Iran’s recent launch of approximately 180 high-speed ballistic missiles at Israel raises significant questions about military strategy and the effectiveness of Israel’s defence systems. This attack reflects a shift in Iran’s approach, aiming to cause substantial damage rather than simply sending warning signals as seen in previous operations.
The Nature of the Attack
Unlike the previous drone and missile attacks, this missile strike was swift and potent. Although initial reports indicate minimal casualties—one fatality in the West Bank and none in Israel—the sheer number of missiles launched points to a potential military miscalculation by Tehran.
Key Facts About the Missiles:
- Speed: Iran deployed missiles like the Emad and Ghadr, which can reach speeds over 4,600 mph, and even faster hypersonic Fatteh-2 missiles, estimated at around 10,000 mph.
- Volume: Iran is believed to possess around 3,000 ballistic missiles, a number that might have increased since the last US assessment two and a half years ago.
The Strategic Goal
By firing a large volume of missiles in quick succession, Iran aimed to overwhelm Israel’s sophisticated air defence systems. The goal? To exhaust these systems and force Israel to utilise costly interceptor missiles.
Israel’s Defence Systems Include:
- Arrow 3 and Arrow 2: Long-range systems designed to intercept ballistic threats.
- David’s Sling: A medium-range interceptor effective against various aerial threats.
- Iron Dome: Primarily targets short-range projectiles, including rockets from Gaza.
Given the high costs of these interceptors—approximately $3.5 million for an Arrow missile and $1 million for David’s Sling—the economic implications of defending against such an assault are staggering.
The Economic Impact of Interception
To put this into perspective, intercepting over 100 missiles could easily cost Israel hundreds of millions of dollars. Comparatively, Iran’s missiles are estimated to cost around £80,000 each, making the financial dynamics of this conflict particularly concerning.
Recent Context and Military Response
Iran has historically used missile strikes as both a tactical and strategic tool. Following incidents like the recent killing of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, Iran has demonstrated a willingness to act swiftly and decisively.
However, there was advance warning from US intelligence, suggesting that both satellite surveillance and communications intercepts provided insights into Iran’s plans. While unconfirmed reports indicate Iran may have notified Russia prior to the attack, the timing of the strikes raised eyebrows.
The Effectiveness of Previous Attacks
In April, Iran’s launch of 120 ballistic missiles resulted in only nine reaching their intended targets, leading to limited damage. This pattern of high volume but low effectiveness continues to pose questions about the reliability of Iran’s missile arsenal.
Comparison with Other Conflicts:
- Ukraine’s Interception Rates: Ukraine reported intercepting 63% of drones and 67% of cruise missiles, but only 4.5% of Russian ballistic missiles. This indicates the difficulty of intercepting fast-moving threats, similar to those posed by Iran.
The Bigger Picture
The recent missile attacks by Iran signify a complex and evolving military landscape. While Tehran may have intended to deliver a severe blow, the low casualty numbers suggest a failure to achieve their primary military objectives.
Conclusion
As tensions escalate, the effectiveness of Israel’s defence systems will continue to be scrutinised. The balance between cost, strategy, and technological capability in missile defence remains a critical focus for military planners. The implications of Iran’s aggressive stance are vast, potentially reshaping the geopolitical landscape of the region.
