Over the weekend, Israeli drones appear to have attacked a military facility in the city of Isfahan, deep inside Iran. The IDF also reportedly struck an Iranian convoy carrying arms near the Iraq-Syria boarder. Benny Avni comments on these strikes, and their relationship to the recent terrorist attacks in Jerusalem:

Israel’s operations in the Palestinian territories and its daring attack at Isfahan, Iran, are part of the same long war—and both seem to serve America’s interests. The Palestinians have their own goals in this fight, but increased violence also advances the Iranians’ overarching goal: obliterating the Jewish state. “Iran has been pouring money into the Islamic Jihad organization, which began to establish new armed groups” in the northern West Bank, an analyst for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Yoni Ben Menachem, wrote recently.

The Isfahan attack seems like a significant turn in the “war between wars” that Israel has quietly waged for some years. Reportedly conducted with quadcopter drones, it targeted, and apparently left heavily damaged, a previously unknown arms-manufacturing site, . . . reportedly built as an advanced missile-development site. Israeli sources are reporting that it could have been connected to research and development on hypersonic missiles.

As of yet, only Russia and Communist China have developed [such missiles]. If indeed Russia is helping Iran join that group even before America has acquired hypersonic missiles—or the means to defend against them—it must be keeping Washington policymakers awake at night. . . . Attacks on Iranian facilities therefore benefit both Israel and America.

Indeed, the military hardware being developed in Isfahan may well have been intended for Russian use in Ukraine—making its destruction a boon to NATO’s efforts in Europe.

With the IDF engaged in ground maneuvers in both northern and southern Gaza, and a plan about to go into effect next week that would separate more than 100,000 civilians from Hamas’s control, an end to the war may at last be in sight. Yet there seems to be no agreement within Israel, or without, about what should become of the territory. Efraim Inbar assesses the various proposals, from Donald Trump’s plan to remove the population entirely, to the Israeli far-right’s desire to settle the Strip with Jews, to the internationally supported proposal to place Gaza under the control of the Palestinian Authority (PA)—and exposes the fatal flaws of each. He therefore tries to reframe the problem:

[M]any Arab states have failed to establish a monopoly on the use of force within their borders. Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and Sudan all suffer from civil wars or armed militias that do not obey the central government.

Perhaps Israel needs to get used to the idea that in the absence of an entity willing to take Gaza under its wing, chaos will prevail there. This is less terrible than people may think. Chaos would allow Israel to establish buffer zones along the Gaza border without interference. Any entity controlling Gaza would oppose such measures and would resist necessary Israeli measures to reduce terrorism. Chaos may also encourage emigration.

Israel is doomed to live with bad neighbors for the foreseeable future. There is no way to ensure zero terrorism. Israel should avoid adopting a policy of containment and should constantly “mow the grass” to minimize the chances of a major threat emerging across the border. Periodic conflicts may be necessary. If the Jews want a state in their homeland, they need to internalize that Israel will have to live by the sword for many more years.