President Donald Trump’s executive order, titled “The Iron Dome for America,” calls for revamping our missile defense capabilities, which the president labels “the most catastrophic threat facing the United States.”
However, there are significant challenges to overcome if we are to deploy something similar to Israel’s acclaimed air defense network because the threat to America is quite different.
Today, we face real threats such as nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) launched from countries like China and Russia, which could put at risk the entire United States. During the Cold War (1948-1991) with the Soviet Union, we addressed that threat with our doctrine of “Mutual Assured Destruction.” If Moscow attacked us with long-range nuclear missiles, we would retaliate with an overwhelming number of similar weapons that would result in the annihilation of both nations. That doctrine worked because it ratcheted up fear on both sides.
Our challenge today is more complicated than during the Cold War because we face multiple enemies which present a wide variety of airborne threats. Specifically, nation state adversaries like Russia, China, North Korea and Iran all have or are developing long-range nuclear systems that put the U.S. at risk. Also, there are a host of terrorist groups with access to sophisticated technologies such as drones and rockets that threaten our overseas interests and perhaps our homeland.
5 THINGS TO KNOW ABOUT PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP’S ‘IRON DOME’ PLAN FOR AMERICA
Further, many of these weapons are guided by space-based systems, which make them more precise and come in a variety of hard-to-defend-against packages – hypersonic missiles that are difficult to track, ballistic missiles with multiple warheads, drones of many sizes and capabilities, sea-launched cruise missiles, and more.
Unfortunately, America’s ability to defend the homeland from such a range of aerial threats is frankly limited, which explains Trump’s order to immediately address the issue.
Let’s put that task into perspective by considering the Israeli aerial defense model.
Trump calls for us to build something akin to Israel’s “Iron Dome” to defend America against a plethora of threats. Understandably, his desire is to protect America from attacks such as those Iran launched at Israel in 2024, whereby virtually all the projectiles were downed before they hit the Jewish state.
Israel’s effective, three-part air-defense network includes the Iron Dome, which is designed to stop short-range rockets and artillery shells launched from the Gaza Strip.
UNDER FIRE: ISRAEL’S IRON DOME WINNING BUT PRESSURE’S ON AS CONFLICT WITH IRAN ESCALATES
The second tier is David’s Sling, which is intended to intercept ballistic and cruise missiles, such as those possessed by Hezbollah in Lebanon.
The third tier is known as Arrow 3, which intercepts missiles flying outside Earth’s atmosphere, such as long-range missiles launched by Houthi militants in Yemen or those Iran used to attack Israel in 2024.
Although Israel’s three-tiered network performed well in 2024, it is not necessarily the right model for the United States. There are three key differences.
First, the U.S. is unlike Israel, which built its network to defend against mostly drones, artillery and cruise missiles launched from a neighboring country. The U.S. is unlikely to be attacked by Canada or Mexico. Rather, any aerial attack will likely involve ICBMs or missiles/drones launched from ships or submarines off our shores.
Second, Israel is a very small country, approximately 8,630 square miles or the size of New Jersey. The U.S. is 440 times the size of Israel with population centers and sensitive sites spread across this vast country. Defending our entire landscape from all aerial threats would be incredibly expensive, especially if it was done on the scale seen in Israel.
WHAT IS ISRAEL’S FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE, THE IRON DOME?
Third, the U.S. has a variety of air defense systems in its inventory, which are not networked like those seen in Israel. Yes, we have an anti-ICBM system in Alaska and California with 44 missiles. However, that system is focused primarily on the threat posed by North Korea. Our other systems are for fixed site defenses deployed mostly outside the United States.
Those movable systems include the AEGIS ballistic missile system, which is sea-based and designed to intercept ballistic missiles during the midcourse or terminal phases of flight. We field a variety of site-specific systems such as the MIM-104 Patriot, capable of engaging ballistic and cruise missiles.
The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) intercepts ballistic missiles in the terminal phase of flight. The National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAMS) is a medium-range air defense, which is part of the U.S. National Capital Region’s air defense system since 2005.
There are also other tactical platforms such as the Avenger Air Defense System, FIM-92 Stinger and the Maneuver-Short Range Air Defense (M-SHORAD).
Like other nations, the U.S. is working on directed energy weapons (lasers) and other counters to low-priced anti-systems against drones and rockets as well.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
The task for the Pentagon to satisfy Trump’s executive order of deploying a “next-generation missile defense shield” is to find the right mix of air defense platforms, the right doctrine and an effective defense strategy. This effort begins by assessing the threat against very specific domestic sites and prioritize the placement of our capabilities and accept risk elsewhere.
We must also develop something akin to the Cold War’s doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, such that our nuclear-armed enemies understand the risk to them should they contemplate launching weapons against us.
Finally, the air defense strategy sketched in the White House’s fact sheet on the topic reminds me of something akin to President Ronald Reagan’s 1983 “Star Wars” initiative, formally named the Strategic Defense Initiative, which relied on space-based sensors and interceptors. At the time, it sobered the Soviets and led to agreements that tempered the nuclear threat, such as the intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty and the Strategic Arms Reductions Talks.
In fact, Reagan’s Star Wars program, much like Trump’s “Iron Dome” proposal, was intended to protect the U.S. from aerial threats. At the time, Reagan’s program aimed to render nuclear weapons obsolete. That effort failed.
By contrast, Trump’s 2025 program is more pragmatic and attainable. After all, he aims to make America safer from most aerial threats by fielding an American-version of Israel’s “Iron Dome.” Perhaps that’s very ambitious and could be quite costly, but clearly, in this time of exploding aerial threats, it is a national security necessity worth serious consideration.
Leave a Reply