The Strategic Burden of Israel’s “Iron Dome”
Has Israel’s missile defence tech made the threats it faces even more dangerous?
One of contemporary Israel’s most defining images is its extraordinary air defence system—a technological marvel developed out of necessity to counter relentless existential threats. These systems stand as a testament to human ingenuity, resilience, and the high cost—both financial and emotional—of constant vigilance.
Yet, has this shield also become a snare? For decades, an ingenious and indigenous people—deeply rooted in their ancestral homeland and committed to peace—have been forced to tolerate the intolerable, trapped in a cycle of perpetual defence. The Iron Dome and its layered counterparts have provided a sense of security, but at what cost? Has Israel’s technological mastery of missile defence inadvertently exacerbated the very threats it seeks to neutralise?
The Double Standard: Israel’s Unfair Burden
While no other nation would be expected to endure daily barrages of rockets, Israel is held to an impossible moral and strategic standard. Instead of global condemnation of Hamas’s war crimes, Israel is pressured to show restraint, negotiate with terrorists, and accept periodic missile attacks as a fact of life.
This expectation was crystallised in April 2024, when U.S. President Joe Biden adjured Israel to “take the win,” referring to its successful missile defences against an Iranian drone and missile attack. The implication? That Israel should be content with swatting away incoming fire rather than eliminating the source of the threat. The expectation was not just unrealistic—it was ridiculous. No rational state would accept an endless barrage of enemy rockets as an acceptable status quo, yet Israel was effectively told to do just that. And not for the first time—Israel has been consistently and repeatedly expected to do just that.
This reductionist perspective—one that assumes Israel’s defensive capabilities make aggression against it acceptable—ignores the human cost of resilience. Each intercepted rocket may prevent immediate loss of life, but it does not erase the trauma it leaves behind. A community is left shaken, living under the perpetual shadow of the next attack. A family is disrupted, forced to seek shelter at a moment’s notice, their daily lives dictated by the whims of those who fire indiscriminately. A society is held hostage, conditioned to accept constant threat as an unavoidable reality rather than an aberration that demands decisive action.
This adds to the trauma of a population who endured the Second Intifada. The Second Intifada, also known as the Al-Aqsa Intifada, erupted in September 2000 and persisted until February 2005. This period was marked by intense violence, including numerous suicide bombings targeting buses, restaurants, and other public spaces within Israel. These attacks resulted in significant civilian casualties and widespread fear among the population. The relentless nature of these assaults profoundly traumatized Israeli society, leaving enduring psychological scars.
Beyond the immediate suffering, failing to confront aggression head-on emboldens adversaries to escalate their violence. History proves that unchallenged hostility does not fade—it festers. As General Douglas MacArthur once warned: “Appeasement begets new and bloodier wars.”
Observers now have the benefit of hindsight: ignoring threats does not neutralise them; it emboldens them. Each time Hamas, Hezbollah, or Iran launched an attack without decisive repercussions, they grew bolder, relentlessly probing Israel’s red lines and testing global tolerance for their terror campaigns.
Yet, Western political elites and media figures consistently overlook these realities. Instead, they demand an unrealistic level of restraint from Israel while ignoring far more aggressive counterterrorism operations undertaken by other nations in the region.
Purpose of This Article
This article provides an overview of Israel’s extraordinary air defence system, examining both its strategic necessity and its unintended consequences. It exposes the opportunity cost of maintaining a technologically superior yet economically burdensome defence apparatus, questioning whether this reliance on interception alone has prolonged rather than resolved the threats Israel faces. Beyond the financial and psychological toll, the article explores how adversaries exploit this defensive posture to dictate the terms of engagement. Finally, it considers alternative approaches used in the region to defeat terrorism, contrasting Israel’s measured responses with the decisive actions taken by its neighbours to neutralise similar threats.
The Four Layers of Missile Defence
Israel’s missile defence architecture operates on four interconnected layers:
- Iron Dome – The most well-known component, designed to intercept short-range rockets and artillery shells. It provides coverage for areas up to 70 kilometres, boasting a success rate often cited above 90%.
