In 2018, the Saudi-born journalist Jamal Khashoggi was killed in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, evidently because his writings were critical of the government in Riyadh and sympathetic to Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood. The incident received a great deal of media coverage and widespread condemnation. By contrast, notes Eliora Katz, the death of an Iranian dissident, Molavi Vardanjani, has gone almost unnoticed—despite the strikingly similar circumstances:

Like Khashoggi, Vardanjani once worked for his government. He reportedly was a cybersecurity official in the Iranian defense ministry before moving to Turkey in 2018. From Istanbul, he became a vocal critic of the regime [in Tehran]. On November 14, 2019, Vardanjani was shot to death while walking with a friend in Istanbul’s affluent Sisli district. Unbeknownst to the dissident, his “friend” was an undercover Iranian agent and the leader of a killing squad, according to the Turkish police report.

The international community largely has remained silent about Vardanjani’s killing. Where are the human-rights champions who protested so loudly on Khashoggi’s behalf? Although Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spoke out, there have been no condemnations from global leaders, international organizations, or columnists. Instead, many publications are filled with opinion pieces urging Washington to dial down the pressure on Tehran. Progressive lawmakers [likewise] are pushing the administration to relieve sanctions.

The same month the Islamic Republic apparently took Vardanjani’s life, it also took the lives of perhaps as many as 1,500 Iranians protesting against the regime. Many of these civilians appear to have died by indiscriminate fire. Even the Saudi crown prince hasn’t ordered people to be gunned down in the streets of Riyadh. There is a perverse moral imbalance at work among so many critics of the Trump administration who want to see sanctions lifted on Iran’s theocracy. They really ought to ask themselves whether Vardanjani’s life is worth less than Khashoggi’s.

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.