David’s Sling, Iron Dome and Israeli Hegemony


"David’s Sling, meant to counter medium-range missiles possessed by Iranian-backed Hezbollah militants in Lebanon, will be operational in early April.

This marks the completion of Israel’s missile defense system, he said.

That includes the Arrow, designed to intercept ballistic missiles in the stratosphere from long-range threats like Iran and Iron Dome that defends against short-range rockets from Gaza. The official spoke anonymously in line with protocol.

Israeli deployed its Arrow system Friday when Syria fired missiles at its jets on a mission to destroy a weapons convoy bound for Hezbollah."  Washpost


The deployment of this system will mark a turning point.  As I have written on SST many times Israel has been deterred since 2006 from attacks on the Tabouleh Line -2 (Hizbullah missile and rocket systems).  This system plus Iron Dome may change that calculus altogether and Israel may become a great deal more aggressive not only in Lebanon but over Syria as well while  looking to demonstrate the cost of any resistance to Israeli military power and political hegemony.  pl 





This entry was posted in Israel, Lebanon, Syria, weapons. Bookmark the permalink.

68 Responses to David’s Sling, Iron Dome and Israeli Hegemony

  1. Pundita says:


  2. A.Pols says:

    Eventually they will lose their sponsorship and they will be all alone.
    Not this year or next, but eventually.
    They are now at the stage where it’s “the end of the beginning”.

  3. J says:

    Seems that Israel’s memory is that of a fast food junkie, short and empty.
    So soon how Israel forgets Putin’s stern warning back in late January to both Israel and Saudi that Russia is prepared to and will USE Tactical Nukes in response to the invasion of Syria.
    IMO our POTUS Trump needs to think long and hard about re-sending in U.S./NATO Troops into the Mideast/Syrian quagmire. Neither Israel or the Mideast is worth the loss of American lives. If the Europeans (NATO) want to be stupid, that’s their problem, not our U.S. problem. We can’t be the world policeman, the price is too high.

  4. It seems to me there is a real possibility that Hezbollah’s missiles could have become a lot more active since the last round. If that is the case, Israel may be starting something it’ll end up wishing it hadn’t.

  5. Willybilly says:

    The Tabbouleh-003 has many tricks up its sleeves as well…. and saturation is only one such tactic, let them come, they will be turned into Kafta

  6. VietnamVet says:

    Like most things, unpleasantries are skirted around in order to get along. No more so than in Syria. The hubris that governments can be dismantled without any blowback is the foundation of the neo-liberal-con ideology although this is never mentioned by corporate media. The question is how to get the new world order policies associated with their consequences. American support of Israel and Saudi Arabia has resulted in flows of refugees into Europe that will destroy the Atlantic Alliance just as surely as a Third World War with Russia.
    The great game in Syria remains to keep the Shiite Crescent cut and attrite Hezbollah plus war profiteering. Is Israel willing to gamble that their missile shield is 100% effective? Volunteer wars have a history of going bad.

  7. Frank says:

    I can’t remember the exact figures but there are some statistics out there comparing rockets launched and resulting deaths before Iron Dome was implemented and after. Essentially from a statistical standpoint Iron Dome did absolutely nothing.
    I can’t speak for the other systems, but in my opinion Iron Dome is there to give Israelis the illusion of protection. It’s easier to convince more squatters to come live there when you can “promise” their safety.

  8. Norbert M Salamon says:

    Iron Dome was reported to be 5% efficient in the last “war”. A few David’s Sling is not going to make any major impact versus the 50000 or so Hezbollah rockets and/or missiles.

  9. DavidKNZ says:

    There is some suggestion the ‘Iron Dome’ may not be as effective as claimed:
    Naturally this report attracted vehement criticism, particularly by those seeking further funding. However the author, Professor Theodore Postol is technically competent, so the matter may well be settled in the sky.
    “Everyone has a plan ’till they get punched in the mouth.” – Mike Tyson

  10. Sam Peralta says:

    Col. Lang
    I believe you are spot on and that Bibi and the Likudniks that run Israel will feel emboldened or be pushed into acting by their own extreme domestic politics.
    Russia and the US will face their own acid test as a consequence.
    Will Russia allow Israel to act with impunity in Syria? If they do that, saying that it will not interfere in Israeli/Hezbollah/Iran/Syria/Lebanon conflict, then it is likely it will escalate and cause deep divisions among the R+6. And that may prompt Nasrallah with Iranian instigation to test these Israeli missile defense systems. Russia then may be forced to take a stand?
    The test for the US will come if an IAF aircraft get’s shot down by either a Russian or Syrian missile OR if the conflict with Hezbollah escalates to the point that Hezbollah fires rockets/missiles into Israel. How will President Trump respond when our media, the establishment of both parties and our neocons go hysterical?

