If all goes as planned, senior European, American, and Iranian diplomats will engage in further negotiations today in an attempt to resuscitate the 2015 agreement to restrain the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program. Richard Goldberg cautions that the Biden administration appears ready to make dangerous concessions:

Under the arrangement being discussed, the Islamic Republic would gain tacit approval to sponsor terrorism, hold Americans hostage, enrich uranium on its own soil, test nuclear-capable missiles, and engage in human-rights abuses against the Iranian people. More shockingly, a so-called nuclear deal . . . would not require Tehran to account for its secret nuclear-weapons archive or clandestine nuclear sites, materials, and activities currently under investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Recall that Iran lied to the IAEA in 2015 to gain access to sanctions relief. Its continued deception should be at the heart of any negotiation over its nuclear program.

On a bipartisan basis, Congress should demand a vote on any agreement reached in Vienna before sanctions are lifted; indeed, the law requires nothing less. Under the Iran Nuclear Agreement and Review Act of 2015, the president must submit to Congress the text of any agreement reached with Iran over its nuclear program and allow Congress time to review and potentially vote to reject it.

Senators of both parties should also consider . . . pushing legislation to prohibit any sanctions relief—waivers, licenses, or de-listings—that directly or indirectly benefits entities subject to U.S. sanctions as of January 20, 2021, because of their connections to terrorism. . . . Another potential amendment: no sanctions relief for Iran until all American hostages are released and Iran fully accounts for its undeclared nuclear activities.

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.