Analysis: Iranian Missile Strike on Israel Reveals Capability for Greater Scale and Complexity

By Gerry Doyle

Experts have indicated that the recent Iranian ballistic missile assault on Israel was significantly larger, more sophisticated, and utilized advanced weaponry compared to the attacks that took place in April. This escalation has placed greater pressure on missile defense systems, resulting in an increased likelihood of warheads penetrating those defenses.

Although debris from the more than 180 missiles is still being collected and analyzed, preliminary assessments suggest that Iran deployed its Fattah-1 and Kheybarshekan missiles, both of which are reported to have a range of approximately 1,400 kilometers (870 miles).

Iran claims that these missiles feature maneuverable warheads, complicating defensive efforts, and utilize solid fuel, allowing for launches with minimal warning. Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, noted that the reduced preparation time for launching these missiles means they can arrive simultaneously, further straining defensive measures. He also mentioned that the maneuverability of the warheads enhances their accuracy and can complicate interceptor deployment strategies.

While some Fattah-1 missiles were involved in the April attacks, which were largely thwarted by U.S. and Israeli missile defenses, these older systems primarily relied on liquid-fueled Emad missiles that had a significant failure rate and lacked precision. In contrast, Iran asserts that its more advanced missiles possess a “circular error probable” of about 20 meters, meaning that half of the missiles targeted will fall within that distance of their objective. These missiles are considered to be “Iran’s most advanced ballistic missiles capable of reaching Israel,” according to Fabian Hinz, a research associate for defense and military affairs.

Footage from the recent attack appeared to show missile re-entry vehicles or fiery debris descending to the ground, with some intercepted by defense systems, including several at altitudes outside the earth’s atmosphere. The Pentagon reported that two U.S. Navy destroyers launched around a dozen interceptors in response to the Iranian missile barrage.

Ankit Panda from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace noted that drawing direct comparisons with the previous strikes would be challenging due to changes in both the weaponry used and the structure of the attacks and defenses. For instance, the April strikes involved slower-moving drones and cruise missiles, which afforded defenders more time for response.

Panda explained that the recent attack pattern appears different, likely reflecting a more depleted arsenal of Israeli Arrow interceptors and the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps opting for a larger deployment of advanced missiles.

Reports of damage from the recent attack have been sparse, with Israeli officials initially indicating there were no fatalities.

Malcolm Davis, a senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, cautioned that future attacks could be even more complex and involve a greater number of missiles. He warned that should Iran launch another large-scale assault, it is possible that more missiles would penetrate defenses, especially if these ballistic missile strikes are coordinated with drone and cruise missile attacks. He emphasized that the full extent of such attacks may still be forthcoming.