Last Wednesday, a militia backed by Iran launched a salvo of rockets at a coalition military base in Iraq, killing two American and one British military personnel. Later that day, Iranian positions in Syria, close to the Iraqi border, were struck by unidentified aircraft, possibly belonging to the U.S. or Israel. Then, on Friday, American and British planes also attacked weapons depots belonging to Kataib Hizballah, the leading Iranian militia in Iraq. Taking stock of this latest round of fighting, Michael Knights urges Washington to adopt a strategy (not unlike Israel’s) for defending itself from Tehran’s aggression:

[The] strikes on Kataib Hizballah’s missile and rocket bases [likely occurred long after the group] had evacuated its valuable weapons. Iran’s militia proxies in Iraq can trade empty buildings or even two dozen of their own rank and file for three Anglo-American fatalities all day, every day. This is a game we will lose.

The right approach probably [involves] prompt, decisive, and unclaimed attacks . . . against some senior [Iran-backed] militia leaders in order to make others think very seriously about their personal future. But high-value leadership targets—which Iran and its militias do value—are generally not available to hit the day after Americans are killed: they are keeping their heads down.

Congress and the administration need to sit privately and agree to some ground rules for the use of military force that allow the U.S. military to delink the timing of deterrent strikes, so that we can strike the right targets when they become available, to deter militia attacks that are highly likely to come otherwise.

In parallel, the U.S. should toughen its mindset, quietly bringing the [equipment] into Iraq that it needs (i.e., Patriot missiles and anti-rocket close-in defenses) without further consultation with an Iraqi government that would rather adopt a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach. And finally, the U.S. should let the militias keep overreaching, keep showing their hand as would-be dictators under Iran’s control, while the U.S.-led coalition keeps helping Iraq to defeat Islamic State. This is a game we can win.

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.