The October 7, 2023, Hamas attack is seen as the spark for a much larger game—Netanyahu’s pursuit of a Greater Israel. As Tel Aviv’s Iron Dome fortifies its defense, it fuels bold, unchecked aggression across the region, pushing the Middle East closer to the brink, despite global outrage.

October 7, 2023, is precisely seen as a beginning of the end that might lead to the realization of the Jewish dream of having a Greater Israel. Hamas fighters initiated a war that was initially thought to be short-lived and limited, aiming to bring Israelis to their knees and create an environment for pro-Palestinian negotiations, amidst the domestic political turmoil inside Israel. 
Back in October 2023, Israel’s political stability was precarious and even the hardliner Jews inside Israel were demonstrating against the policies of Netanyahu that needed an immediate response by Tel Aviv. History tells us that the citizens of a state get united when there is a war and the element of statehood acts as bond, even between the divergent factions of the society. Netanyahu played smart and instigated Hamas fighters to initiate a war. Hamas fighters fell into Netanyahu trap, miscalculated, and are still paying the price for their initially limited aggression.
Now, after a year has passed, despite pressure from the international community on political, military, moral, and diplomatic fronts, Netanyahu has refused to comply with these demands and continues to use unprecedented heavy armament on civilian populations in Gaza, Syria, and Lebanon, resulting in approximately 45,000 innocent deaths, including more than half being women and children. Even pressure from the United States has yielded no results, as Netanyahu remains dismissive of all attempts to intervene. Netanyahu dismissed all pressures, even those from the United Nations (UN), which could not compel him to cease aggression. Instead, Tel Aviv has opted to expand its military actions beyond its borders, directly striking Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and a few locations in Egypt. This move is highly alarming and is seen as a potential flashpoint for the initiation of World War III if the superpowers choose to act directly or use proxies to protect their respective strategic interests in the oil and mineral-rich Middle Eastern region.
There could be many reasons behind Netanyahu’s dismissive approach towards ending the war in the Middle East. This article endeavors to analyze the much-discussed Israeli Iron Dome, which the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and Tel Aviv believe to be their savior against aggression—not only from aircraft but also from missiles, particularly those from Iran. While having absolute power is seen as the ultimate security insurance, it simultaneously encourages the ultra-rightist leadership to use war as a tool to achieve their strategic goals. Lord Acton, a 19th-century English nobleman and historian, famously stated, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This sentiment applies to Israel, which possesses ultimate conventional weapons alongside the Iron Dome defense system to counter aerial aggression. Although Tel Aviv does not officially confirm the possession of nuclear weapons, it is widely believed to have this capability, which remains undeclared.

Back in October 2023, Israel’s political stability was precarious and even the hardliner Jews inside Israel were demonstrating against the policies of Netanyahu that needed an immediate response by Tel Aviv.