  11. b says:

    While Israel may feel protected with these systems they all have significant systematic and technical deficiencies.
    1. Their number is limited and they can be overwhelmed by volleys. Hizb has a huge arsenal of missiles and demonstrated at the end of the 2006 war that it can fire hundreds in a volley. (August 14 2006 250 missiles within an hour or so)
    2. The cost for a missile defense projectile is far higher than the cost of the missile it defends against. The monetary disadvantage for the defender is very significant.
    3. Missiles which change their trajectory in flight make these unpredictable and very difficult to hit. Modern electronics make trajectory changing capabilities relatively easy to implement.
    4. Missile defense currently depends on active radars and favorable weather. The radars can be detected and hit themselves. The weather can change suddenly (sandstorms in Saudi Arabia currently open a window for Houthi missile attacks.)
    My guess is that Israel would not attack Russian forces.
    If it would attack Hizbullah it would soon learn that the protection of its missile defense system is more porous than anticipated. The strategic advantage it gives may soon turn out to be nil.

  12. Eliot says:

    Col. Lang,
    Has the science changed? These systems generally have a low success rate, no?
    – Eliot

  13. walrus says:

    I would imagine that if Israel is prudent, it will mount a series of “test” operations to provoke a limited response from its targets.
    Wouldn’t it demonstrate extreme chutzpah to rely on an unproven system?

  14. Stumpy says:

    Is this the Trump effect? Is the USA finally deep enough in the pocket that Israel feels complete impunity? How many rounds can she go?

  15. turcopolier says:

    Yes. Performance is always less than wonderful. Look at Iron Dome. pl

  16. turcopolier says:

    Yes. These systems are limited in effectiveness but that does not mean that the Israelis will not persuade themselves otherwise and do something rash. Look at their fantasizing on the performance of Iron Dome. pl

  17. Thirdeye says:

    It’s kind of unclear to me how such a test would work. How could Israel predict the threshold of a Hizbullah missile response, and what the scale of such a response would be? Big risks!

  18. BraveNewWorld says:

    By some thing rash do you mean like trying to illegally annex a part of Lebanon? That should help get a war started.
    More war, war war. A lot of delusion in this article. Syrian industrial centre in the North? Northern Syria was stripped by the Turks of of any manufacturing technology. Syrian want to move new missiles built in the north to Lebanon and decide to do it by way of Palmyra? Lies Israelis like to tell themselves and others.
    Or things are quiet with Hamas so Israelis feel they need to start another war there.
    But remember this is ALL about Iranian aggression.

  19. Yeah, Right says:

    b: “Missiles which change their trajectory in flight make these unpredictable and very difficult to hit.”
    Not just “difficult to hit”.
    The economics of Israel’s missile defence relies on their ability to predict the fall-of-shot, so that a missile that is going to hit open ground is ignored and an interceptor is not wasted.
    But if missiles can change trajectory mid-flight then that all goes out the window – the Israelis will have to consider the possibility that a missile that is being ignored can suddenly jag towards a populated area, and by the time this change is detected it is too late to intercept.
    A game-changer indeed.

  20. Joe100 says:

    OT, but does anyone know why Larry Johnson’s blog has been down most of the day?

  21. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Not going to happen.

  22. Matt says:

    my apologies for cutting in but Larry Johnsons site/blog is now listed as unavailable in the UK,
    is this also the case in the USA?
    Sorry, the website http://www.noquarterusa.net cannot be found.

  23. FkDahl says:

    Postol did not make himself popular by undressing that silly man “Brown Moses” and his psyops site Bellingcat, regarding the Ghouta gas attack.

