To overturn the rules I followed until todayn Israel and Iran in the confrontation between them, which now seems to acquire more dangerous characteristics, as well the limit that could lead to general ignition has been exceededsays the Guardian in its analysis.

The base in the city of Isfahan is important as it hosts military-industrial facilities, such as those related to Iran’s nuclear program, but also a large air base where the Islamic Republic’s aging fleet of F-14 “Tomcats” are stationed, it says the publication. All of the above makes it an important target of any strike, whether carried out from abroad or inside Iran’s borders, something more than symbolic.

While Israel has long been engaged in a “shadow war” with Iran, including the alleged Israeli drone attack a year ago on a weapons production facility in Isfahan, the dynamics of the conflict are determined both by the context in which the events occur as well as from the attacks themselves.

The new element, regardless of scale, is that a new normal is being established in the conflict between Iran and Israel.

Iran’s attack on Israel last weekend, in response to Israel’s strike on one of Tehran’s diplomatic facilities in Syria, was carried out openly, the first strike on Israeli soil by a foreign state in more than three decades.

Israel’s response, if limited to this, and despite the silence from official sources, is beyond dispute about who struck Iran.

And while this is not the first time that Israel has sought to strike Iran and Iranian interests with drones and sabotage, this time it happened amid a period of intense scrutiny.

The reality is that the long-standing rules of engagement between Iran and Israel, in a conflict first fought by proxy and now increasingly directly, have changed dramatically in the more than six months since the October 7 Hamas intercity attack last year.

In these six months, what was once taken for granted has been turned upside down. In Gaza, an unprecedented war has begun, while on the border between Israel and Lebanon, another conflict has also escalated and displaced tens of thousands on both sides of the border.

A limit has now been crossed, that of mutual fear and self-restraint. And while many analysts and officials estimate that a limited Israeli strike on Iran could mean a return to the previous status quo, another reading expresses the disturbing possibility that this conflict has become more dynamic.

Another source of concern is the failure of Israel’s intelligence services over the past six months, both for the October 7 Hamas attack and for miscalculating how Iran would respond to the April 1 strike in Damascus. As the columnist comments, the same services and the same people are called upon to assess the situation.

Politically, it is hard to see how such a limited response from Israel benefits Benjamin Netanyahu. For a leader who has made so much of the threat posed by Iran and its nuclear program, an Israeli strike that is so limited will be seen by many not as a sign of boldness and determination, as Netanyahu would like, but of weakness.

Already Netanyahu’s coalition ally and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who is eyeing votes from the right wing of Netanyahu’s Likud party, called the X attack “weak”.

While on the Iranian side, early reactions indicate that Tehran is seeking to describe Friday’s incident as insufficiently serious to retaliate, the reasons that led it to fire 300 missiles and drones at Israel last weekend remain valid.

What is clear is that both sides are playing with fire.