The relatively short, but intense, Israel-Iran conflict ultimately illustrated the need for countries to possess an effective shield (air defense capabilities, i.e. IAMD, A2AD, BMD) as well as a mighty sword (ability to conduct precision strikes), as well as need for stockpiles so that these operations can be sustained for substantial periods of time.

Israel’s sophisticated air defense system (largely aided by the U.S.) and its use of deep precision strikes to neutralize high-value targets (HVTs) gave it the upper hand, but Iran’s constant barrage of ballistic missiles and drones (although largely intercepted and inaccurate in targeting) still managed to make impact within Israel, revealing a vulnerability in its defense and causing significant physical and psychological damage.

As the EU seeks to build its own defense and military capabilities, leaders should be taking notes on what just played out in the Middle East.

Precision Strikes and Resilient, but Saturated, Defense Systems

On June 13, 2025, Israeli launched a large-scale offensive against Iran’s nuclear program and military assets. President Benjamin Netanyahu justified the attacks claiming that Iran was close to developing a nuclear weapon threatening “Israel’s survival.” The initial wave of strikes hit Iran’s air defense installations and surface-to-air missile batteries, paving the way for future attacks. By the end of the conflict, Israeli precision strikes had killed 11 nuclear scientists, 30 senior security officials, destroyed around 800-1,000 Iranian missiles and hit 900 military sites. While most of Israel’s strikes were precise, out of the 1,100 people killed, 440 were civilians.

Iran first responded on the night of June 13 by launching a barrage of 150 ballistic missiles at Israel. In total, Iran used an estimated 370-550 ballistic missiles and over 1,000 drones. The Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) says about 50 of these drones made impact, killing 29 people, injuring some 3,000 others, and causing billions in damage as apartment buildings, military sites and parts of the power grid were hit. While about 86% of the ballistic missiles were intercepted, Le Monde reports illustrate the psychological impact in Israel at the start of the conflict: “The streets are empty, the faces anxious, the stores, schools, and businesses shuttered. Since the start of a new war with Iran on June 13, the country has ground to a halt once again.”

Iran’s drones were easily intercepted, showing that their role is essentially to saturate air defense systems rather than to directly hit HVTs. For this latter purpose, ballistic missiles also showed their limitations: many were lacking in precision, with some falling a few hundred meters from strategic targets. This seems surprising considering Iran’s arsenal also includes cruise missiles such as the Soumar and the Hoveyzeh that have precision targeting, the ability to change trajectory, and low flight paths that make them harder to detect. This suggests the possibility that Iran chose to save its more sophisticated weapons in case things escalated further or for future deterrence and negotiation purposes.

Iran’s assaults had some success in overextending sophisticated Israeli defenses, a multi-layered air and missile defense system consisting of Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and the Barak and Arrow systems – all assisted by two US Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) batteries. Each intercepted drone or missile requires an interceptor, meaning that Israel (and the U.S.) are forced to burn through their stockpiles. Bilal Saab and Darren White from War on the Rocks observe that, “The Israeli defense grid experienced signs of fatigue. Batteries had to be rotated and reloaded at an unsustainable pace, underscoring the need for scalable and autonomous missile defense systems.”

The United States officially entered the conflict on June 22 with Operation Midnight Hammer, when it dispatched seven B-2 Spirit bombers to drop 14 bunker-buster bombs on Iranian nuclear infrastructure. Although the exact impact on Iran’s nuclear capabilities is disputed, a ceasefire between Israel and Iran announced by President Trump came into effect on June 24.

Lessons for Europe

European leaders were largely sidelined during the conflict, but they should focus on what insights Europe can gain from the war about its own security. Europe has been fixated on the Ukraine war, but this Middle Eastern conflict was illuminating in terms of demonstrating the need for countries to possess not only effective air defense systems (the shield), but also complete and complementary deep precision strike capabilities (the sword) able to identify and hit HVTs from air, land or sea. Without advanced capabilities to neutralize missile systems within Iranian territory in the early phase, Israel’s anti-missile defense system (amongst the world’s most advanced) could have been overwhelmed by the sheer volume of Iran’s attacks.

A few months before Israel attacked Iran, the EU published the European Defence – Readiness 2030 whitepaper outlining key priorities for EU security, notably emphasizing the need to limit reliance on the U.S. The whitepaper identifies seven priority defense capabilities that must be further developed. Reflective of what later played out between Israel and Iran, capability priorities include “air and missile defense” and “artillery systems” with “long-range missile systems designed to deliver precise, long-range attacks against land targets (deep precision strike).”

Europe is now coming to terms with the reality that US priorities lie elsewhere (Israel, China) and there is now a push for Europe to develop such capabilities among companies from EU member states (including the UK). European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has declared, “We must buy more European. Because that means strengthening the European defense, technological and industrial base.”

Though some EU countries seem to still be attracted to North American products like the Patriot for a few and the Tomahawk for others, European industry offers solutions for a growing number of needs.

For example, European air and missile defense could be further developed based on the SAMP/T NG and CAMM air defense systems. European missiles capable of carrying out deep precision strikes already exist, notably the Franco-British Storm Shadow (SCALP in France) air-launched cruise missile, ideal for day or night high-precision attacks against stationary targets such as buildings and bunkers and whose effectiveness has been proven repeatedly in Ukraine against Russian docked naval vessels. There is also the German-Swedish KEPD-350 Taurus, a yet-to-be-battlefield tested air-to-surface cruise missile. MBDA’s Land Cruise Missile, a subsonic and long-range (1000 km+) missile, based on the combat-proven Missile de Croisiere Naval will also soon be available (target of 2028) through the European Long-Range Strike Approach (ELSA) initiative involving France, Germany, Italy, and Poland, with the UK and Sweden.

But production needs to be ramped up. Developing the industrial capacity needed to accelerate production times and increase stocks, securing financial resources and government orders for products that ensure real long-term autonomous action – these are the priorities that a careful reading of events in the Middle East, but also between India and Pakistan, suggests to policy makers.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author(s) alone and do not necessarily reflect those of Geopoliticalmonitor.com.