  24. Bandolero says:

    To me WaPo printing this piece after the problematic Israeli Palmyra raid looks more like Israeli whistling in the dark than Israeli assertiveness.
    The “less than wonderful” performance of missile defence is well known, and now, suddenly, not now, but already in April, next month, the performance of Israeli missile defence shall be wonderful?
    I doubt it.
    To me that report looks more like “we were very surprised our jets were on Syrian radars so they could fire back at us, and it wasn’t all wonderful for us in Israel and it isn’t now, but already next month, believe us, our technicians will have the ‘Wunderwaffe’ ready and it will be all wonderful again.”

  25. charly says:

    Missile system is meant for Hamas, not Hezbollah, and it works against Hamas. It also can stop a third party false flag launched from Lebanon assuming it is small and it forces Iran into follies if they want to hit Israel with rockets launched from Iran. All are big advantages for Israel. That it doesn’t work against Hezbollah is likely true but you can’t have everything

  26. eakens says:

    And who is going to bear the cost of firing wildly expensive missiles to shoot down what Hezbollah puts in the air?

  27. ToivoS says:

    The effectiveness of these anti-missile systems will have to be tested in a real war. So far they have not been tested. I have been following the story about the
    Russian (initially Soviet) anti-ship missile technology that has now been exported to China and Iran. Will that work? We won’t know until the US Navy is willing to put some of their warships within the range of those missiles and provoke either Russia, Iran or China. Will Aegis protect our navy? For some reason the US Navy is keeping its aircraft carrier fleets out of range. A good experiment would be to put one our carriers in the Baltic ocean and then try to expand NATO into Ukraine. That would be an interesting experiment.
    In any case we won’t know how any of these defensive missiles work until they are put under the test of real war. My guess is that hitting a slow moving ship will be much easier than hitting an incoming missile.

  28. TonyL says:

    I’d predict Israel will not test their missile defense system. All known missile defense systems can be countered with “low tech” decoys.
    Iron Dome, David’s Sling or Arrow loose their deterrence once it is known that those systems are really not as they are advertised.

  29. turcopolier says:

    David’s Sling appears to be an anti-ballistic missile system. So far as I know Hamas has none. pl

  30. turcopolier says:

    LJ has taken his site down. pl

  31. Cee says:

    He was under serious attack on AMJOY and now his site is down

  32. turcopolier says:

    Cee et al
    LJ made a rational decision about his site. Let him be. pl

  33. Cee says:

    So Israel continues to antagonize the globe, support ISIS and not pay attention to THIS.
    The Samson Option is near, one way or another.

  34. Poul says:

    Volleys are probably the best option to get some missiles through.
    As for changing trajectory that requires the technical expertise to produce solutions. Do Iran have that?
    Economically Israel should have no problems financing large numbers of anti-missiles. GDP is ca $300 billion & US military support is over $3 billion per year.
    30,000 Iron Dome missiles run at ca $1.2 billion.
    3,000 missiles against medium and long-range fire could be about $3 mio per missile so about $9 billion for a short war.
    The real problem for Hezbollah is the economical loss Lebanon will sustain. I have no doubt Israel will mash infrastructure worth billions of dollars. So my take is that Israel will win a war in a purely monetary sense.
    The biggest problem for all of Israel’s Arab neighbours is that their economies sucks. They can’t finance a military which will be an actual treat.

  35. robt willmann says:

    The U.S. taxpayer.

  36. A.Pols says:

    What you say may be true as long as the implicitly assumed immutability of the United States continues, and it will in the proximate future.
    But in the longer term, what then?

  37. Babak Makkinejad says:

    I think the standard rhetorical answer to your question: “But in the longer term, what then?” is:
    “In longer term, we will all be dead.”
    In the longer term, outside of our own individual extinction, I should expect the wars Muslims to continue; certainly those rooted in Arabism.

  38. visitor says:

    The Dimona atomic power plant has been functioning for 53 years, which makes it a _very_ old piece of infrastructure.
    Reactors in other countries are typically graded for 40 years operations, and there are discussions to extend their operational life. Utility companies wish 20 years more, politicians are reluctant to authorize more than 10 years. At 53 years, Dimona has largely outlived a a normal prolongation, and is fast reaching its end in the most optimistic life-cycle scenario.
    The decommissioning of Dimona is bound to cost a little fortune — and it will be interesting to see whether the Israelis will try to force some other countries to disburse for the dismantling expenses.