- David’s Sling – A system for intercepting medium- to long-range missiles and drones, bridging the gap between the Iron Dome and higher-level defences.
- Arrow 2 and Arrow 3 – Advanced interceptors designed to neutralise long-range ballistic missiles, including those carrying unconventional warheads.
- Multi-Tier Coordination – These systems work in concert, guided by cutting-edge radar and tracking technologies to optimise resource deployment and ensure seamless coverage against a spectrum of threats.
While technologically extraordinary, these systems come at a staggering cost. The financial burden of maintaining, upgrading, and deploying these defences underscores Israel’s unwavering commitment to safeguarding its population. However, it also highlights the asymmetric nature of Israel’s conflicts.
The Iron Dome’s Economic Challenge
Each Iron Dome interceptor costs approximately US$50,000, whereas the rockets it intercepts—often crude and inexpensive—may cost as little as a few hundred dollars. This disparity underscores the economic challenge Israel faces in defending itself against asymmetric warfare.
During the May 2021 Gaza conflict, Hamas fired over 4,000 rockets at Israel. The Iron Dome intercepted 90% of those deemed a threat, reportedly costing Israel hundreds of millions of dollars. Beyond the financial toll, indirect costs—such as disruptions to daily life, economic activity, and psychological strain on civilians—further compound the burden.
Since October 2023, rocket fire from Gaza and Lebanon has surged, with estimates exceeding 7,000 rockets fired in the months following Hamas’s coordinated attack. Each interception—while saving lives—adds to mounting defence expenditures.
An enemy only needs to “get lucky” once to penetrate air defences and strike a high-rise tower in Tel Aviv or critical infrastructure. Israel, however, must get lucky every time.
Alternate Methods of Treatment
The challenge posed by Islamist terrorism is not unique to Israel. Other nations in the region have responded with overwhelming force and fewer restraints.
Jordan and Black September (1970)
In 1970, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) operated within Jordan, posing a direct threat to the monarchy. In Black September, King Hussein launched a military crackdown, expelling PLO militants. The Jordanian army engaged in brutal urban warfare, decisively crushing PLO forces and forcing their relocation to Lebanon. An estimated 3,400 to 5,000 militants were killed.
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE’s Crackdown on Islamists
Egypt under President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has waged an aggressive crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood, resulting in thousands of arrests and military operations that eliminated 1,000 to 2,000 militants.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE have aggressively targeted Islamist groups, restricting their activities and aligning their counterterrorism efforts with Egypt.
Peace Through Strength
Such an approach found favour with Rabbi Meir Kahane, often referred to as the “militant rabbi.” A controversial figure, Kahane was an outspoken advocate for Jewish self-defence and a staunch opponent of any concessions to terrorism. He famously declared: “If we ever hope to rid the world of the political AIDS of our time—terrorism—the rule must be clear: One does not deal with terrorists; one does not bargain with terrorists; one kills terrorists.”
Kahane’s views were polarising, and while some saw him as a visionary who spoke hard truths about security, others—both within and outside the Jewish community—condemned him as extremist, divisive, and dangerous. His Kach party was banned from Israeli politics for its radical positions, and he was ultimately assassinated in 1990 by El Sayyid Nosair, an Egyptian-born Islamist terrorist, in New York City. Nosair was later linked to the network that carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, underscoring the very dangers of terrorism that Kahane had long warned about.
Conclusion
Israel’s multi-layered missile defence systems, epitomised by the Iron Dome, are testaments to its ingenuity and resolve. However, they come at a profound cost—financially, socially, and psychologically.
Reflecting on my military career, I have seen firsthand how complacency in defence can be lethal. Technology alone cannot eliminate threats. Warfare is a continuous cycle of adaptation—with adversaries constantly adjusting to bypass strengths and exploit weaknesses.
Perhaps one of America’s founding fathers and first president, George Washington, said it best in 1799: “Offensive operations, oftentimes, is the surest, if not the only… means of defence.”
Colonel Michael Scott CSC is the CEO and Founder of The 2023 Foundation, a charity focused on combatting antisemitism and fostering peaceful coexistence.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the positions of the Australian Defence Force or the Commonwealth Government of Australia.
comments