If re-elected president, Donald Trump has repeatedly declared he will build a “great Iron Dome” to defend the United States, drawing comparisons to Israel’s short-range anti-rocket system and the Strategic Defense Initiative proposed in the 1980s. While by far the most well-known Israeli-made air defense system, the Iron Dome, or even a similar type of system, is perhaps among the least suited for the United States’ main missile defense requirements.
“By next term we will build a great Iron Dome over our country,” Trump said Friday. “We deserve a dome. We deserve it all, made state of the art.”
“It’s a missile defense shield, and it’ll all be made in America,” he added.
It is far from the first time the former president has made this proposal and referenced the Israeli system. He has also compared his proposed national missile defense to the Strategic Defense Initiative, commonly known as Star Wars, first proposed by President Ronald Reagan in 1983. SDI envisaged a series of ground and space-based missile and laser systems that could destroy incoming nuclear missiles threatening the U.S.
Incidentally, during the brief 2021-22 premiership of former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, his government enthusiastically promoted the Iron Beam
Beam
laser defense system under development in Israel. Israel expressed grand plans to eventually have Iron Beam systems on the ground, in the air, and even in space, seemingly taking at least some inspiration from the SDI concept.
Trump claims technological advancements now make something like the SDI possible. SDI’s successor, the Missile Defense Agency, has already developed or helped develop formidable high-end strategic air defense missile systems like the Patriot PAC-3, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, and the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System.
The Iron Dome is arguably the most well-known missile defense system since the MIM-104 Patriot gained widespread public recognition during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. During that war, network news channels frequently broadcast footage of Patriot interceptors purportedly downing Iraqi Scud missiles over Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Much more recently, impressive images of Israeli Iron Dome interceptors taking to the sky against barrages of Hamas rockets at night, constant footage of unmistakable rocket intercepts, and a claimed 90 percent overall success rate have gained the system similar recognition. Such recognition is undoubtedly the primary reason, if not the only reason, Trump has repeatedly referenced the Iron Dome as a model.
An Iron Dome-type system could form the lower tier of Trump’s proposed system, but even there it would have limited overall utility. At least 10 Iron Dome systems make up the lower tier of Israel’s multilayered air defense, designed to intercept rockets, mortars, and artillery shells at a maximum distance of under 50 miles.
A longer-range American Iron Dome would still most likely require hundreds of systems to provide adequate coverage for the continental United States and its major population centers. But even that wouldn’t be a suitable solution for the main threats the U.S. homeland would likely face, such as large intercontinental ballistic missiles rather than small, unsophisticated short-range rockets like the ones Hamas has frequently fired at Israel from neighboring Gaza.
On the other hand, an Iron Dome-type system could prove useful for point defense of specific high-value targets, such as military bases or critical infrastructure, not unlike how the short to medium-range NASAMS system protects critical sites in Washington, DC.
South Korea also aims to develop an Iron Dome-style system. However, unlike the United States, that country faces some threats similar to those of Israel that necessitate such a close-range defense system. North Korea has thousands of artillery guns aimed at Seoul, less than 40 miles from the demilitarized zone dividing the peninsula. An Iron Dome-type system would afford the South Korean capital some protection if it were ever subjected to an otherwise unstoppable artillery barrage. The U.S., it should go without saying, does not face such threats so close to its borders or shores, and already has other capabilities to prevent such threats from ever materializing in the first place.
The U.S. Army acquired two Iron Dome systems as an interim capability for cruise missile defense while it worked on developing an indigenous solution to counter such threats. Ultimately, the army barely used these missiles despite having them for years, perhaps underlining their lack of utility for America’s requirements.
An Iron Dome-type system may prove suitable for defending U.S. bases overseas, especially in the Middle East, against threats posed by militia rockets and drones—which the U.S. currently uses its C-RAM systems to defend against. But again, its usefulness is extremely limited for national defense.
Israel’s exoatmospheric Arrow 3 anti-ballistic missile system is a much better precedent for a national U.S. missile shield. Funded by the United States and jointly developed by the Missile Defense Agency and the Israel Missile Defense Organization, the Arrow 3 can intercept ballistic missiles, including intercontinental ballistic missiles, above the Earth’s atmosphere. The Arrow 3 made its combat debut in November 2023 when it shot down a missile fired from Yemen. In Israel’s biggest-ever arms sale, Germany is acquiring the Arrow 3 to upgrade its missile defenses in light of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The U.S. already has the THAAD and the means to develop something similar or even more advanced than the Arrow 3. The Missile Defense Agency is already working with Israel on jointly developing the Arrow 4, which will have endoatmospheric and exoatmospheric intercept capabilities.
Such a system, complemented by the THAAD and medium-range systems, could go a long way in realizing Trump’s stated goal of establishing a comprehensive missile shield over the American homeland. And with much research and development already completed—and presuming a second Trump administration wouldn’t seriously consider upping the ante by placing interceptors in space—Trump’s proposed missile defense dome certainly isn’t farfetched.
The only glaring flaw at this early stage is his constant invocation of the Iron Dome, which, again, he most likely references for its recognition and reputation rather than its actual capabilities and the specific threats it was designed to counter.
