It’s been a key subplot to the U.S.-Iran war and one that could reverberate for years. America and its Mideast allies rely heavily on multimillion-dollar missiles to take down cheap Iranian attack drones. That’s led to a concerted effort inside the Pentagon and among defense companies to develop cheaper munitions that can be produced quickly, but those solutions are still years away.

Mr. Seward explains why. Many potential lower-cost munitions are in the research phase, with familiar defense industry names such as Lockheed Martin and up-and-coming industry titans such as Anduril racing to build such capabilities for the Pentagon. But at the same time, the defense industry is dealing with more demand than it can support because the U.S. and its partners are using traditional munitions in huge numbers to counter Iranian attacks.

In fact, some specialists warn that American allies in the Mideast are already rationing their air defenses and making difficult decisions about which assets to protect.

A key State Department official told lawmakers this week that the U.S. is preparing to restart underground nuclear tests. If it happens, it would be the first such test since 1992.

National Security Correspondent Bill Gertz has closely tracked this story for months, ever since Mr. Trump ordered his administration to resume nuclear testing in response to significant covert nuclear tests by adversaries China and Russia. Thomas G. DiNanno, under secretary of state for arms control and international security, told Congress that those nations have gained an edge in developing nuclear warheads because of their secretive testing and the American moratorium.

Both the Chinese and the Russians, Mr. DiNanno said, have been conducting tests “at yield.” That term describes underground blasts that produce a significant, self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction and release measurable amounts of explosive energy. Both countries denied conducting those tests.

Technology and American national security strategy can no longer be viewed through separate lenses. The next generation of U.S. leaders needs to be deeply familiar with both and with how they interplay in modern policymaking and the great power competition between America and its adversaries.

On the latest episode of the Threat Status weekly podcast, Daniel Diermeier, the chancellor of Vanderbilt University, makes the case for why colleges and universities need to educate young Americans not just on how new technology works but also the roles it can play in U.S. national security. Vanderbilt and its Institute of National Security have become leaders in that effort. 

Today’s students and tomorrow’s national security and defense leaders, Mr. Diermeier said, “almost need to be bilingual.

“You’re not focusing, on the technology side, on aspects that really don’t make sense from a national security strategy point of view,” he said. “And vice versa, that you’re not having policymakers that are fundamentally ignorant or at least have limited understanding of the current technology and also the technology that’s around the corner.”

Are the U.S. military and its defense industry partners failing to adapt quickly enough to match 21st-century threats? The American military campaign in Iran suggests that in some instances the answer is yes, according to Josh Segal, a retired naval intelligence officer, consultant to the Defense Department and member of Iron Gate Capital’s Technical Advisory Board.

In an op-ed for The Washington Times, Mr. Segal lists several instances when Ukraine, for example, seems to have found much more affordable solutions to defeat small attack drones than America’s high-cost strategy of using expensive missiles for the job. That reality, Mr. Segal says, casts a spotlight on a troubling lack of innovation at the pace required for today’s threats.

“In the realm of directed energy, the U.S. is allocating resources to invest in lasers costing $5 million to $10 million to defend against drones. Conversely, Ukraine is deploying a system that reportedly costs $300,000,” he writes. “In a war where cost and speed of innovation may be the deciding factors in victory or de facto defeat, the U.S. defense sector proves itself resistant to change.”

The Trump administration’s proposed “most favored nation” policy would tie U.S. drug prices to those in Europe, effectively forcing companies to charge American customers less for their medications. But that policy could have serious unintended consequences that weaken U.S. leadership at the cutting edge of medicine and biotechnology and cede that leadership to China.

“Reducing biotech firms’ revenue would inevitably reduce research-and-development spending, ultimately leading to fewer new therapies, fewer medical advances and fewer biotech jobs created here at home,” writes Brad Zakes, senior vice president of emerging companies and economic affairs at the Biotechnology Innovation Organization.

In a piece for The Times, Mr. Zakes argues the administration should pursue other steps, such as targeting pharmacy benefit managers and other supply chain intermediaries that profit from the current system.

“Trimming middlemen further down to size would free up an enormous amount of money that could be redirected to patients, all without hurting biotech firms’ incentives to pursue promising new lines of research,” he writes.

• March 27 — How Ukraine’s Drones and Russia’s Reconnaissance Fit Into the Iran War, Atlantic Council

• March 30 — China’s Economic Slowdown: Risks, Realities and Strategic Implications, Hudson Institute

• March 30 — New Eyes on North Korea: Emerging Scholar Perspectives, Stimson Center

• March 31 — U.S. Navy Fighting Instructions with the Chief of Naval Operations, Center for Strategic and International Studies 

• April 1 — How is the U.S.-Israel War on Iran Impacting Energy and the Global Economy? Chatham House