Simple, writes Tony Badran. President Obama is currently holding a meeting at Camp David with representatives of Saudi Arabia and the neighboring states, the goal of which, according to Badran, is to send the message that Benjamin Netanyahu’s criticisms of the prospective nuclear deal with Iran are unfounded:

The president is focused like a laser on completing the nuclear deal with Iran. For this, he needs to fend off any challenge from Capitol Hill, which is poised to approve legislation that requires him to submit the deal for congressional review. . . .

Netanyahu’s vocal and persuasive opposition has complicated this task. Here is America’s number one regional ally saying this deal is a bad one, and that it poses a mortal danger to Israel’s security. The White House devised a two-step counterattack. Step one is to tarnish Netanyahu’s brand. The White House and its friends in the media depict Netanyahu as a bigot with respect to the Palestinians and a warmonger with respect to Iran. He is ruling over a right-wing coalition that clings to power by the narrowest of margins. His opinions are, in short, unrepresentative and unrespectable.

Step two of the counterattack is to tarnish congressional opponents of the deal with the brush of Netanyahu’s “extremism.” . . .

This counterattack is the essential context for understanding the dialogue with the Gulf Arabs. President Obama needed only two simple things from the summit. First, he sought to look the part of the concerned ally, so as to insulate himself from the criticism that his Iran deal sells out America’s allies. Second, he intended to secure a public statement of support—however mild—for his nuclear diplomacy. Even tepid support would allow him to argue that Netanyahu represents only a small group of unreasonable and reckless hardliners who are pushing the U.S. to war.

The president’s plan, however, seems to have backfired, as evidenced by the fact that the kings of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain declined to attend the summit in person. “Every sober observer,” Badran concludes, “now knows that the Arab leaders are just as dismayed by Obama’s Iran diplomacy as Netanyahu is.”

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.