  39. BraveNewWorld says:

    The Israelis are making plans to evacuate 1/4 million people if war breaks out because of the missile threat. So while they may be talking smack in public, behind the scenes they are planning for some thing quite different. As they should.
    On a different note. Netanyahu is saying that he still has cart blanche from Putin to shoot up Syria. Make of that what you will, I lost all trust in what Netanyahu had to say more than a decade ago.
    What I did find interesting from the same story are these two items.
    “Israel does not inform the Russian forces stationed in Syria ahead of attack there, out of fear for the Israeli pilots, according to an Israeli source.”
    How is de-confliction supposed to work if no one knows your coming?
    “Israel reportedly launched several attacks on targets in Syria in recent days, one of which on Friday nearly hit Russian troops stationed in the area. Less than 24 hours later Moscow summoned Israel’s ambassador to Russia, Gary Koren, to note its protest. Syria’s ambassador to the UN later said that Russia had changed its policy and no longer grants Israel freedom of action over Syrian skies.”
    Slowly the truth leaks out.

  40. Imagine says:

    I continue to be astounded that no one has done the accounting that supporting al Qaeda to take down Syria == millions of Syrian refugees == takedown of Europe == loss of customers and markets for American companies, and general disabling of the world economy.

  41. Imagine says:

    Iran was able to hack/bring down a U.S. drone, then reverse-engineer it, so yes, it can be safely assumed that they have capable engineers.

  42. Imagine says:

    I hypothesis the ethnic cleansing of Bedouin sheep-herders out of the Dimona desert and into motels has something to do with the reactor region flywheeling out of control. Perhaps groundwater problems? Or they just want to turn the desert into a military sanctuary?

  43. charly says:

    I was talking about Iron dome. But Hamas has short range ballistic missiles of the type that Hezbollah has.

  44. Keith Harbaugh says:

    I find myself incredibly saddened by the fact that,
    while Israel has been investing in plausibly effective antimissile systems vice its adversaries,
    the U.S., due to opposition from the left, has failed to make such systems the priority they deserve.
    So now, we are either

    • vulnerable to being nuked by N. Korea, or
    • must make a preemptive strike,
      with totally unpredictable effects on the South Koreans
      (I can just imagine how their political system would respond to N. Korea’s retaliation)
      and the Japanese?

    What an awful choice.
    Thanks a bunch, Dems, for your attacks on “Star Wars”.
    And the GOP for their insane wars in the Middle East that have gobbled up trillions that could have been far better invested.

  45. turcopolier says:

    Hamas has short range ballistic missiles? Do you have a citation for that? pl

  46. charly says:

    Iron Dome missiles are much smaller etc. than David’s sling so i doubt they will cost 40k a piece.

  47. DavidKNZ says:

    Actually, the best ‘short fused high exposive’ demolition on Bellingcat came from our very own Pat Laing
    A classic 😉 In case you missed it

  48. turcopolier says:

    This piece speaks of artillery rockets or homemade artillery rockets, not short range guided missiles. Good try. pl

  49. turcopolier says:

    This piece is by Patrick Armstrong, not by me. pl

  50. Babak Makkinejad says:

    I think it was Bill Clinton’s Administration that bears major responsibility for the stand-off with the denuclearized North Korea; he dragged his feet implementing the Agreed Framework, always hoping for the Cost-Free Implosion of the North Korean State.
    Trump & Republicans are coyly flirting with the same approach to JCPOA with Iran; very likely with the same final result.

  51. Peter AU says:

    From what I could make of the incident, Syria/Russia waited to be certain of Israeli intentions before firing the missiles. It seems the missiles caught up with them, near or over the Golan Heights, as they where running for home along the Jordanian border.

  52. Peter AU says:

    An article in Sputnik. Not sure if it has relevance, but the timing…
    …The participants will conduct hundreds of sorties in Israeli airspace, practicing ground attacks on moving and stationary targets, maneuvering from shoulder-launched missiles, surface-to-air batteries as well as practicing air-to-air battles….

  53. Poul says:

    The $40,000 per missile is from Wikipedia’s page on Iron Dome.

  54. Poul says:

    The David’s Sling missile is about $1 million per missile. I couldn’t find a price for the Arrow missile so I took the price tag for a PAC-3 missile which comes in at about $3 million. Extra features can add another million to the price.

