After backtracking on its move to permit Iran to conduct transactions in dollars through American financial institutions—in violation of promises to Congress—the Obama administration is now poised to allow the Islamic Republic to achieve similar results by using foreign banks. In a recorded conference call, Mark Dubowitz and Eric Lorber explain why Iran was originally denied access to the U.S. financial system, and the troubling consequences of providing a workaround:

These sanctions were [originally] put in place because the Iranian financial sector represented a threat to the integrity of the global financial system. . . . And that threat is on the basis of its proliferation financing, nuclear financing, and missile financing, [as well as] terror financing, money laundering, and sanctions evasion. . . . [T]here was a 2011 finding under the Patriot Act that found Iran’s entire financial sector—in fact, the entire jurisdiction of Iran—to be a jurisdiction of primary money-laundering concern. . . .

[With the greenlighting of transactions] in an offshore dollar-clearing facility, [the Iranians are] setting the stage for the next steps, where they can begin to erode coercive leverage [provided by existing sanctions] . . . legitimize themselves as a “responsible” financial actor without doing anything to demonstrate that they’ve turned the corner on the money laundering [or] the . . . financing of terror. . . .

[T]here’s no provision [for this U.S. move ] . . . in the JCPOA. If Iran did not negotiate that [in the original deal], then Iran needs to negotiate it, and the administration should not be providing a unilateral concession without any reciprocity from the Iranians. Particularly [because], since the JCPOA has been reached, rather than being a more responsible global actor, Iran has become an even less responsible global actor.

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.