In accordance with legislation that accompanied the 2015 agreement, the U.S. president must decide every 90 days whether to “recertify” that the Islamic Republic is complying with its terms or to declare it in violation. After reportedly vigorous debate among his senior advisers, President Trump opted on Monday to recertify for the second time in his term. The White House argues that more time is needed to study the question and formulate new policy before blowing up the entire deal by declaring Iran in violation. But the editors of the Weekly Standard argue that time is short:

Iran is not, in fact, complying with the agreement. As Senators Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz, David Perdue, and Marco Rubio pointed out in a letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson last week, the Iranian regime has exceeded the number of uranium-enrichment centrifuges and levels of heavy-water production it’s permitted under the agreement; it’s aggressively trying to attain nuclear and missile technology outside the terms of the deal; and it’s refusing to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect its nuclear operations. . . .

Administration officials tell us that this recertification is pro forma, a congressionally mandated box-checking that buys the White House time to complete a comprehensive policy review. The real debate about Iran policy continues. Fair enough, but we strongly suspect the same reasons for keeping up the conceit will exist 90 days from now, when the next recertification is due.

Secretary Tillerson has said his goal is a new deal, or at least significant provisions to strengthen the existing one. But it’s unclear how the Trump administration, having paraded its “America First” foreign policy throughout Europe in recent weeks, will convince other parties to the Iran deal—some of whom have strong economic [and, in Russia’s case, military] ties to Tehran—to sign up for an Iran deal, Part Two.

Donald Trump was engaging in a bit of campaign hyperbole when he promised to make dismantling the Iran deal his first order of business as president. The longer he waits to formulate a comprehensive Iran policy, the more likely it is that Iran will become that top priority on its own.

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.