 1967 and established the PFLP-GC.

In its five-decade history, the PFLP-GC developed a name as a troublemaker in Lebanon and Syria. . . . The militants entered the 1975 Lebanese civil war—which raged for fifteen years—on the side of the Syrians, gaining notoriety for looting gold from banks in central Beirut. . . . Unlike the PLO, the PFLP-GC does not recognize any peace agreement with Israel.

After Lebanon’s civil war ended in 1990, the PFLP-GC was one of only two Palestinian factions to refuse to disarm. . . . The PFLP-GC has also fought alongside Syrian regime forces since the start of [that country’s] civil war.

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.