On Wednesday, the Iran-backed Hizballah militia fired at least one anti-aircraft missile at an IDF surveillance drone over southern Lebanon. Despite claims by Lebanese news sources to the contrary, Israeli officials have made clear that the missile missed its target. But what might have happened if had hit the Israeli drone, asks Alex Fishman:

[First], the Israel Air Force would have struck the anti-aircraft battery responsible or similar Hizballah targets, and the northern border could have erupted into heavy exchanges of fire. Worse still, Hizballah knew that if it had succeeded in felling the drone, Jerusalem would definitely respond, and intended to remind Israel that the “quiet border” in the north is the most explosive and easiest to ignite.

It is fair to assume, [however], that neither Israel nor Hizballah has any real interest in igniting the frontier. The two sides apparently have mutual deterrence: Hizballah acts against Israel in a restrained and measured manner and Israel makes a supreme effort not to harm Hizballah members and does not openly attack the organization’s military capabilities in Lebanon. But this only works until someone decides to cross the line.

The Israel Air Force [fears] a violent, unpredicted eruption from a country that does not have an effective central government. This requires Israel to have maximum intelligence control, including a presence in the air. But Hizballah sees itself as the defender of Lebanon, and as such Israeli overflights are a violation of national sovereignty.

The situation could explode as soon as one of the parties decides it is not playing the game anymore. And it almost happened last week.

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.