Surveying the chaotic state of the Middle East, Yaakov Amidror sees an escalating conflict between Shiites, led by an Iran empowered by the lifting of U.S. sanctions, and Sunnis, led by a Saudi Arabia emboldened by the lack of American leadership. Further exacerbating the situation is Pakistan’s recent announcement that it would defend Saudi Arabia forcefully if the latter were attacked:

This declaration is of utmost importance, since [Pakistan] is the only Muslim country that has nuclear weapons. . . . . Thus far, Pakistan’s nuclear weapons have been [understood] as an element in the conflict between Pakistan and India, and now all of a sudden they’re [being threatened] in a Middle Eastern context, in a conflict between the Shiite superpower and the entity that wants to be perceived as its Sunni counterpart.

This is a real change in the balance of power throughout the entire Middle East. If Pakistan moves from a one-time declaration to actual intervention in these tussles, the regional balance of power will change. But past experience indicates that [Pakistan’s leaders] will be very careful about committing themselves.

What will be the ramifications of the intensifying conflict? First, it is quite clear that it will be much harder to deal with the war in Syria properly. That war is not just a civil war between different factions of Syrian society. It is a war between Shiites and Sunnis, with Iran standing behind one side and Saudi Arabia, the [other] Gulf states, and Turkey, to a certain extent, backing the other. . . .

The lesson Israel should learn from all these recent events is clear: Israel must not be drawn into such a complex and deep-running battle as the intra-Islamic conflict between Shiites and Sunnis, or [that] between the Arabs and Persians in the Gulf region. Israel must take care to safeguard its own interests, including taking risks if force must be exerted, but [only] after great consideration, without arrogance, and with precision.

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.