At a virtual meeting of the UN Security Council yesterday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo urged the council’s members to extend a conventional-arms embargo on the Islamic Republic, set to expire this fall. His words were met with threats to veto any attempt to do so—not just from Russia and China, but from the United Kingdom as well. But what Pompeo failed to do, writes Benny Avni, is to threaten to use the “snapback” clause in the 2015 nuclear agreement, which any party can invoke unilaterally:

Legal eagles at the State Department contend America can trigger [the snapback] mechanism, included in Security Council Resolution 2231, which endorsed [the] nuclear deal. In background briefings, administration officials say America would unilaterally invoke that mechanism, reverting to the international sanctions that existed prior to the 2015 resolution, unless the council acts on the arms embargo before October.

Resolution 2231 removed several prior sanctions painstakingly built up for decades as Tehran continued to acquire nuclear capabilities and act aggressively in the region. Resolution 2231 also contained a series of sunset provisions that gradually ease restrictions further. The first of those, the removal of an arms embargo, is due to expire weeks before our presidential election.

[I]n selling the Iran deal to the American people, officials in President Obama’s administration promised that America could unilaterally reimpose all sanctions at any time it detected Iranian non-compliance. As the UN top political official, Rosemary DiCarlo, told the council Tuesday, Iran violated the arms embargo by smuggling missiles in the region.

Secretary Pompeo urged the Security Council to act without spelling out America’s next step if it doesn’t. At the same time, council members warned America not to do that which Pompeo failed to threaten. . . . Pompeo will be better off making clear that [the White House] has enough muscle left to fend off a dangerous regime.

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.