Follow us on social

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

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)
Analysis | QiOSK
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

keep readingShow less

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.