Iron Dome Helps Israel—And Its Allies

Our military benefits from the technology, and helps stave off ground wars that could drag in other countries.

By
31

The Iron Dome isn’t Israel’s only line of defense against incoming projectiles, but it’s certainly its most famous. When a torrent of unguided rocket fire rained down on the Jewish state during its 11-day conflict with Hamas earlier this year, the system detected and destroyed about 90 percent of the thousands of explosives destined for populated areas in Israel, sparing the lives of civilians beneath with minimal but deadly breakthrough.

For weeks during and after the war, a viral image of the Iron Dome in action occupied a near-constant place in the global news cycle. On the right, a deluge of indiscriminate artillery fire from the Gaza Strip is seen approaching Israel’s urban centers. On the left, interceptors maneuver to meet and neutralize the incoming rockets midair. 

(Photograph by ANAS BABA/AFP via Getty Images.)

Israel’s short-range air defense system made headlines once again in recent weeks, when infighting among House Democrats brought U.S. funding for the Iron Dome to the forefront.

After the Democratic Caucus’ progressive wing pulled $1 billion designated for replacement interceptors from a government funding bill in September, Democratic leadership moved to push through a standalone bill to secure the funds separately. The ensuing vote culminated in denunciations of Israel as an “apartheid state,” counter-accusations of anti-Semitism by the Caucus’ Jewish members, and a tearful “present” vote by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
31
By
Comments (31)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    I have to admit, that picture is pretty darn cool.

    “ and limit civilian casualties in the event that deterrence fails.”

    This is an overlooked and yet crucial piece of the work. The US and the Israelis spend some of the most to make sure their military tech deconflicts/doesn’t kill friendlies. It would be a lot cheaper to stop caring about collateral damage. For all the flak the Israelis and the US defense industry get, they work really hard not to kill civilians. The same is not true for our adversaries.

    Collapse
  2. Emma

    They have a right to self defense, but I think the keyword here is "self."

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    MarqueG68

    Well done explainer: thanks!

    For a little perspective, we also send money to support the Palestinians in different direct and indirect ways. Some of that money goes to Gaza and winds up in the hands of Hamas, the gang of warlords that run the place. The money is meant for food and development, but gets used for illicit arms.

    I remember a story just a few years ago where Hamas used their aid funds to buy street lights. These were taken to workshops (and with some help and advice from Iranian IRCG operative), cut into segments to make rockets... That is, our aid money is used in the Palestinian territories to support their *offensive* military capabilities, as opposed to this Iron Dome funding to support Israeli *defensive* capabilities.

    There's a clue as to what should have its funding cut, squadsters!

    Collapse
  4. Pohl

    This is a bargain for America. Much less than price of 10 Ospreys in FY2020:
    https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2020/fy2020_Weapons.pdf

    Collapse
  5. John Daly

    This piece answered the exact question I was asking about our support of Iron Dome. Thanks, Charlotte!

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Justin Stapley

    On the one hand, we have a purely defensive system meant to protect the lives of non-combatant. On the other hand, we have terrorists who indiscriminately fire rockets at non-military targets.

    So, the only two questions are: why on earth is this controversial and what does it say about the state of American politics that it is?

    Collapse
    1. Richard Fulmer

      According to the article, the funding “passed the House 420-9,” so I don’t think that it’s very controversial. I think a better question is: What does it say about the nine people who voted against the measure and how out of step they are with members of their own party and with the majority of Americans?

      Collapse
      1. Matt

        Perhaps it says they're being a bit more thoughtful about how we're spending the money we spend on foreign aid?

        The way I see it, there are a lot of different philosophies on how we should spend aid to other countries. Should the goal be the general good (feed starving children)? Should it be to advance US interests (Give NK some money on the condition they stop playing with nukes)? Whatever the philosophy, though, I'd argue one area of agreement is (or at least should be) that the aid should advance SOME goal, that is, there should be some measurable positive that occurs that would not have occurred had we not spent the money. To put it another way, we don't send a lot of aid to Canada, because they're neither starving nor about to start a nuclear war in the absence of a suitable carrot.

        In that light, I think it's reasonable to ask what goal we're advancing by sending Israel 1 billion dollars for the Iron Dome. They have a ~130B budget, of which ~20B is already allocated to defense, suggesting that, in the absence of US government aid, they would not be overly burdened by having to find the money to fund the iron dome themselves. We're not currently attaching any conditions to encourage pushing the peace process forward, so there's no carrot advancing any US interest. As near as I can tell, the only real 'benefit' of 1 billion in iron dome aid to Israel is 1 billion in tax relief to Israeli citizens.

        To be clear, as others have said, I agree the Iron Dome is good. Were Israel broke and unable to pay for us without it, I would agree there's not question we should be signing the check. But given that's not the case, I don't think it's unreasonable to question if that much money could be put to better use.

