Yesterday, American and Israeli delegations arrived in Rabat to formalize the deal that establishes diplomatic ties between Morocco and Israel. The agreement brings economic and security benefits to both countries, but, Ilan Berman explains, it also has wider implications:

[Yesterday’s deal] positions the longtime U.S. ally Morocco to take on a more sizable role in North African security. Morocco’s strategic location on the continent, situated near geopolitical hotspots like Mali and Nigeria, makes it a natural candidate for such a function. Yet, for years, the uncertain legal status of the former Spanish territory of the Western Sahara, which the kingdom has administered since the 1970s, has prevented Morocco from playing a larger role in the security of its neighborhood. Now, however, the U.S. recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over the Western Sahara that accompanied normalization with Israel has paved the way for the kingdom to take on a more meaningful role in regional policing.

It’s a job for which Morocco is well-suited. The country’s tolerant, inclusive interpretation of Islam has long stood in contrast to more extreme strains of the religion found elsewhere in the region. And over the past decade, Morocco has become more outspoken and assertive in promoting this worldview, establishing clerical institutions and international partnerships designed to promote the Moroccan “model” throughout Africa—and beyond.

Since its announcement earlier this month, the Moroccan-Israeli agreement has garnered its fair share of criticism from detractors who have lamented a shift in the political status quo in the Western Sahara, a sidelining of the Palestinians, and assorted other alleged shortcomings. These critics, however, miss a crucial point. At the end of the day, the new normalization deal better aligns Rabat with emerging regional trends in the Middle East, and makes it far more useful to Washington.

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.