Iran’s evolving missile and drone strategy during its recent 12-day conflict with Israel successfully exploited vulnerabilities in one of the world’s most advanced air defense networks. Through trial and error, Tehran identified gaps in Israel’s multilayered defense systems, raising new questions about the limits of such technologies in modern warfare.

Iran’s Adaptation Through Conflict

TEL AVIV — Over the course of the 12-day war, Iran significantly adapted its missile and drone attacks, gradually learning how to bypass Israel’s formidable air defenses. Initial strikes saw only a small percentage of missiles getting through—about 8%—but by the war’s end, that figure had doubled to 16%, according to data from the Washington-based Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA).

Analysts said Iran shifted its tactics by launching from deeper within its territory, increasing the geographic diversity of launch sites, and altering the timing and sequencing of its barrages. Iran also began deploying smaller, more frequent waves of missiles during daylight hours rather than relying solely on large overnight strikes. This strategic shift exposed weaknesses in Israel’s interception coverage and forced Israeli defenses to stretch across a wider area.

“Iran successfully adapted how, when, and what it was firing,” said Ari Cicurel, associate director of foreign policy at JINSA. “Each change further complicated Israel’s ability to respond.”

Cracks in Israel’s Defense Shield

Despite Israel’s reputation for possessing one of the world’s most advanced missile defense networks—featuring the Iron Dome for short-range threats, David’s Sling for medium-range, and the Arrow 3 system for long-range and high-altitude intercepts—the war revealed the inherent limits of any air defense.

“Any missile system, even a sophisticated one like Israel’s, will leak eventually,” said Raphael Cohen, senior political scientist at the Rand Corporation. “The strength of such systems is in their cumulative effect, not perfection.”

Throughout the conflict, Israel’s military reported high interception rates of 90-95%, but after the June 24 ceasefire, it revised the overall success rate downward to 86%. Analysts pointed out that these figures do not differentiate between missiles intercepted, those allowed to strike unpopulated areas, or those that simply failed to reach Israeli airspace.

Iran’s use of advanced missiles like the hypersonic Fattah-1, capable of descending from the edge of space at speeds exceeding Mach 10 with maneuverable warheads designed to evade interception, presented particular challenges. These weapons required Israel’s most advanced systems—Arrow 3 and David’s Sling—to change trajectory mid-flight in attempts to intercept them.

Fragments of Fattah-1 missiles were found in at least two Israeli towns, underscoring the danger posed by Iran’s increasingly sophisticated arsenal.

Resource Strain and Strategic Implications

The conflict placed immense pressure on Israel’s defense resources. The high financial and logistical cost of interceptors forced Israel to prioritize which threats to engage. Experts noted that, as the war dragged on, Israel likely conserved interceptors for missiles posing the greatest threat to population centers and key infrastructure.

Israeli counterstrikes on Iranian launch sites prevented some of Tehran’s older, less accurate, and shorter-range missiles from being deployed. However, this strategy had the unintended effect of pushing Iran to utilize its more advanced weaponry earlier than anticipated.

The conflict highlighted a strategic dilemma for both nations: Israel’s air defenses, though advanced, are not impenetrable; Iran’s missile strategy, while adaptive, still faces significant technological hurdles in overwhelming those defenses consistently.

A Post-War Assessment

Both Israeli and Iranian officials have acknowledged the need to review their respective capabilities following the war. “We are both on a learning curve,” said missile defense expert Yehoshua Kalisky from Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies (INSS). “They’re trying to improve their attacks, and we, our defense.”

The war serves as a cautionary example for other nations reliant on advanced defense systems, including the United States, which has been developing its own “Golden Dome” project modeled after Israel’s defenses.

As modern conflicts increasingly feature complex missile and drone threats, the lessons from this conflict suggest that even the most technologically advanced defenses require constant evolution to remain effective.