Did Israel Intercept Any Iranian Missiles?

The available evidence indicates that most of Iran's missiles got through.

Something has been bothering me. Almost every reporter and Israeli official says that Israel intercepted most of the 180 missiles Iran fired at three Israeli military bases October 1. If that were true, then you would expect to see dozens of large explosions in the air as the Israeli Arrow 2 or Arrow 3 interceptors found their targets and destroyed the incoming warheads.

But that is not what you see. Dozens of videos show scores of missiles streaking across the sky with many hitting the ground and exploding in fireballs. There are numerous reports of substantial ground damage, including large craters, damaged buildings and at least one intact ballistic missile that failed to explode.

It appears that the Iranian missiles were so inaccurate that most landed a kilometer or more from their intended targets, with some landing in the sea or in vacant land. The Washington Post reports, in one of the few attempts to independently assess the damage, that, “Video recorded from the southern town of Ar’arat an-Naqab on Tuesday showed at least 20 projectiles flying through the air above the Nevatim military air base. At least six missiles hit the facility, erupting into fireballs; plumes of smoke rose from the airfield. No aircraft was hit, the Israel Defense Forces told Israeli media.”

What I see in the videos are scores of Iranian missiles incoming, numerous ground explosions and some missiles burning at they come down — likely because they tumbled as they re-entered the atmosphere or had their fuselages hit by interceptors in what military officials call a “mission kill” because it will knock the missile off target even if it doesn’t destroy the warhead. I see some Israeli interceptors streaking up but burning out without hitting their targets, some interceptors exploding near targets and a couple of interceptors that appear to score direct hits.

Israeli officials now acknowledge damage to the air bases, according to The Times of Israel. “The Israeli military on Wednesday acknowledged that some of its airbases were hit…but stressed that no harm was caused to the functioning of the Israeli Air Force,” reports the Times, “The missile impacts damaged office buildings and other maintenance areas in the bases, according to the military.”

To its credit, the Pentagon says that it fired a dozen interceptors at the Iranian missiles, but does not claim that they hit any. At a briefing on October 1, Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder said U.S. ships “supported the defense of Israel by firing approximately a dozen interceptors against the incoming Iranian missiles.”

When a reporter said “You said that the destroyer shot down Iranian missiles,” the general corrected him. “What I said was that they fired the interceptors towards those missiles,” he replied. The U.S. is still assessing whether any missiles were destroyed.

This situation is very similar to the more limited missile attacks on Israel in 1991. Officials, reporters and experts all rushed to praise the effectiveness of the Patriot missile system in destroying incoming Scuds fired by Iraq. Then-President Bush claimed after the war that the Patriot had intercepted 41 out of 42 Scuds. An extensive congressional investigation (which I staffed) found that the Patriots only hit between 0 and 4 of 45 Scuds fired. Observers mistook explosions in the sky as evidence of intercepts when it was often Patriots exploding near the targets, but missing them or hitting part of the missile but not destroying the warhead.

The Performance of the Patriot Missile in the Gulf War

Saddam Hussein’s Scuds, like the Iranian missiles used in Tuesdays attack, were inaccurate and most missed their targets. This lack of damage was taken as evidence of successful intercepts.

Similarly, in this video from the British Telegraph, you can clearly see (at the 1 minute and 50 second mark) missiles streaking in, interceptors flying up to meet them, but exploding behind or to the side of the missiles, which then continue to impact on the ground. The Arrow 2, like the original Patriot, uses a fragmentation warhead to try to destroy enemy missiles; it is not a hit-to-kill interceptor. Thus, explosions in the sky are an unreliable indicator of success.

Click here to play the video

Why is any of this important? As Army officials told me at the time in an effort to get the Government Operations Committee to stop its investigation, “What’s most important is that the enemy believe our defenses work. That will deter them from attacking.”

There is something to that argument. The greater danger, however, is if national leaders commit troops to action under the mistaken impression that missile interceptors can protect against retaliatory enemy attacks. Israel may now launch a major assault on Iran, particularly vulnerable Iranian facilities involved in the enrichment of uranium, believing that it can defend against any Iranian ballistic missile response. That would be a grave error.

Israel was spared greater damage, it appears, because the Iranian missile were too inaccurate to hit discrete military targets. Most appear to have impacted a kilometer or more from the bases they intended to destroy. But in future attacks Iran could simple aim at Tel Aviv or other large cities. Or use larger, more accurate missiles. Iran could launch even larger barrages to further overwhelm defenses. Or use missiles with maneuvering warheads. "The (warheads) can maneuver a bit to complicate interceptor allocation, and maneuvering means they can strike with better accuracy to actually hit targets after they are through." says Jeffrey Lewis of the Middlebury Institute.

Malcolm Davis, a senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, warns, "If the Iranians launch another much larger attack, it is likely that more missiles will get through, particularly if ballistic missile attacks are coordinated with cruise missile and drone attacks," Davis said. "So I don't think we've seen the maximum scale of attack by any means."

Although many missile defense proponents are rushing to the airwaves to boost program budgets by claiming this week’s attack demonstrates the effectiveness of missile defenses, policy-makers would be foolish to believe such bombast.

Take a look at the videos. Await reliable ground damage assessments. Above all, don’t rush into new battles believing you have a reliable defense.

Finally, assertions by administration officials, including President Joe Biden and National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan that the Iranian attack was “defeated and ineffective” should be amended. The attack was, indeed, ineffective but it was by no means defeated.