Introduction

On 26 October, Israel launched a new wave of airstrikes on Iran, arguing that it was retaliating against military bases after ballistic missiles which Iran had fired at territory of Israel. It is the second direct attack on Israel that Iran has conducted in half a year, and that Israeli authorities are now portraying as justifiable, according to what the former call months-long Iranian aggression. According to reports, missiles were fired from several points, among which were Isfahan, Tabriz, Khuzestan, even Iraq. Iranian officials mentioned that attacks were a common operation: Palestinian fighters bombed the cities of Israel; Hezbollah attacked from Lebanon. The scenario played out on international media via television broadcasts when missiles fell on Israeli ground, hitting the mark just right when their defense systems were successful: intercepting a few incoming missiles using Arrow, David's Sling, and Iron Dome defense systems.

How did Iran punch through Israeli Airspace

At approximately 19:30 local time (16:30 GMT) on October 1, 2024, sirens blared across Israel, urging 10 million people to take cover in bomb shelters. The Israeli airspace was pierced as Iranian missiles managed to hit Tel Aviv. The damage was minimal, but the message was clear - Israeli airspace can be breached. 

Iran claimed that the attack was an act of ‘self-defense,’ carried out in response to the assassinations of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran on July 31, and the deaths of Hezbollah’s Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah and IRGC’s deputy commander Brigadier General Abbas Nilforoushan in strikes in Beirut on September 27. Nasrallah’s death has impacted Iran’s strategy, as he symbolized Iran’s resistance movement in the region and Nilforoushan was a key figure as well.  This attack was significantly different from the attack on April 13 when Iran launched drones and rockets on Israel, reportedly in response to an Israeli strike on an Iranian diplomatic facility in Syria. In an overnight assault, more than 300 were fired at Israel, with Israeli military reports stating that 99 percent of these were intercepted by Israel’s air defense systems and its allies.

This time, however, Iran significantly escalated its tactics. What changed from the previous attack? There are two main factors: first, the intensity of the attack was unpredictable. Pentagon spokesperson General Pat Ryder stated that the scale of the attack was “twice as large” as the attack in April. Second, the type of projectile used altered the nature of the attack. Tehran deployed ballistic missiles in October, which took approximately 12 minutes to reach their target, compared to the drones used in April, which took 9 hours. The speed of these lethal weapons shifted the advantage to Iran, while also maintaining an element of surprise and making interception difficult.

According to media reports, the operation named True Promise: II, executed under the codename “Oh Messenger of God!,” used ballistic missiles, some hypersonic in nature, displaying technological sophistication and strategic ambitions. Tehran used a total of 180 ballistic missiles which travelled more than 1000 miles and hit Israel’s most populated city and military sites such as Nevatim Air Base and Tel Nof Air Base which have high value assets of the Israeli military. Additionally, Hatzerim Air Base and Mossad headquarter in Tel Aviv was also hit. 

Hypersonic missiles present a significant technological challenge due to their speed, travelling at Mach 5 and above (around 6100 km/hour). The three key attributes of hypersonic missiles are speed, manoeuvrability, and accuracy. The Fatah missile, used for the first time, showcases Iran’s advanced missile capabilities. This missile is equipped with a hypersonic glide vehicle, which carries the warhead. Upon detachment, the glide vehicle allows the missile to maneuver and glide, evading interception. It has a range of 1,500 km. Unlike typical ballistic missiles, the Fatah can accelerate outside the atmosphere while its aerodynamic control surfaces enable it to evade Israel’s defence systems. This speed and the ability to change course in atmosphere and after re-entering made interception difficult. It uses an engine that collects oxygen from the atmosphere and combines it with hydrogen fuel for combustion, allowing hypersonic flight. These missiles are capable of changing their trajectory mid-flight. After detaching from the launcher, the glide vehicle’s multiple trajectory changes complicated interception efforts, confusing Israel’s Arrow missile defence system. This maneuver also helped bypass the David’s Sling and Iron Dome systems, which are not designed to counter hypersonic missiles.

Iran also used the Shahab-3 missile, which is the foundation of its medium-range ballistic missile arsenal, powered by liquid propellant. It carries a warhead weighing between 760 and 1,200 kg. The missile is launched at a 90-degree angle, with its trajectory taking it outside or near to the edge of Earth’s atmosphere. After covering a significant distance, the warhead separates from the single-stage rocket, re-enters the atmosphere, and descends toward its target. Depending on the variant, the missile can carry a single or multiple warheads. The most common Scud variant has a circular error of probability (CEP) of 300 to 450 metres, meaning that 50 percent of the missiles would land within this radius of the target.  This creates a considerable margin of error in the landing of its warheads. When multiple missiles, with single or multiple warheads are launched at a similar target, the variation in their impact points and volume can overwhelm the Iron Dome’s defense capabilities, making it challenging for the system to intercept every incoming missile effectively.  

