Even as the Islamic Republic recently concluded a major deal to purchase aircraft from Boeing (a company that employs a leading Iran-deal advocate as a consultant), and the Obama administration appears committed to drumming up more business for Tehran, the U.S. government’s own money-laundering watchdog, in a welcome move, has decided to keep Iran on its blacklist. Mark Dubowitz and Toby Dershowitz write:

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the intergovernmental organization that sets global standards to combat money laundering and finance for terrorism and [nuclear] proliferation, had a clear message for financial institutions last week when it declined to remove the Islamic Republic of Iran from its high-risk blacklist: Iran may say it’s open for business but it’s not yet safe to do it.

FATF’s directive was a clear rejection of the Islamic Republic’s lobbying campaign to legitimize itself as a responsible financial actor. . . . FATF urged its members and all jurisdictions to “advise their financial institutions to apply enhanced due diligence to business relationships and transactions” with Iran.

This enhanced due diligence will prove a nightmare for businesses for important reasons. [Most significantly], many Iranian companies—including entities such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which is sanctioned by the U.S. and the EU—use non-transparent corporate structures and shadow companies to hide their true ownership interests. . . .

Most large banks for now may not be fooled by the Islamic Republic’s rhetoric. They will continue to implement strict countermeasures since FATF requirements are considered the floor [rather than] the ceiling for responsible risk management. Those who care about long-term protection of their assets are not rushing back into Iran because they understand the risks of getting entangled in massive money-laundering, corruption, and terror-financing schemes that pose unmanageable risks to their stakeholders.

On Tuesday, a Hizballah drone attack injured three people in northern Israel. The next day, another attack, targeting an IDF base, injured eighteen people, six of them seriously, in Arab al-Amshe, also in the north. This second attack involved the simultaneous use of drones carrying explosives and guided antitank missiles. In both cases, the defensive systems that performed so successfully last weekend failed to stop the drones and missiles. Ron Ben-Yishai has a straightforward explanation as to why: the Lebanon-backed terrorist group is getting better at evading Israel defenses. He explains the three basis systems used to pilot these unmanned aircraft, and their practical effects:

These systems allow drones to act similarly to fighter jets, using “dead zones”—areas not visible to radar or other optical detection—to approach targets. They fly low initially, then ascend just before crashing and detonating on the target. The terrain of southern Lebanon is particularly conducive to such attacks.

But this requires skills that the terror group has honed over months of fighting against Israel. The latest attacks involved a large drone capable of carrying over 50 kg (110 lbs.) of explosives. The terrorists have likely analyzed Israel’s alert and interception systems, recognizing that shooting down their drones requires early detection to allow sufficient time for launching interceptors.

The IDF tries to detect any incoming drones on its radar, as it had done prior to the war. Despite Hizballah’s learning curve, the IDF’s technological edge offers an advantage. However, the military must recognize that any measure it takes is quickly observed and analyzed, and even the most effective defenses can be incomplete. The terrain near the Lebanon-Israel border continues to pose a challenge, necessitating technological solutions and significant financial investment.