In October, the Congressional Research Service reported evidence of Tehran’s efforts to develop or acquire biological and chemical weapons—a problem not addressed by the nuclear deal. German intelligence agencies have likewise noted the Islamic Republic’s ongoing efforts to obtain materials necessary for these weapons. Benjamin Weinthal comments:

Supporters of Iran’s regime frequently argue that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei rejects the use of chemical weapons because Iranian soldiers were the victims of lethal nerve agents during the Iran-Iraq War. If Iran is in compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention—and there are big question marks over this—international inspectors should be allowed to verify Tehran’s alleged adherence to the Convention.

Just last month, Kurdish fighters alleged that Iran’s military used chemical weapons against twelve combatants in western Iran. International inspectors should investigate the Kurdish claim. Moreover, . . . the trove of captured Osama bin Laden documents revealed, [in the words of a published summary], “a letter to bin Laden that al-Qaeda was working on chemical and biological weapons in Iran.”

Iran has showed no appetite to stop its strategic partner—the Assad regime in Syria—from using chemical weapons against its citizens. Unsurprisingly, Iran recently opposed a statement from the executive council of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons that condemned the use of chemical weapons by both Assad and Islamic State. . . .

The U.S. State Department continues to list Iran as a leading state sponsor of terrorism. Tehran’s drive for hegemony in the Middle East is not expected to end. America needs to consider more aggressive measures to stop Iran from advancing its chemical- and biological-weapons programs. New sanctions targeting Iranian officials—and companies—for their work on chemical and biological weapons would be a solid first step.

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.