Follow us on social

google cta
Donald Trump

Trump doubles down on wasteful American Iron Dome

Recreating the project on American soil would be hugely expensive and largely pointless

Analysis | QiOSK
google cta
google cta

Newly re-instated President Donald Trump floated the idea of an American “Iron Dome” missile defense system at last night’s Commander-in-Chief inaugural ball.

“We will again build the most powerful military the world has ever seen,” Trump proclaimed. “We're …doing the Iron Dome, all made in America. We're going to have a nice iron dome. We are going to protect us with the use of the Iron Dome.”

Trump’s called for the Dome elsewhere, saying last month at a rally in Phoenix that he will “direct [the] military to begin construction of the great Iron Dome missile defense shield, which will be made all in the USA.”

While Trump has not provided any specifics, an American Iron Dome would presumably be modeled on the operational Israeli “Iron Dome” missile defense system, which intercepts and eliminates incoming projectile threats with missiles. Notably, American taxpayers have already contributed substantively to the Israeli project, with almost $3 billion towards its production, equipment, and maintenance since 2011.

But Israel’s Iron Dome, where missiles must be able to hit projectiles anywhere in Israel’s air space, is difficult to maintain and can be overwhelmed by volleys of intensive attacks. And it’s extremely expensive: a singular Iron Dome missile costs about $50,000 to produce.

Considering the sheer size of the United States, applying the same project to American borders, if even possible, would be an extremely expensive endeavor. And considering the low risk of a substantive aerial attack to the United States, it’s a wasteful one.

What's more, Iron Dome's not properly equipped to take on long-range intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), the weapon most likely to be employed in an aerial attack.

"The most likely nuclear threat to the United States would be a long-range intercontinental ballistic missile which would travel at incredible speeds above the atmosphere and re-enter to hit target in the United States,” says William Hartung, a Senior Research Fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. “The Iron Dome system used by Israel has zero capability to intercept an ICBM. And efforts to build a system that can have spent tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars over the last 40 years — only to produce systems that can't pass a realistic test.”

“A crash program for Iron Dome will be great for arms contractors, but will do nothing to improve U.S. defenses," Hartung explains.

The U.S. military budget already sits at about $850 billion, a significant increase from the $700 billion budget from only three years ago. It’s high time to reconsider whether gargantuan military-might projects like Iron Dome are in our interest.


Top Image Credit: Donald Trump (White House photo)
google cta
Analysis | QiOSK
Dan Caine
Top photo credit: Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Air Force Gen. Dan Caine conduct a press briefing on Operation Epic Fury at the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., March 4, 2026. (DoW photo by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Alexander Kubitza)

Did Caine just announce the Morgenthau option for Iran?

QiOSK

Gen. Dan Caine’s formulation of American war aims in Iran is remarkable not because it is bellicose, but because it is strategically incoherent.

In a press conference Tuesday morning, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not describe a limited campaign to suppress missile fire, blunt Iran’s naval threat, or even impose a severe but bounded setback on Tehran’s coercive instruments. He described a campaign against Iran’s “military and industrial base” designed to prevent the regime from attacking Americans, U.S. interests, and regional partners “for years to come.” In an earlier briefing he put the objective similarly: to prevent Iran from projecting power outside its borders. Rather than the language of a discrete coercive operation, this describes a war against a state’s capacity to regenerate power.

keep readingShow less
Ilham Aliyev azerbaijan iran
Top photo credit: Azerbaijan president Ilham Aliyev visited Embassy of Islamic Republic of Iran, offered condolences over death of former President Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, in 2017. (Office of the President of Azerbaijan/public domain)

Neocons wanted an Azeri uprising against Iran. They didn't get it.

Middle East

With Iran resisting the U.S./Israeli onslaught for the second week, what was supposed to be a quick transition to a pro-U.S. regime following the decapitation strike that killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is fast turning into a quagmire. While the U.S. and Israel continue to sow mayhem on Tehran from the skies, the previously unthinkable option of sending ground troops to Iran is gaining ground.

First, an apparent plan was being hatched to employ Kurdish fighters to take on Tehran. Then, when drones, allegedly flying from Iran although Tehran denied it, struck the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic of Azerbaijan — hitting an airport terminal and a village school, and wounding four civilians — the stage appeared set for the opening of a northern front against Iran. Here was an alleged act of aggression from Iranian territory against Israel's closest partner in the South Caucasus. It offered the pretext to goad Azerbaijan into joining the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran.

keep readingShow less
Trump miami press conference iran
Top photo credit: Trump press conference on Iran, Miami, 3/9/26 (PBS screengrab)

Trump press conference reveals a man who wants out of war

QiOSK

Trump’s “all over the place” press conference at his Miami resort on Monday appears to have had two key objectives: a) Calm the markets by signalling the conflict may soon be over because it has been so "successful,” and b) Prepare the ground for Trump ending the war through a unilateral declaration of victory.

Though ending a war that never should have been started in the first place — rather than fighting it endlessly in the pursuit of an illusory victory as the U.S. did in Afghanistan — is the right move, it won’t be as easy as Trump appears to think.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.