Since gaining power in the 1979 revolution, the Iranian regime has benefited from numerous efforts by Westerners to downplay its support for terrorism and its fanatical ideology, urging instead that once Iran’s wholly legitimate grievances are addressed, it will rapidly become a moderate and friendly power. Among the most zealous proponents of this approach is the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), a Washington lobby whose positions are frequently mimicked by the Obama administration, as Sohrab Amari writes:

Barack Obama absorbed almost all of NIAC’s talking points; . . . these talking points are a crisp synthesis of the various lines of apologetic reasoning. . . . Recall how the president told NPR, in December 2014, that Iran’s “legitimate aspirations” should be taken into account. This was followed by the president’s remark . . . that the regime’s anti-Semitism is little more than an “organizing tool”—unpleasant rhetorical outbursts that don’t override Tehran’s other strategic interests. The hardliners-versus-moderates dichotomy, too, has found new life in the Obama administration’s accusations that the president’s own “hardline” opponents—that is, duly elected U.S. lawmakers—are empowering their hardline counterparts in Tehran.

Cut to the White House Situation Room, March 31, 2015. Diplomats in Geneva have just concluded the latest round of nuclear negotiations between the great powers and Iran, and a framework agreement is within view. President Obama has convened a debrief conference call with cabinet principals and other top officials. On the list of participants is one Sahar Nowrouzzadeh.

Nowrouzzadeh is Obama’s National Security Council Director for Iran. She is also, it turns out, an alumna of NIAC. . . . We have come full circle. The apologists are now running the show.

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.