Landing in Tel Aviv this week, President Biden was promptly marched by his hosts to a display of Israel's anti-missile systems, the (supposedly) tried and tested Iron Dome, as well as the prototype Iron Beam, which its developers have every expectation will shortly score some direct hits on the pockets of the American taxpayer. Iron Dome, after all, has scored well in that regard, garnering no less than $1 billion this year alone, as Biden boasted to Israeli news channel N12 before leaving Washington.
“Useless Against Maneuvering Missiles”
Biden may have been unaware that he has a potential personal stake in the veracity of his hosts' sales pitch, since he is donating the current air-defense system defending the White House to Ukraine.
Without a doubt, he will have been assured by the Israeli arms merchants that they can supply a replacement (for a price) that will do the job. But this promise is almost certainly false. The U.S. military are well aware of this , knowing it to be at the very least "useless against maneuvering missiles," in the words of one air defense specialist, but ingrained habits of toadying to political pressure to buy Israeli have muted any inclination to admit the truth.
The White House is currently defended against aerial attack from drones, cruise missiles, aircraft, and the like by the National Advanced Surface to Air Missile System, jointly developed by Raytheon and the Norwegian Kongsberg Defense & Aerospace Corporation. Its proponents in the air defense community speak highly of its capabilities and it has sold well in the international market. But the U.S. has bought just one of the systems, deployed in Washington, and has refused to buy any more. Efforts to adopt it on a wider basis have been summarily rejected at a high level in the Pentagon on grounds that "we need to buy Iron Dome."
“A Sound and Light Show.”
But, contrary to its makers’ claims, Iron Dome may not actually work, or at least only at a pitiful rate of five percent, possibly less, even against the home-made missiles deployed by HAMAS in Gaza. The reasons have been meticulously analyzed and explained by Ted Postol, Professor Emeritus of Science, Technology, and International Security, at MIT. Interested readers can review his explanation here or here (the latter being a response to the hysterical reaction to the former.)M But in essence, Postol argues that the fusing technology used in the system routinely failes to destroy the missiles' warheads. True, Israeli casualties from these primitive weapons have been extremely low. Postol attributes this not to Iron Dome, but to Israel's highly efficient warning system, which warns through an app carried by every Israeli on their phone of incoming rockets, allowing them to reach adequate cover in ubiquitous shelters within seconds. Even public parks have rudimentary but adequate shelters.
Postol's criticisms, first bruited a decade ago, have been in the past buttressed at a more pungent level from Israel itself, including by Moti Shefer, a former winner of the Israel Defense Prize for his work developing the effective Python air-to-air missile. Shefer, apparently embittered by the rejection of his own proposal for a missile defense system, has stated that "Iron Dome is a sound and light show that is intercepting only Israeli public opinion" and that the sound of explosions when it is in operation does not signify successful interceptions, but merely interceptor rockets exploding. This lack of faith has been implicitly echoed by the U.S. Army, which has deployed one of the two systems it has been forced to buy far away in the Pacific, on the island of Guam. Nor has Iron Dome managed to attract foreign buyers, including Ukraine. But now that Washington is being stripped of its NASAMS defenses Biden may have to rely on Iron Dome to protect his home.
At least a sound and light show would give us something for our money.