While the Biden administration has made clear that it wants to negotiate a return to the 2015 nuclear agreement with the Islamic Republic—while also speaking of seeking a “longer and stronger deal”—there is no guarantee that Tehran will cooperate. In fact, Elliott Abrams writes, the chances that the deal will be resurrected have grown steadily slimmer in the past few months. But the White House has not yet said what its back-up plan is, or given any indication that it has one. Abrams has some suggestions:

With Iran violating the [nuclear agreement] more and more aggressively despite Biden’s pleas, step one should be maintaining all the Trump-era sanctions, indefinitely. . . . [T]here is no defense for lifting any sanctions while Iran violates the [deal] and continues to support terrorism throughout the Middle East—and even in the United States.

There is a [another] logical step as well: getting serious about Iranian military activity. If Iran is going to continue its recent behavior—building toward a nuclear weapon, leading Shiite militias in Iraq to attack Americans there, engaging in terrorist activities—the United States should respond more directly. President Biden should say what President Obama did about Iranian nukes: that “all elements of American power” will be used to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

The United States should also begin better planning with Israel in view of the potential need, at some future date, to act against Iran’s nuclear program before it creates a weapon. As to terrorism, the president should tell Iran clearly . . . that if an American is killed by a Shiite militia in Iraq linked to and armed by Iran, the United States will respond against Iran—not against some proxy group in Iraq. And he should state clearly that an Iranian-backed terrorist attack in the United States will result in direct consequences for Iran itself.

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.