Since the start of the Israel-Hamas War, which began after the Iran-backed group in Gaza carried out its attack on southern Israel in October 2023, dozens of missile and drone strikes have been directed at the Jewish state. While the United States, the UK, France, Jordan, and other partners have helped shoot down the missiles fired by Iran, Israel has continued to rely on its “Iron Dome,” an air defense system that detects threats, and then fires missiles to intercept them before they can reach their target.
Israel has sought to expand the Iron Dome – as well as its “David’s Sling, Arrow 2, and Arrow 3 anti-aircraft platforms – with the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) battery. Essentially Iron Dome is meant to counter airborne threats up to 70 km (44 miles), while THAAD count increases the range to 200 km (125 miles). David’s Sling was developed to counter medium to long-range threats, up to 300 km (186 miles); while the Arrows can shoot down targets ballistic missiles outside of the atmosphere.
Seeing the capabilities of the Israel system, the Trump administration last week called for the U.S. to develop its own Iron Dome.
“The threat of attack by ballistic, hypersonic, and cruise missiles, and other advanced aerial attacks, remains the most catastrophic threat facing the United States,” the White House explained.
Via executive order, President Trump called for the “acceleration of the deployment of the Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor layer; Development and deployment of proliferated space-based interceptors capable of boost-phase intercept; Deployment of underlayer and terminal-phase intercept capabilities postured to defeat a countervalue attack; [and] Development and deployment of capabilities to defeat missile attacks prior to launch and in the boost phase,” among other actions.
Whose Responsibility Is the Iron Dome?
Exact details about a U.S. Iron Dome remain sparse including which branch of the U.S. military or government agency would be responsible for its development, operation, and maintenance. The various services have competed to take the lead in various programs – most famously after World War II when the then-newly-formed U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy engaged in a public dispute over which would take control of the nation’s nuclear arsenal.
While the U.S. Navy, along with the U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Coast Guard, likely would have no role in an Iron Dome, the question is whether the U.S. Army might.
The U.S. Air Force is charged with overseeing the intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) that makeup one leg of the nuclear triad, as well as the long-range bombers that are the second leg – with the U.S. Navy’s nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) being the third.
However, the United States Army Space and Missile Defense Command (USASMDC), the Army Service Component Command (ASCC), is responsible for developing and providing the Army with space, missile defense, and high-altitude capabilities.
The question then becomes what role the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), as well as the United States Space Force, would play. MDA and Space Force are working on the Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor satellites (HBTSS), which would likely be part of any missile defense dome.
Critical Response
Even before the White House issued the executive order, there had already been some vocal criticism directed at any proposed Iron Dome-style defense system. Experts have taken issue with the costs, and the number of systems that would be needed – given that the U.S. is vastly larger. Israel comprises 8,630 square miles, about the size of New Jersey. By contrast, the United States is 3,800,000 square miles.
“Each Iron Dome system can defend an area of roughly 150 square miles. We would need to deploy more than 24,700 Iron Dome batteries to defend the 3.7 million square miles of the continental United States. At $100 million per battery, that would be approximately $2,470,000,000,000,” nuclear analyst Joe Cirincione wrote last year for Defense One.
Then there is the issue of what Iron Dome was actually designed to counter. As noted, when Iran launched its missile strike at Israel last year, aircraft from the U.S. and other nations helped shoot down the incoming threats.
As Defense One suggested, an Iron Dome would be great to protect El Paso, TX, from a missile attack launched in Mexico – but not from ballistic or hypersonic missiles fired by China or Russia. Max Boot, writing for The Washington Post made a similar argument, suggesting that the iron defense system could protect Detroit from a Canadian missile strike!
Even if the U.S. were to develop a more robust anti-missile network, like Israel’s Arrow 3, it might not deter aggression from near-peer adversaries and could have the opposite effect.
After the U.S. announced it would seek to develop an Iron Dome, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria warned that such a plan, “directly envisages a significant strengthening of the American nuclear arsenal and means for conducting combat operations in space, including the development and deployment of space-based interception systems.”
Zakharova added, “We view this as yet another confirmation of the U.S. intent to turn space into an arena of armed confrontation and to deploy weapons there.”
