Last year, American taxpayers sent $218 million in military assistance to Lebanon, and more than twice that amount in civilian aid. The purpose of this support is to strengthen the government in Beirut against Hizballah’s efforts to gain control over the country. But, as Tamara Berens explains, it’s too late:

On the eve of Lebanon’s 100th birthday [this year], the country defaulted on its debt of $1.2 billion. Facing a perilous financial crisis exacerbated by COVID-19, with a 70-percent decline in the value of its currency, Lebanon will look to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for a multibillion-dollar bailout. As Hizballah tightens its grip on the Lebanese government—Prime Minister Hassan Diab is backed by Hizballah and welcomed Hizballah into his cabinet—it is time for the U.S., [as] the largest contributor to the IMF, to act. . . . The Trump administration has the duty and the capability to counter Hizballah’s influence in the country.

Instead, the United States thus far opts to provide unconditional aid to Lebanese institutions that only serve to strengthen Hizballah’s [dangerous] activities. Consider the Lebanese Armed Forces, [which] has not only stood by as Hizballah gained a preponderance of force in southern Lebanon—it has actively partnered with the Iran-backed group.

The U.S. cannot continue to pedal the importance of “sovereignty” and “territorial integrity” in Lebanon while contributing to Iranian ambitions that violate these promises. In this time of crisis in Lebanon, the U.S. should stand behind Lebanese protestors who are risking their lives to denounce Iranian encroachments on their country. The U.S. must not agree to an IMF bailout or future aid payments to the Lebanese miltary unless it receives assurances that Hizballah will not benefit from them.

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.