According to the terms of the 2015 nuclear agreement, the U.S. was obligated to decide last Wednesday whether to renew a waiver of sanctions against Iranian oil exports or declare Tehran in violation of the agreement and allow the sanctions to go back into effect. President Trump chose to sign the waiver, despite his campaign rhetoric condemning the deal. But, writes John Hannah, this decision hardly means that the Trump administration has gone soft in dealing with the Islamic Republic; on the same day, the White House issued seven new sanctions against individuals and entities involved in Iran’s ballistic-missile program. And that’s not all:

The clear message [of America’s actions]: while holding its nose to grapple with the detritus of Barack Obama’s nuclear deal, the Trump team won’t hesitate to punch the mullahs in their collective schnoz. Obama seemed paralyzed from taking action to counter Iran’s malign activities for fear of jeopardizing the nuclear deal. So long as the Iranians didn’t cheat too egregiously on their nuclear commitments, they had a virtual get-out-of-jail-free card for their broader assault on U.S. interests—from aiding and abetting mass murder in Syria to the development of long-range ballistic missiles. With Wednesday’s designations and the damning human-rights report [recently released by the State Department], the administration is signaling that the days of U.S. self-deterrence with respect to Iran are numbered. . . .

Limited as [last week’s] punitive action was, it came just two days before Iran’s presidential elections. . . . No more misguided efforts to modulate U.S. policy to strengthen some band of faux “moderates” over the dreaded hardliners. . . .

[Furthermore], none of this comes in a vacuum. Putting Iran “on notice.” Cruise-missile strikes and nearly 300 new [sanctions] designations against the Assad regime. The revitalization of U.S. alliances with Israel and the Sunni Arab states. . . . [Last week’s] waiver renewal should be cold comfort for the mullahs.

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.