Since the Biden administration came to office, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan have both spoken with their Israeli counterparts, but the president has not yet placed a call to Prime Minister Netanyahu—a fact that by now has caused much speculation among Israeli pundits. Yesterday the White House press secretary was even asked about it. (She responded that the call would take place “soon.”) Jonathan Schanzer argues that the silence is starting to become a problem, and he’s not convinced by the argument that the White House is preoccupied with domestic concerns, or that it’s foreign-policy priorities don’t include the Middle East:

The Biden administration continues to issue statements about its intent to return to the highly controversial 2015 Iran nuclear deal, otherwise known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Biden and Blinken tapped the controversial Rob Malley, [who played a key role in the original negotiations], as the envoy to try to resurrect that agreement. The appointment is one of several unmistakable signs that the Middle East remains a significant area of interest for this White House.

The longer Biden waits to engage, the more his silence can run the risk of signaling a deeper problem with Israel, [and] the more fears mount of a return to the bad old days of acrimony between the Netanyahu government and the Obama administration.

There is an easy way for Biden to disabuse his critics of this notion. He needs to rip off the band-aid. He should speak to Netanyahu. It can be quick and breezy if they table the JCPOA discussion for another time. Or it can be substantive and potentially uncomfortable if they want to get down to business. Either way, it’s time to cut the act.

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.