Login
iscover
Amid the flurry of executive orders, US President Donald Trump has charged newly installed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth with developing a missile defence system for the US homeland, in the vein of Israel’s Iron Dome. But is that what they will end up getting?
There is no discounting the impressive success rate of Israel’s Iron Dome air and missile defence capability, which has been on prominent display in recent years, particularly following the 7 October attack and counter-offensive into Gaza and southern Lebanon.
Part of a collaborative development effort between Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and Israeli Aerospace Industries, with support from American prime Raytheon, the system was designed as a counter rocket, artillery and mortar (C-RAM) and integrated, short-range air defence system to protect Israeli population centres and sensitive locations from overwhelming mass attacks.
As a result, the success of the system has drawn the attention of US President Donald Trump who, throughout the 2024 presidential campaign, frequently cited his intention and ambition to develop and field an “Iron Dome” for the US homeland to secure the nation from conventional and nuclear missile attack.
However, it is the constant use of the “Iron Dome” moniker that has drawn the attention of analysts and commentators – resulting in a flurry of analysis seeking to highlight the lack of knowledge of the US President when it comes to military affairs – rather than viewing it as a descriptor, in the way all battleships pre-HMS Dreadnought (1906) were referred to as pre-Dreadnought battleships, and those after were referred to as “Dreadnought battleships”.
Nevertheless, this hasn’t dampened the President’s interest in developing such a system for the US homeland, with one of his latest executive orders charging the new defence Secretary and veteran, Pete Hegseth, with the responsibility for developing and fielding an American “Iron Dome”.
Highlighting the growing challenges posed by great power competition, the executive order stated, “The threat of attack by ballistic, hypersonic and cruise missiles, and other advanced aerial attacks, remains the most catastrophic threat facing the United States.”
Drawing historical precedent, President Trump’s executive order further stated, “President Ronald Reagan endeavoured to build an effective defence against nuclear attacks, and while this program resulted in many technological advances, it was cancelled before its goal could be realised. And since the United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 and initiated development of limited homeland missile defence, official United States homeland missile defence policy has remained only to stay ahead of rogue-nation threats and accidental or unauthorised missile launches.
“Over the past 40 years, rather than lessening, the threat from next-generation strategic weapons has become more intense and complex with the development by peer and near-peer adversaries of next-generation delivery systems and their own homeland integrated air and missile defence capabilities,” the executive order stated.
This provides important context for further analysis of the scale and scope of the “Iron Dome” system President Trump is seeking to establish and it becomes increasingly clear that the President has appropriated the name “Iron Dome” as an easily and broadly identifiable concept for the wider public to associate with, rather than an outright descriptor of the capability to be developed and fielded.
Bringing us conveniently to the details and pace set by the President to develop and field the capability, with the executive order establishing, “The United States will provide for the common defence of its citizens and the nation by deploying and maintaining a next-generation missile defence shield.”
Importantly, this feeds into an important component of America’s nuclear strategy, particularly the guarantee of a “second strike” capability, with the President’s executive order setting a cracking pace, calling for Secretary Hegseth to deliver “within 60 days” of the signing of the order “a reference architecture, capabilities-based requirements and an implementation plan for the next-generation missile defense shield”.
Going further, it becomes clear that a great deal of thought and complex threat analysis has been utilised to inform what is referred to as “minimum” architecture, including:
- An emphasis on the defence of the United States against ballistic, hypersonic, advanced cruise missiles and other next-generation aerial attacks from peer, near-peer, and rogue adversaries – the inclusion of peer and near-peer adversaries being an open recognition that the era of great power competition is well and truly front and centre of the second Trump administration.
- The acceleration of the deployment of the hypersonic and ballistic tracking space sensor layer, combined with the development and deployment of proliferated space-based interceptors capable of boost-phase intercept (drawing parallels to President Reagan’s Strategic Defence Initiative).
In order to maximise the efficacy of the detector layers, the detectors require a significant investment in critical kinetic and non-kinetic “effectors” across the land, sea and air domains to effectively defend against the identified and emerging threats.
The executive order stated the requirement to support the “development and deployment of a secure supply chain for all components with next-generation security and resilience features”, supporting the “development and deployment of non-kinetic capabilities to augment the kinetic defeat of ballistic, hypersonic, advanced cruise missiles and other next-generation aerial attacks”.
This combination of sensors and effectors is designed not only to protect the United States homeland, it is also designed to protect America’s land-based strategic arsenal, something that would be reinforced by continuous, evolving analysis of existing and future strategic missile threats, the executive order is at pains to articulate: “An updated assessment of the strategic missile threat to the homeland; and a prioritised set of locations to progressively defend against a countervalue attack by nuclear adversaries.”
President Trump’s executive order underscores a significant strategic pivot for the United States, aiming to deliver a comprehensive, resilient and layered national missile defence system, with interesting lessons for Australia’s own, stalled plans to develop a similar national integrated air and missile defence system.
While the appropriation of the “Iron Dome” moniker may invite criticism, it serves as a powerful symbol of the administration’s intent to convey the necessity and urgency of such an initiative to the American public.
The scope and ambition of the program – incorporating cutting-edge technologies like space-based interceptors, advanced kinetic and non-kinetic effectors and robust threat detection architectures – reflect a recognition of the increasingly complex threat environment posed by peer and near-peer adversaries.
As the administration accelerates efforts to conceptualise and field this next-generation defence shield, the initiative has the potential to reshape the United States’ strategic posture and reinforce its commitment to homeland defence in the age of great power competition.
Ultimately however, only time will reveal whether this ambitious endeavour can live up to its promise and secure the homeland against the multifaceted threats of the 21st century.
