This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/06/iron-dome-israel-gaza-defence-usa

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Does Israel’s US-funded Iron Dome make the world safer? Does Israel’s US-funded Iron Dome make the world safer?
(about 2 hours later)
Throughout the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, Israel’s Iron Dome defence system has received extensive coverage in the international media. It may be an Israeli defence system, but the United States provides significant financial support for the project, and has just approved an additional $225m (£133m) towards it. By funding, developing and deploying anti-missile shields, the United States claims that it is not just protecting its allies but also strengthening stability and disincentivising the use of force. But if that’s the case, why has Iron Dome not prevented Israel’s government from sending troops into Gaza?Throughout the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, Israel’s Iron Dome defence system has received extensive coverage in the international media. It may be an Israeli defence system, but the United States provides significant financial support for the project, and has just approved an additional $225m (£133m) towards it. By funding, developing and deploying anti-missile shields, the United States claims that it is not just protecting its allies but also strengthening stability and disincentivising the use of force. But if that’s the case, why has Iron Dome not prevented Israel’s government from sending troops into Gaza?
On the face of it, Israel’s operation against Hamas has demonstrated that the logic behind this policy is faulty. Iron Dome has reportedly intercepted close to 90% of Hamas rockets fired into Israel’s residential areas – yet Israel still sent forces into Gaza. However, the reality is rather more complex. Israel’s ground offensive into Gaza was sparked by attacks from Hamas tunnels, which have posed a more serious threat to southern Israel than the rockets that have been devalued by the defence system.On the face of it, Israel’s operation against Hamas has demonstrated that the logic behind this policy is faulty. Iron Dome has reportedly intercepted close to 90% of Hamas rockets fired into Israel’s residential areas – yet Israel still sent forces into Gaza. However, the reality is rather more complex. Israel’s ground offensive into Gaza was sparked by attacks from Hamas tunnels, which have posed a more serious threat to southern Israel than the rockets that have been devalued by the defence system.
Without Iron Dome, the ground invasion would surely have happened much earlier. In November 2012, Hamas launched a series of rocket attacks against Israeli population centres, but the successful performance of Iron Dome meant that there was no need for a ground offensive. The full extent of the threat of the tunnels to southern Israel had yet to materialise.Without Iron Dome, the ground invasion would surely have happened much earlier. In November 2012, Hamas launched a series of rocket attacks against Israeli population centres, but the successful performance of Iron Dome meant that there was no need for a ground offensive. The full extent of the threat of the tunnels to southern Israel had yet to materialise.
US missile defence policy has underlined that ballistic missiles are an attractive and inexpensive weapon for revisionist states and terrorist organisations. By providing its allies in the Middle East, Europe and east Asia with missile defence systems, the United States claims that it is giving them alternatives to pre-emption and retaliation, and widens the freedom of action for potential victims of attacks. Missile defence was always intended to address the threats from state actors rather than terrorist organisations. They are designed to dissuade an adversary from pursuing aggression against a potential victim state, since its missile threat will be devalued while the aggressor can still be exposed to punishment. Is it possible to deter an organisation such as Hamas with virtually no allies and possibly nothing to lose? It is more likely to work with a state like Iran, which would have a tremendous amount to lose if it were to directly attack Israel, the Gulf states or Europe.US missile defence policy has underlined that ballistic missiles are an attractive and inexpensive weapon for revisionist states and terrorist organisations. By providing its allies in the Middle East, Europe and east Asia with missile defence systems, the United States claims that it is giving them alternatives to pre-emption and retaliation, and widens the freedom of action for potential victims of attacks. Missile defence was always intended to address the threats from state actors rather than terrorist organisations. They are designed to dissuade an adversary from pursuing aggression against a potential victim state, since its missile threat will be devalued while the aggressor can still be exposed to punishment. Is it possible to deter an organisation such as Hamas with virtually no allies and possibly nothing to lose? It is more likely to work with a state like Iran, which would have a tremendous amount to lose if it were to directly attack Israel, the Gulf states or Europe.
Peppi DeBiaso, the director of the United States Office of Missile Defense Policy, has argued that the supply of US Patriot defence systems to Israel during the first Gulf war of 1991 had a stabilising effect. Notwithstanding the fact that the Patriots were not very successful in intercepting Iraqi Scud missiles, the suggestion is that they helped to persuade prime minister Yitzhak Shamir to keep Israel out of the US-led war against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.Peppi DeBiaso, the director of the United States Office of Missile Defense Policy, has argued that the supply of US Patriot defence systems to Israel during the first Gulf war of 1991 had a stabilising effect. Notwithstanding the fact that the Patriots were not very successful in intercepting Iraqi Scud missiles, the suggestion is that they helped to persuade prime minister Yitzhak Shamir to keep Israel out of the US-led war against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.
The reality is that US allies around the world are queuing up to obtain American missile defence systems. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Kuwait and Qatar have already purchased anti-missile shields from the United States, amid heightened concerns over the development of Iran’s nuclear programme. In Japan, the United States has deployed an x-band radar to defend the country from North Korea. Meanwhile, South Korea, directly threatened by North Korea next door, has expressed an interest in purchasing a version of Iron Dome. Poland, worried more by a resurgent Russia than Iran, is also a great admirer of the system. As far as these countries are concerned, the Iron Dome system is effective, and if it is working in Israel, it can work elsewhere.The reality is that US allies around the world are queuing up to obtain American missile defence systems. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Kuwait and Qatar have already purchased anti-missile shields from the United States, amid heightened concerns over the development of Iran’s nuclear programme. In Japan, the United States has deployed an x-band radar to defend the country from North Korea. Meanwhile, South Korea, directly threatened by North Korea next door, has expressed an interest in purchasing a version of Iron Dome. Poland, worried more by a resurgent Russia than Iran, is also a great admirer of the system. As far as these countries are concerned, the Iron Dome system is effective, and if it is working in Israel, it can work elsewhere.
The US missile defence policy appears to dovetail rather neatly with the Obama administration’s growing aversion to the use of military force as a means to solving problems. The idea is that if vulnerable US allies have effective defence systems, the reassurance they provide will mean that there is no need to carry out pre-emptive strikes against the source of the missile threat. This explains, to some degree, the Obama administration’s close co-operation with Israel on the development and funding of the Arrow-3 system, which is designed to deal with a potential, non-conventional threat from Iran. Israel successfully tested Arrow-3 in January 2014, and the system may be fielded by late 2015. Amid ongoing fears that Iran will soon be acquire a nuclear weapon, the Obama administration may be counting on its missile defences to avoid a pre-emptive strike against Tehran. The US missile defence policy appears to dovetail rather neatly with the Obama administration’s growing aversion to the use of military force as a means to solving problems. The idea is that if vulnerable US allies have effective defence systems, the reassurance they provide will mean that there is no need to carry out pre-emptive strikes against the source of the missile threat. This explains, to some degree, the Obama administration’s close co-operation with Israel on the development and funding of the Arrow-3 system, which is designed to deal with a potential, non-conventional threat from Iran. Israel successfully tested Arrow-3 in January 2014, and the system may be fielded by late 2015. Amid ongoing fears that Iran will soon acquire a nuclear weapon, the Obama administration may be counting on its missile defences to avoid a pre-emptive strike against Tehran.