Today the Trump administration is imposing further sanctions on the Islamic Republic, making it harder for European as well as American firms to do business there. The leaders of the EU, meanwhile, seem determined to preserve economic ties with Tehran, and are considering various legal and financial measure to counter U.S. sanctions. Morgan Ortagus warns against these efforts:

What is lost on European governments, but not on business leaders, is that Iran has proved to be a difficult place to do business. After its 30 years of effectively being out of the mainstream of world economics, many emerging-market entrepreneurs were salivating to reach a new and potentially explosive untapped market. What European businesses have found instead is a lack of trust with their Iranian business counterparts, inability to get payments on time, and endless arguments over terms. Moreover, after the huge fines paid by European banks to American regulators during the Obama administration, many financial institutions and corporations were loath to enter the Iranian market in the first place. . . .

As lines are drawn in the sand, European governments must ask themselves: is anger at Trump for his tactics worth standing by a brutal regime which has been caught multiple times in the past six months planning attacks on European soil? That just this week tried to assassinate an Iranian dissident in Denmark? Is it worth deepening the wounds of the transatlantic alliance, in order to stand by an enemy of America?

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.