The Media Line: Trump Proposes US Defense Modeled After Israel’s Iron Dome 

Trump Proposes US Defense Modeled After Israel’s Iron Dome 

Experts highlight logistical and strategic challenges in adapting the Iron Dome system for US homeland defense 

By Nathan Klabin/The Media Line 

The US has long prioritized defense against large-scale threats like intercontinental ballistic missiles carrying nuclear warheads. However, it lacks a robust system to counter smaller-scale dangers such as rockets, artillery, mortars, drones, and cruise missiles—threats Israel’s Iron Dome is specifically designed to address. As President Donald Trump begins his second term, reports of unidentified drone sightings over sensitive US locations have heightened national security concerns. 

In response, President Trump has proposed developing a US missile defense system inspired by Israel’s Iron Dome. This system would aim to protect against a wide range of threats, including drones, hypersonic weapons, and long-range missiles. However, experts in ballistic technology and geopolitics warn that such a system may not align with the US’s defense needs or strategic realities. 

The president was likely referring to an air defense system similar to Iron Dome, which has become a model for many nations. Countries such as Turkey and South Korea have adopted comparable systems, as widely reported in the news. 

Iron Dome, developed by Israel to intercept short-range threats, has gained global recognition for its effectiveness in protecting civilian areas. Its success, however, comes in a context vastly different from the challenges the US faces. 

Dr. Steven Terner, head of the New York-based Terner Consulting, criticized the idea of deploying an Iron Dome system across the US. “Where would the Iron Dome system go? Around every sensitive site in the US? Wouldn’t that alert spies to those locations? And does Iron Dome even target drones? I don’t believe it does,” he said. 

Unlike Israel, which has a compact geographic area and densely populated urban centers, the US would need to cover a sprawling network of cities, military installations, and critical infrastructure. Deploying the number of Iron Dome batteries required to secure such a vast area would be economically and logistically unfeasible. 

Dr. Yehoshua Kalisky, a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, also questioned the feasibility of deploying an Iron Dome-like system across the US. “A US version of Iron Dome would likely be deployed to protect battlefield units and strategic sites, rather than cities, which are better safeguarded by systems designed to counter intercontinental ballistic missile threats,” Kalisky told The Media Line. 

Kalisky suggested that while Iron Dome could serve as a starting point, the US would need to adapt it significantly. “The US possesses advanced capabilities, such as the AN/TPY-2 radar, which has significantly greater range and power. Upgrading Iron Dome with more advanced radar systems and faster missiles could align it with systems like David’s Sling, which is designed to intercept more advanced threats,” he said. 

In 2019, the US purchased two Iron Dome batteries from Israel, marking the system’s first export to an allied nation. These batteries were designed to protect US military bases and assets abroad, particularly in conflict zones where rockets, artillery, and drones pose serious threats. The US Army has tested Iron Dome as a temporary solution for short-range missile defense while evaluating its integration with existing systems like the Patriot and THAAD, which target medium- and long-range threats. 

The acquisition has faced challenges, particularly with integrating Iron Dome into the broader US missile defense framework. Additionally, its emphasis on localized, short-range threats limits its effectiveness in addressing the wide range of dangers faced by the US homeland. 

Iron Dome remains one of the world’s most successful and widely recognized missile defense systems, excelling in its niche of short-range air defense against rockets, artillery, and mortars (C-RAM). Several countries, including Azerbaijan, Singapore, and Romania, have purchased the system, while nations such as Poland, Greece, South Korea, and India have expressed interest due to its proven effectiveness in countering modern threats. 

While it may be technically possible to adapt Iron Dome for US defense, experts argue it may not be practical. Dr. Yehoshua Kalisky explains that integrating an Iron Dome system into the US’s layered missile defense architecture would require significant modifications. “The US already operates systems such as Patriot, THAAD, and Aegis, which address medium- and long-range threats, including ballistic and cruise missiles. Adding a short-range solution like Iron Dome would require extensive modifications to ensure interoperability and avoid redundancy,” Kalisky said. 

Unlike Israel, where the population is concentrated in a few urban centers, the US would need to protect a vast network of cities, military bases, and critical infrastructure spread across thousands of miles. Deploying the number of Iron Dome batteries required for such coverage would be both economically and logistically impractical. 

Regarding the reports of unidentified drones over US cities, Dr. Terner urges a more measured approach. “Pundits interpret what’s happening to fit their narrative,” Terner said. “For example, with the drone story, show us the pictures and video of things in the sky. Don’t tell us they’re drones sent by China unless there is proof. When the story first came out, the reports were that they were Iranian drones, not Chinese drones. Now, they’re being reported as Chinese drones. But there’s no evidence they’re from China or Iran. Let people see the things in the sky, but don’t make up that they’re from a country without proof,” he concluded.

Brought to you by www.srnnews.com

Click here to read the full article