As the Islamic Republic continues its brutal crackdown on its own people—not to mention its material support for Russia’s brutal war in Ukraine—Americans and Europeans should position themselves on the side of freedom. Doing so is no luxury, argue Elliott Abrams and David J. Kramer, but instead a tool of American statecraft:

The way regimes treat their own people is often indicative of how they will act beyond their borders—and the regime in Tehran has abused the fundamental human rights of Iranians since coming to power in 1979. . . . Neither Washington nor Brussels should let faint hopes of a new nuclear agreement get in the way of a proper and needed response. While Iran is supplying deadly weapons to Putin to use against Ukrainian civilians and that nation’s infrastructure, a nuclear agreement that would enrich Iran’s leaders with tens of billions of dollars in new revenue would reward such behavior.

For the last few decades, human rights issues in Iran have taken a back seat to nuclear and other “realpolitik” arguments. Support for the Iranian people was often viewed as a marginal issue—one that might interfere with far more serious concerns. During the Green Movement protests of 2009, the United States remained passive, leading demonstrators to hold up signs, in English, asking which side we were on. Former President Obama recently called his reaction at the time “a mistake.”

Indeed, it was. Nothing about Iran can be more “serious” than the Iranian people’s desire to rid themselves of their repressive regime. Moreover, compromises with the regime cannot resolve the dangers from Iran’s nuclear program, its support for terrorism, and, most recently, its military support for Putin.

We should not leave today’s protestors in any doubt that we stand with them against their brutal oppressors. . . . This means the United States should be seeking all practical and peaceful means of helping the Iranian people. . . . The goals of U.S. foreign policy in Iran will only be achieved when that hated regime is replaced by a government that reflects the Iranian people’s desire for peace, freedom, and prosperity.

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.