To understand the reality behind the acquisition of advanced technological weapons, including the Iron Dome Defense System, it is imperative to gain insight into the arms control perspective as well. This understanding will help us grasp the motivations behind initiating conflicts, particularly by the Israelis. The proponents of arms control can be classified into three primary categories based on their preferred explanation for the causes of conflict. The first category comprises individuals who assert that conflict is instigated by influential entities, particularly the military-industrial complex, together with the diverse ideologies and cultural frameworks propagated by these entities. Israel perfectly fits in this category as a conflict seeking state which has all the said motivations for initiating conflict(s). The second category encompasses individuals who assert that war is instigated by specific types of weaponry, particularly those that facilitate first-strike advantages or establish circumstances of offensive supremacy. In this context also, Israeli Iron Dome Defense System is categorized as one such weapon system which incentivizes the Israeli leadership to initiate conflict with impunity, having an assured sense of security. 
Recent attacks by the IDF outside its borders, along with threatening statements directed at other states, support the argument that the Israeli Iron Dome is primarily used for aggression rather than for defensive purposes, as claimed and projected by Israel. The third and final category includes those who assert that conflict is instigated by specific types of actors—nations that are particularly aggressive, ideological, or revisionist. From this perspective, Israel certainly qualifies as a state that has expanded through war and has exhibited aggression since the beginning of its occupation of Palestinian lands, with the ideologies of Judaism and Zionism dominating its foreign, domestic, and defense policies.
Last but not least, Israel is, by all standards, a revisionist state that has extended its influence not only within its borders but also throughout the Middle Eastern region. A clear indication of this is Israel's flag, which features two blue stripes symbolizing its ambition to establish a "Greater Israel" from the River Nile to the River Euphrates. To achieve these goals, Israel has actively sought war to expand, viewing the status quo as untenable. Therefore, from an arms control perspective, it can be concluded that the IDF's advanced weapons, portrayed as "peaceful and defensive," are, in reality, instruments of aggression rather than genuine defense.
Now, here is the paradox: one state's security is perceived as a threat by neighboring state(s). This perception compels neighboring states to either prepare on equal terms or, if unable to balance power, to preempt in case of any misinterpretation. This is why it is often said that strategic miscalculations arise from the military buildup of one state in relation to others with intersecting strategic interests. In other words, conflict escalation originates from distinct, quantifiable threats that depend on the assessment of each specific danger. Therefore, while the Iron Dome provides a sense of security to Israeli settlements and military facilities, it also provokes the leadership of opponents like Hamas and Hezbollah to take risks and go on the offensive, especially under a fascist and hardline government. The Israeli Iron Dome serves as a testament to the argument that it has acted as a catalyst for escalating conflict in the Middle East.
The Iron Dome is analogous to the U.S. Patriot Missile System. Israel developed it with funding from the U.S. to safeguard civilians from the so-called missile assaults by Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. The Iron Dome became operational in 2011 and was first utilized during Operation Pillar of Defense in November 2012 and Operation Protective Edge in 2014, achieving success rates of 84 percent and 91 percent, respectively. Even during the current crisis, the Israeli government claims the Iron Dome has an interception rate of nearly 90 percent. Such success has emboldened Tel Aviv to openly threaten its neighbors with dire consequences, particularly against those who take political or diplomatic positions regarding its actions against Palestinians during the occupation of Palestinian land for Jewish settlements.
Israel's Iron Dome has faced criticism for disrupting strategic stability in the Middle East. However, a critical analysis of its deterrence value reveals a different story. The current escalation of conflict indicates that the Iron Dome has been unsuccessful in deterring or demoralizing fighters from Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, along with Iran’s open engagement with Israel. Instead, the Iron Dome has led to the further development of rockets and missiles, significantly increasing the number fired at Israel, resulting in more destruction and a ruthless Israeli response. Thus, the action-reaction dynamics in the Middle East demonstrate that no defense is impregnable. In summary, Israel’s claim that the Iron Dome provides significant missile defense capabilities must be accepted with caveats: first, the achievement incurs substantial strategic costs, and second, it is uncertain whether this success can endure against resilient opponents whose capabilities are advancing. Consequently, reliance on the system presents challenges in both the short and long term.
Having gone through the efficacy of the Iron Dome Defense System, it can be concluded that the Iron Dome has not played the desired role and, instead, has added to the miseries of Middle Eastern region. From the Israeli perspective, instead of protecting Israeli-occupied airspace and the population, the Iron Dome has failed to provide 100 percent security against short-range mortars and rockets with very low trajectories. Since its inception in 2011, the system has created a false sense of security for the Israeli rightist leadership, leading to an attitude of dismissiveness, self-centeredness, and arrogance, which has resulted in protracted skirmishes. However, if one examines the Jewish existence and expansion since World War II in the Holy Land of Palestine, it can be concluded that Israel has existed, expanded, and flourished in times of war. War supports Israel's larger agenda of establishing a Greater Israel. 
The argument that the Iron Dome has led to an increase in attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah and should not have been acquired does not align with Israeli policy. The more attacks on Israeli-occupied lands, the greater the moral authority Tel Aviv claims to erase Palestinians in the name of self-defense. Hence, it can be summarized that the Israeli Iron Dome Defense System is primarily for aggression, disguised as a defensive measure under its defensive-offensive approach to further expansion. World powers must account for Israel's destabilizing approach before it’s too late. If World War III is initiated due to Israel's offensive actions, it could signify the end of civilization as we know it.

The author is the Vice Chancellor and Dean of Humanities and Social Sciences at DHA Suffa University, Karachi.  
E-mail: [email protected].