Last week, the news website Axios reported that U.S. officials had spoken to allied governments about the possibility of restoring a limited version of the suspended 2015 nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic. Such an arrangement would exchange a slowdown of the Iranian nuclear program for a partial reduction in sanctions—a far cry from the “longer and stronger” deal previously promised by the Biden administration. Jacob Nagel comments:

The [proposal] is not a preparation for a broader, longer, and better deal, as its supporters (both American and Israeli claim), because this will be the last deal. Tehran will ostensibly agree to a few concessions and will receive many benefits in return. This was true a few years ago and is even more so now, in light of the changes since then. The deal would legitimize most of Iran’s violations and will allow Iran to retain assets obtained through breaching [its previous commitments].

Once the Iranians will get significant concessions, a bigger, broader follow-up deal is only an illusion.

The Iranians realize that Washington does not want to respond, despite all their nuclear violations, attacks on American interests in the Gulf and in the Middle East, human-rights violations, and killing of women and girls in Iran—including perhaps with chemical weapons as recently reported—as well as massive support for Russia in the Ukraine war, including transferring weapons to the Russians and helping them to kill Ukrainian women and children. If the Americans don’t respond to all those violations and even offer the Iranians a partial deal, why would the regime agree to any further restrictions on nuclear and missile programs, when it got almost everything it wanted from the small deal while the American president refuses to put a credible military threat on the table?

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.