Among several Democratic politicians emerging as potential candidates for the 2020 presidential primary is Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii. Gabbard has already made clear her ideas about foreign policy, which combine strict noninterventionism with a tough stance toward Islamist terror. But, notes Noah Rothman, her approach brings with it “support for some of the world’s most atrocious and bloody authoritarian regimes,” namely those of Vladimir Putin and Bashar al-Assad. Could this unlikely combination gain traction in her party?

Gabbard traveled to Damascus in January of last year—long after the Assad regime was credibly implicated in some of the worst humanitarian atrocities of this century—where she met with the Syrian dictator. . . . In April 2017, Gabbard . . . suggested that the Assad regime was not responsible for the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack in which over 70 were killed and hundreds more seriously injured. When the Trump administration responded with a limited cruise-missile strike on Syrian targets, Gabbard accused the White House of acting in service to the objectives of al-Qaeda and of having been swayed by “war hawks” who seek to escalate America’s “illegal regime-change war to overthrow the Syrian government.” Even as evidence of Assad’s culpability for the attack mounted, Gabbard held fast to her skepticism. . . .

Gabbard’s advocacy on behalf of the genocidal despot in Syria invariably aligned her with Assad’s chief patron, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin. . . . Gabbard’s conspicuous adoption of the Putinist line on Syria places her outside the mainstream of her party, but it once yielded admiration from Donald Trump’s brain trust. . . . As is often the case, the quasi-isolationist views of the “America First” wing of the GOP align with those of the left’s appeasement caucus.

But that caucus has lost much of its influence over the Democratic party in the age of Trump. Those on the left who could once be counted on to endorse a more humble and conciliatory approach to Russo-American relations have abandoned that perennial campaign plank, leaving Gabbard out on a limb. Maybe Gabbard thinks she can command the fealty of that forsaken Democratic constituency in a presidential campaign, and she might. But it’s more likely that Gabbard will stand as a painful reminder to voters about what Democratic stewardship of Russian-American relations and crises like the Syrian civil war looks like. That’s the last thing Democrats want.

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.