  55. confusedponderer says:

    as for the US “vulnerable to being nuked”
    That isn’t new. The US are vulnerable to being nuked ever since the soviets had produced nukes in quantity and armed their bombers with them in, iirc since the 1950s.
    As vis a vis Rusia, in their ICBM in shelters and on submarines, not to mention their aircraft, the US does have a devastating retaliation capability and that could also be used against north korea.
    Also, the US have missile defence systems on their AEGIS ships and on ground – which to use the US will probably try.
    That said, the south koreans live under the threat of NOKi nukes for a while now, and though they likely don’t like this, they had time to get used to it.
    If the sick minded VX (a particularly cruel weapon) fan Kim Yong Ill came to the idea to nuke the US he would likely face US retaliation and the devastation of north korea.
    If Kim Yong Ill was half smart (which sadly, he isn’t), he would notice that after a stunt like nuking the US he’d have to live in bunkers for the rest of his life if he values his life or his country.
    If after attacking the US with nukes ever he went out to get some sun, he would risk being fried, be it by a direct US retaliation attack or rest radiation of an already done US retaliation.
    “with totally unpredictable effects on the South Koreans”
    I can’t wiev into the future, but the south koreans are notably tough. They have politically survived north korean funs like attempts to kill south korean state leaders.
    That said, when having his half brother Kim Jong Nam murdered with VX, Kim Jong Il has underlined that he is a murderous cold killer and psychopath. That is what to be afraid of, not the question whether he has nukes. He can kill a lot of people without having to use nukes. The threat is that NOKi leader Kim Jong Il has a tendency to do or try murder.
    To be sober, NOKis – and that means Kim Jong Il – do have nukes since 9 October 2006, not just since yesterday.
    As bad as that is that Kim Jong Il has his folks doing research on longer range missiles to fire them.
    What south koreans are probably rather justified afraid of is not so much NOKi nukes but the huge numbers of NOKi conventional artillery set up in range of Seoul. Their use in a conventional war would be quite deadly for south korea. NOKis using them would make Seoul largely uninhabitable and cause large numbers of loses among south korean civilian bystanders.

  56. Yeah, Right says:

    Poul: “As for changing trajectory that requires the technical expertise to produce solutions. Do Iran have that?”
    These are not guided munitions. They can be aimed at a target, sure, but once fired the aim is either true or it isn’t.
    The accuracy of such rockets is not terribly high – left to their own devices the vast majority are going to miss. The Arrow system actually relies on that by plotting the straight-line trajectory and ignoring anything that is headed towards open-desert.
    So all Iranians need to do is to stop welding the fins to the body and mount them on a hinge instead, and then change the angle of those fins mid-flight.
    The change in direction can be utterly random.
    But that doesn’t really matter i.e. some changes will take the missile further away from the intended target but, hey, it was going to miss anyway. But some changes will send the missile heading back towards what it was originally aimed at, and the important thing is that the Israelis won’t be able to predict if it will be the former or the latter.
    So the Israelis will have to assume that any mid-course change poses the risk of OMG-it’s-heading-right-at-me!!! Which means they simply won’t be able to ignore a lot of missiles that they can currently simply shrug away.
    A simple hinge on the fin, a simple clockwork mechanism will probably be enough, and that’s not going to challenge any engineer, Farsi-speaker or otherwise.

  57. Cee says:

    Col. Lang,
    I agree. I haven’t posted on his site in years but only did to alert him to the MSNBC outrageous untruths about him.
    Those people are so wedded to this anti-Trump and Ruusian hysteria they are shameless.

  58. LeaNder says:

    I am so pleased you are back, confusedponderer. You may have realized we were a bit worried in the larger SST community. Now considering this response, I hope the doubts that it is really you will be put to rest. 😉
    As you recently realized times have been pretty rough on this blog lately. At least they felt more so then in earlier years. …

  59. turcopolier says:

    not sure what that means. pl

  60. Babak Makkinejad says:

    I think that the nuclear weapons of North Korea obviates the military burden on that state; it is a very cost-effective way of maintaining Peace on the Korean Peninsula.
    In regards to the unfortunate death of Kim Jong Nam, I have not seen any evidence yet that North Korea has been implicated.
    Globally, it seems to me, that there are a precious sovereign states that go their own way – regardless of the cost – and then there are those that orbit around the United States quite willingly, I might add.
    North Korea is among the former, just like Iran, Russia and a few others.

