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
Mbs-mbz-scaled
UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan receives Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the Presidential Airport in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates November 27, 2019. WAM/Handout via REUTERS

Is the US goading Arab states to join war against Iran?

QiOSK

On Sunday, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz told ABC News that Arab Gulf states may soon step up their involvement in the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. “I expect that you'll see additional diplomatic and possibly military action from them in the coming days and weeks,” Waltz said.

Then, on Monday morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) slammed Saudi Arabia for staying out of the war even as “Americans are dying and the U.S. is spending billions” of dollars to conduct regime change in Iran. “If you are not willing to use your military now, when are you willing to use it?” Graham asked. “Hopefully this changes soon. If not, consequences will follow.”

keep readingShow less
Why Tehran may have time on its side
Top image credit: Iranian army military personnel stand at attention under a banner featuring an image of an Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) during a military parade commemorating the anniversary of Army Day outside the Shrine of Iran's late leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the south of Tehran, Iran, on April 18, 2025. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)

Why Tehran may have time on its side

QiOSK

A provocative calculus by Anusar Farrouqui (“policytensor”) has been circulating on X and in more exhaustive form on the author’s Substack. It purports to demonstrate a sobering reality: in a high-intensity U.S.-Iran conflict, the United States may be unable to suppress Iranian drone production quickly enough to prevent a strategically consequential period of regional devastation.

The argument is framed through a quantitative lens, carrying the seductive appeal of mathematical precision. It arranges variables—such as U.S. sortie rates and degradation efficiency against Iranian repair cycles and rebuild speeds—to suggest a "sustainable firing rate." The implication is that Iran could maintain a persistent strike capability long enough to exhaust American political patience, forcing Washington toward a premature declaration of success or an unfavorable ceasefire.

keep readingShow less
Despite ban, pernicious military 'earmarks' are back in the billions
Top image credit: Roman Samborski via shutterstock.com
Popular YouTuber discovers how corrupt the Pentagon budget is

Despite ban, pernicious military 'earmarks' are back in the billions

Military Industrial Complex

A new report finds that lawmakers added nearly $34 billion to the Pentagon’s procurement and research accounts for FY2026, through 1,090 individual program increases, many of which the Defense Department did not even request funds for.

Although individual program increases are not earmarks, they serve a similar function. Formal earmarks themselves were temporarily banned in 2011 to curb lawmaker-driven runaway spending, then reintroduced in 2021 by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) as “Community Project Funding,” and “Congressionally Directed Spending (CDS)” in the House and Senate respectively — and subject to transparency requirements, where lawmakers must associate themselves with the earmarks they propose.

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.