Today, Naftali Bennett and Joe Biden are expected to meet for the first time. Shmuel Rosner cites an unnamed Israeli “high-ranking diplomatic source,” who told reporters that Jerusalem has two principal messages to convey to the White House: that Benjamin Netanyahu is responsible for the country’s current difficulties, and that it would be unwise for the U.S. to revive the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Rosner comments:

Think about these two messages. The first one creates an atmosphere of mutual agreement. For Biden, as well as for Bennett, blaming the predecessor is a good start. . . . The second one is also not so problematic as it used to be, because at this moment, there’s no JCPOA to which to return. The Iranians seem uninterested. Bennett would say: an agreement isn’t going to solve the problem. Biden would say: we oppose a nuclear Iran and await Iran’s return to the negotiating table. No big dispute.

But note this: blaming the predecessor and waiting for a better agreement or no agreement is a political strategy, not a strategy against Iran. Does Bennett have such strategy to propose that Biden would accept? Does Biden have such a strategy to propose that Bennett would accept? We can [safely predict] that the meeting is going to be declared a success. And it will be a success. The two leaders will probably get along, and will do their best not to muddy the waters of U.S.-Israel relations

And yet, a nagging question remains: are the leaders in Tehran worried about the possible outcome of the Biden-Bennett meeting? If they aren’t, the meeting cannot honestly be declared a success.

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.