        Collapse
        1. Pohl

          $1bn is about 5-1/2% of Israel’s 2022 military budget. Not exactly chump change like it is for us. They have competing programs, too, and at some point they may calculate that the cost disparity vis-a-vis cheaper rockets isn’t worth it and will take deadlier pre-emptive measures. I’m happy to forestall that.

          Collapse
          1. Matt

            If they do reach that point, I'm sure they'll tell us so, and as I mentioned that would certainly change the debate. But it's still <1% of their total 2022 budget, so I don't see that being an immediate concern (And if they're deciding on deadlier measures to avoid a <1% budget increase I'd think that would just be a stronger argument for why we should consider having strings attached to our funding)

            Collapse
        2. Richard Fulmer

          As the article points out, the U.S. does benefit from contributing to Iron Dome. We get the technology and feedback from the use of the system. What we have received has helped us protect our troops.

          Collapse
          1. Matt

            Perhaps, but that's a different benefit from "protecting the lives of non-combatants". I'm not saying it's not worth the price, but so much of the debate seems to frame those against the spending as not wanting to protect the Israeli civilians being protected by the dome, which in actuality will occur regardless of US funding. I'm not actually against funding the dome myself, but I think it's something worth having a robust debate and discussion over with the ACTUAL stakes (i.e., as you mentioned, access to technology/feedback), and with us asking if it would make more sense to simply purchase what we need from Israel vs paying for 'access' on an ongoing basis under the umbrella of foreign aid.

            Collapse
  7. Tom (Inadvertent Obfuscation)

    The re-occupation of Gaza by Israel would save the 100-to-1 rocket cost disparity and improve at least the economic well-being of the residents.
    (You would rightly assert that my proposal is a political impossibility and any benefits ignore the likely response of those outside the Gaza.)

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    George.Skinner

    Iron Dome is a perfect symbol for everything Palestinian supporters hate about Israel. Technological strength that makes them immune to attempts by the Palestinians to attack them.
    A statement that the lives of their citizens are so valuable that they're willing to spend $40,000 a missile to protect them (and conversely, they assume this implies how little they value Palestinian lives.) Finally, it's built with substantial US funding - they see it as a wealthy society being favored by an even wealthier society while they're living in poverty and squalor. So, yeah - I can see why the progressives get worked up about funding Iron Dome. However, their problem is that they're starting from faulty premises about the causes and motivations behind the conflict, and a refusal to acknowledge the reality of the situation because of the cognitive dissonance with their emotional bent.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Kevin Johnson

    Great piece. I am totally supportive of Israel, and of the US doing whatever is needed to help Israel defend itself. I am glad to see here some aspects of what the US gains from this cooperation spelled out, although I would support Israel even lacking these significant gains for the US.

    That said, I am curious about one thing. Fellow supporters of Israel, including many I greatly respect (eg Commentary Magazine) imply that a cut to US aid for Iron Dome would cripple the program, causing much death and destruction. My factual question is:

    given Iron Dome’s importance to Israel, and given Israel’s prosperity, if we cut aid, wouldn’t Israel’s taxpayers fill the gap?

    More broadly, again as someone in favor of aid that is needed, why can’t we maintain Israel’s qualitative defense edge through sales, rather than aid? Why can’t Israel buy what it needs from us, rather than receive aid as if it were still a poor country? Is it just the math of having a small population? I’m just curious as to why we must pay for this stuff, as opposed to just cooperate and sell things.

    One last assurance: I FAVOR the aid if it is needed. I am just intellectually bothered by being unable to see why no one explains why a prosperous country needs aid rather than sales, unlike many other allies. I suspect the population or other angle explains this, but am bothered that I can’t seem to identify it through google, etc.

    Thanks

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ben Connelly

      Good question. I’d like to know the answer too.

      Collapse
    2. Richard Fulmer

      Perhaps our contribution to the program is the price we pay for access to the technology and operational intel. If so, I think that it’s well worth the money. Still, your question is worth asking.

      Collapse
    3. Andrew Chida

      Was just about to write something similar but you said it so much better than I would have

      Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Victor Clairmont

    I am not too worried about Senator Paul here as he does wish to fund the dome, he is just fighting about where the funding comes from.

    It is in our geopolitical interest to help keep Israel afloat in certain ways. As our only real ally in the Middle East, over the decades it has gone from nations around it wanting to wipe it off the map, to a warming state where some of those same nations see it as perhaps one of the only states that can protect them from Iran. The Abraham Accords is the latest breakthrough of thawing from the cold.

    I (even as a Christian), have no serious theological issues that necessitate using American taxpayer dollars to help Israel. My geopolitical ones though, put Israel at the top list of allies that helps counterbalance problems in the Middle East.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      JohnF

      I agree. There are many other (better) reasons to worry about Senator Paul.

      Collapse
Load More