Today Prime Minister Netanyahu confirmed that the explosions that blew two holes in an Israeli-owned cargo ship on Friday were the work of Iran. The incident was followed by airstrikes on military targets in the vicinity of Damascus, likely carried out by the IDF—which might have been retaliation, but might also have been routine attempts to curtail the Iranian military buildup in Syria. But irrespective of its military response, Yoav Limor urges Jerusalem to act diplomatically as well:

The attack didn’t take Israeli officials by surprise. The ayatollahs’ regime has suffered painful blows both across the Middle East and inside Iran in recent years and has been seeking revenge for quite some time. Friday’s attack fits the bill, while allowing Tehran to maintain a low profile. Although the Iranians opted for a civilian and not a military target, it is doubtful Israel will act [dramatically in response].

However, Israel now has an opportunity to leverage the event in the diplomatic arena, in particular with the U.S. administration, which is now busy formulating its policy on Iran. Following an initial month that saw the White House display alarming weakness in the face of Iran, it seems it is now ready to deal with reality. We saw the first signs of this on Thursday night when the Americans hit Iranian targets on Syrian soil in response to an attack by pro-Iranian militias on American targets in Baghdad.

The name of the game in this effort is intelligence. Just like with the nuclear program, Israel needs to get to Washington, and other relevant capitals, to present officials with facts and testimonies. There is an abundance of such material on Iran’s nuclear program, violations, and deceptions, and, one can assume, on Friday’s attack in the Gulf of Oman as well.

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.