  61. LeaNder says:

    KH, not that it really matters, but we weren’t too pleased of Reagan’s Star Wars challenge over here.
    Irony Alert: Not so aware of the context of proxy wars or maybe much too vaguely, I lived quite comfortably with the “balance of power”. It seemed to guarantee that ‘vulture capitalism’ combined with the not convincing ‘trickle down theories’ could not succeed to the extend, it felt, it would if this balance didn’t exist. To start with.
    Now would this be borderline Anti-Americanism?
    To what extend Clinton’s ‘it’s the economy stupid’ and ‘bank deregulation’ may have triggered 2008 is quite another question.

  62. Keith Harbaugh says:

    as for the US “vulnerable to being nuked”
    That isn’t new.

    You left out the quite explicit qualifier in the assertion to which you are responding.
    As is VERY well known, the Kim regime in N. Korea is of a quite different type from the USSR leadership.
    For them, MAD was an adequate deterrent to Armageddon.
    For the Kim regime, I have zero confidence that MAD would be equally effective as a deterrent.
    As to the South Koreans, yes, they have resisted the aggressions and provocations from their northern kin.
    But in the scenario I postulated, a new calculus would be in play.
    If the U.S. should preemptively take action to eliminate the North Korean threat to the U.S.,
    the North Koreans could respond by punishing the South Koreans and/or the Japanese.
    In effect, both South Korea and Japan are being held hostage by the North Koreans.
    How would the South Koreans respond to being punished for an act by the U.S.?
    The possibility is that that would strengthen the “peace movement” in South Korea,
    arguing for unification of the Korean peninsula,
    even under Kim leadership.
    Would a rational Kim attack the U.S.?
    Not by most people’s standards of rationality.
    But then if Kim were rational, why would he be spending his countries resources on nukes, ballistic missiles, and cyber warfare,
    rather than using those resources to make a better life for his people?

  63. BraveNewWorld says:

    This was posted in the The Times Of Israel. I’m not sure what to make of it. Over the years I have found the Times to be the least hyperbolic and most likely to be right of the English Israeli papers. But they are quoting “the Lebanese newspaper Al-Diyar” which I know nothing about. If it is true, it truly is a game changer with all kinds of implications. The fact that the report says the Russians delivered the message would have to mean the Russians are on board. Is it a bluff? The Russians aren’t really big on bluffs.
    If it isn’t true then why is the Times posting it? They would have a pretty good idea of the quality of the “Al-Diyars” reporting. All Israeli news articles have to be cleared by the IDF and they didn’t stop it or add a comment. Are the Israelis laying out an excuse for a major attack on Syria?
    “The Syrian leadership has sent messages to Israel warning that any further strikes by the IDF on targets within Syria’s borders would be met with Scud rockets fired deep into the Jewish state, the Lebanese newspaper Al-Diyar reported Saturday.”
    “The Assad regime conveyed the message to Israel via Russian mediators, the report said.”

  64. Thomas says:

    It is a message conveying the facts of life, last warning because next time is a response.
    The IDF censors are fulfilling their responsibility to inform the public that if the current civil leadership continues doing stupid shtz all of us are going to suffer for it.

  65. Keith Harbaugh says:

    R. James Woolsey and Dr. Peter Vincent Pry
    have written an article which provides vivid description of the threat from N. Korea.
    Their article begins with

    The mainstream media, and some officials who should know better, continue to allege North Korea does not yet have capability to deliver on its repeated threats to strike the U.S. with nuclear weapons. False reassurance is given to the American people that North Korea has not “demonstrated” that it can miniaturize a nuclear warhead small enough for missile delivery, or build a reentry vehicle for an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of penetrating the atmosphere to blast a U.S. city.

    and concludes with

    Why do the press and public officials ignore or under-report these facts? Perhaps no administration wants to acknowledge that North Korea is an existential threat on their watch.

    Beef up national missile defenses. Revive President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), the unfairly derided “Star Wars.” Space-based missile defenses could still render nuclear missiles obsolete and offer a permanent, peaceful, solution to problems like North Korea.

  66. Ryan says:

    If the Iron Dome fails, the amount of death in hezballah and Syria will be server as Isral will need to mount an offensive Rather than a defensive attack

  67. turcopolier says:

    What is a “defensive attack?” In 2006 the IDF ground forces tried to overrun the launch points and failed. Was that a “defensive attack?” I may be wrong but i have been under the impression that Iron Dome is not effective against ballistic missiles. pl

Comments are closed.