On December 9, the Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif gave a television interview where he speculated about the possibility of “throwing the kikes into the sea.” Just a week earlier, the American president-elect told the New York Times that he believes that “the best way to achieve getting some stability in the region” is by returning to the 2015 nuclear agreement with Tehran. Matthew Continetti comments:

“Stability” is not how most people would describe the Middle East after 2015. Iran continued to launch missiles and send weapons and rockets to Hizballah in Syria and Lebanon, Shiite militias in Iraq, and Houthis in Yemen. Iran continued to hold captive U.S. citizens and to harass and even to detain U.S. naval personnel. Iran continued to harbor al-Qaeda’s number two, until he was killed earlier this year. . . . The nuclear deal did not bring order to a greater Middle East where Islamic State ruled large parts of Iraq and Syria, and where extremist ideologies inspired attacks in America, France, and the United Kingdom.

It is fantastic to think that the Iran deal stabilized anything. But the agreement has replaced the Israel-Palestinian peace process as a kind of philosopher’s stone that, according to the liberal imagination, transmutes ethno-sectarian animosity into peace and toleration. In reality, the benefits of the nuclear deal were just as illusory as the promise of the Oslo Accords. Concessions did nothing but embolden the agents of terror.

Meanwhile, Joe Biden’s incoming national-security advisor Jake Sullivan recently took to Twitter to condemn the Islamic Republic’s execution of the journalist Ruhollah Zam, declaring his commitment to “standing up to Iran’s abuses.” Continetti observes:

One way to stand up to “Iran’s abuses” would be by resisting the temptation to reenter the nuclear deal. Using the sanctions leverage bequeathed to him by Donald Trump, Biden might try linking not only missiles and terrorism but also human rights to a renewal of negotiations. Iranian refusal would not be a “failure of diplomacy.” It would be confirmation that Tehran has no interest in changing its ways. The mullahs understand that the second they relax their grip, or appear weak vis-à-vis America, their government will crumble. Paying them off to abide by an agreement whose terms they set is an evasion. Stability in the Middle East won’t come when America rejoins the [Iran deal]. It will arrive when the Iranian people put an end to the Islamic revolution.

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.