Iran’s missile attacks on Israel this year might look reckless on the surface, but they reflect a carefully calculated strategy that relies on one fundamental assumption: Israel’s defenses are good enough to prevent devastating outcomes. This is the fascinating paradox at the heart of the conflict between Iran and Israel. Despite Iran’s repeated, large-scale missile attacks, both countries have managed to avoid all-out war, largely because Israel’s missile defense system intercepts the vast majority of incoming threats. But what happens if this assumption of “safe” attacks ever fails? That’s the big question on the minds of military strategists watching this latest escalation unfold.
October 1, 2024, marked Iran’s second major missile barrage on Israel this year, sending between 180 and 200 ballistic missiles into Israeli airspace. This attack was not an isolated move but part of an escalating pattern. Back in April, Iran had launched over 120 ballistic missiles, alongside 30 cruise missiles and around 170 kamikaze drones. Iran’s strategy seemed clear: overwhelm Israel’s defenses by sheer numbers, forcing them to exhaust their costly interceptors, all while keeping the attacks just low-risk enough to avoid a severe counter-response. But with Israel retaliating on October 26 with an air raid involving over 100 aircraft, it’s clear the situation could escalate at any moment. That Israeli response targeted military bases but avoided strikes on Iran’s critical energy or nuclear sites, underscoring the fine line both sides walk to avoid a broader war.
So why does Iran keep launching these attacks if they’re consistently thwarted? It seems Iran’s leadership is betting on several factors to keep this pattern sustainable: they rely on the high failure rates of their own missiles, target relatively less populated areas, and assume Israel’s advanced defenses will take care of most of what does get through. There’s a calculated gamble here; Iran appears to bank on Israel’s ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems to minimize the attack’s impact while they save face politically and keep their image of strength intact.
Iran’s October barrage, which began shortly after 7 p.m. from sites up to 1,000 miles away, painted a surreal scene across Israel’s evening sky. Streaks of missile fire and interceptors traced arcs of light as they clashed, with some intercepted missiles detonating into fiery explosions above the atmosphere. This is high-stakes aerial choreography, with each side hoping the other’s defenses hold, and the consequences are relatively contained. The missiles damaged key Israeli air bases, and one even came close to Mossad headquarters in Tel Aviv, missing by less than half a mile. While the damage was extensive, only one death was reported: a Gazan Palestinian was hit by shrapnel, highlighting the tragic randomness of these intercepted missiles.
Israel’s defenses did their job, intercepting the “majority” of the missiles, though Iran’s media claimed that around 90 percent penetrated Israeli defenses. Among the missiles were conventional medium-range missiles and even the Fattah-1 hypersonic missile. Although Israel denies detecting hypersonic munitions, missile debris and launch images suggest otherwise. Iran likely finds some satisfaction in compelling Israel to use its expensive Arrow interceptors, adding to the drain on Israel’s defensive resources and setting up conditions for future, potentially more dangerous attacks.
Historically, ballistic missiles have been imprecise, high-cost weapons. Iran’s own ballistic missile program was born from the trauma of Iraq’s deadly ballistic attacks in the 1980s, which claimed thousands of Iranian lives. Despite technological advancements, even modern ballistic missiles retain a degree of unpredictability. During WWII, Nazi Germany’s V-2 ballistic missile campaign against London showed just how deadly these weapons could be, with one “lucky” strike on a cinema killing 567 people in a single hit. This grim history underscores that even if most missiles miss, it takes just one to cause catastrophic damage if it evades defenses.
Israel’s defense relies on a sophisticated, multi-layered BMD system, enhanced by American technology and regional alliances. The Arrow-2 and Arrow-3 interceptors are the backbone of this system, with help from long-range Green Pine radars that can detect missiles up to 560 miles away. Additionally, American naval ships in the area contribute their own missile defense capabilities, sometimes deploying SM-3 interceptors to neutralize threats. British Typhoon jets, too, assist by relaying radar tracking data to further support Israel’s defenses. Beyond technological shields, early warning systems play a vital role. On both occasions, U.S. intelligence provided Israel with crucial warnings, allowing civilians a window to take cover.
Yet Iran’s strategy is evolving. The April and October attacks showed Iran’s growing reliance on long-range missiles, a necessity given their inability to use traditional aircraft effectively. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), rather than the Iranian military, controls these missiles, pointing to a shift toward using ballistic missiles as a primary tool for deterrence and regional power projection. Following a 2020 U.S. drone strike that killed an Iranian general, Iran demonstrated its capabilities by targeting American bases in Iraq with over a dozen ballistic missiles. Though advance warning minimized U.S. casualties, the event proved Iran’s willingness to use these missiles against state-level targets.
Iran’s missile attacks on Israel are unique in that they’re deployed in a context of strategic brinkmanship rather than outright war. Other nations with missile capabilities, like North Korea and Russia, use ballistic missiles as threats but rarely employ them in active combat. Iran’s repeated attacks serve as a political statement, signaling its strength to allies and rivals alike while betting that Israel’s defenses will prevent any catastrophic escalation. Yet this approach is fraught with risk, especially as Iran pushes the envelope with weapons like the hypersonic-capable Fattah-1. If Iran eventually develops nuclear capabilities, these conventional attacks might be mistaken for nuclear strikes, raising the specter of a nuclear response from Israel.
This high-stakes game may ultimately backfire. For now, Iran appears to have drawn the wrong lesson from its “success” in avoiding massive retaliation. There’s a thin line between strategic provocation and pushing an adversary too far. Just one missile slipping through Israeli defenses to hit a densely populated area could rewrite the rules of engagement. While Israel’s BMD system has been a reliable shield, it’s not foolproof. The question remains: how long can both sides maintain this precarious balance before one miscalculation ignites a larger, more devastating conflict?