Israeli Défense systems

Arguably the most talked-about Israeli defence system is the Iron Dome, a critical investment and a mobile but powerful short-range interceptor. However, it alone may not be enough against diverse attack methods. The missiles launched on October 1 came from several locations and utilized various tactics, including suicide drones, cruise missiles, as well as ballistic missiles. The attack was timed and thus slow-moving drones entered first, and an hour later, cruise missiles were launched.

Iron Dome is the bedrock of Israel's defense system, most effective against rockets fired by Hamas and Hezbollah. It rapidly targets close-range missile launches. The mobile nature of the Iron Dome units makes attackers unpredictable because every unit can shoot up to 20 missiles in a row. The main division of the system is into three entities: radar, command and control, and missile batteries. The radar delivers real-time detection of enemy missile launches, and subsequently, it relays this information to the remainder of the system concerning the approaching threats' speed and trajectory. Instead of such an intercept, which would necessitate dealing head-on with incoming missiles, the missiles of Iron Dome explode near the target, making them a form of proximity interceptor. Importantly, the system does not engage all incoming missiles but discriminately targets only those aimed at strategic sites, thus ensuring that resources are applied where they are most needed.

The other major component is David's Sling, with about three times the distance capability than Iron Dome. David's Sling missiles use a two-stage propulsion system. The first stage launches the missile initially and the second stage takes over, providing additional acceleration and guiding of the missile into the target. David's Sling, like the other Israeli missile defense systems, launches missiles in the upward direction, giving them much greater maneuverability and capability to change flight directions during mid-course. Unlike Iron Dome, which uses proximity interceptions, David's Sling deploys "hit-to-kill" interceptors. In this system, advanced sensors follow incoming threats, ensuring that the missile will hit its target head-on to maximize effectiveness.The highest operating altitude among all Israeli defence systems is that of Arrow 3. Additionally, it is also able to intercept missiles even coming from space. This system can change its direction in mid-air so that it can slam straight into incoming threats.

Still, these three systems together are not an all-inclusive outline of Israel's all-round defence strategy. Israel's defense is not only built around the devices of the country but on the aid of its allies to lower the aerial threats. According to some media reports, the US deployed two squadrons with F-15E fighter jets that could intercept the attack drones meant for Israel, while two U.S. Navy destroyers intercepted several ballistic missiles.

Conclusion

West Asia is on the brink of a full-blown war. One year of war raging in Gaza and diplomatic efforts have fallen short of a viable solution. Over the past seven months, a series of powerful military blows from both sides shook the region. Despite few tactical wins, Iran still lacks a strategy to stop Benjamin Netanyahu’s warpath and Israel’s retaliatory military strikes continue unabated. Iran’s decision to strike Israel was clear: to reassert its deterrence capabilities and reinforce the standing of the “axis of resistance.” Restraint in doing so was interpreted as vulnerability, making the cost of inaction too high.? Consequently, Iran faced the repercussions of the attack as recent Israeli airstrikes targeted Iranian military bases. De-escalation appears unlikely, as Iran signaled its preparedness to respond to any Israeli “aggression.” Reports from Tasnim news agency emphasized that “Israel will undoubtedly face a proportional response to any actions it undertakes.” After the strikes, the United States urged Iran to stop its actions against Israel to prevent further escalation. “We call on Iran to stop attacking Israel so this cycle of violence can end without intensifying,” said U.S. National Security Council spokesman Sean Savett. While Iran and Israel remain locked in a fierce standoff, the entire world waits with growing apprehension.

Tag words- Ballistic Missiles, Air Defense Systems, Iran-Israel Conflict, Strategic Deterrence, Military Tactics

Authors bio - Akankshya Ray is currently pursuing a master's degree in Conflict Analysis and Peacebuilding from the Nelson Mandela Centre for Peace and Conflict Resolution at Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. Akankshya holds a B.A. in Political Science (Honours) from the University of Delhi.

Mohammad Taha Ali is currently pursuing a Masters in Conflict Analysis and Peacebuilding at the Nelson Mandela Center for Peace Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia.