The Israeli Air Force recently completed a series of high-intensity military drills designed to simulate sustained missile and drone attacks on its own bases—a stark reflection of growing fears in Tel Aviv that conflict with Iran may be imminent. These exercises, first reported by Israel’s Kann News, were conducted amid rising tensions and in anticipation of a potential Iranian retaliation to any Israeli preemptive strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.
The decision to focus these war games on defending key air bases such as Nevatim and Ramon—both previously targeted by Iran—marks a shift in Israel’s defense posture: from reactive to anticipatory, from regional containment to full strategic preparation. This is not merely a drill. It is a message. To Iran. To the world. And perhaps, most pressingly, to the Israeli public.
The Israeli military’s recent drills are best understood through the lens of what happened last year. In April and October 2024, Iran launched a combined total of more than 500 drones and ballistic missiles at Israeli military installations. The April attack followed the assassination of two senior Iranian generals in Damascus, an operation widely attributed to the Israeli Mossad.
The October attack came after a bold Israeli strike in Beirut, which killed Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, a cornerstone figure in Iran’s proxy network. That second strike marked a dangerous escalation: ballistic missiles rained down on Israeli air bases, aiming to destroy the very infrastructure needed for Israel’s own retaliatory or preemptive missions.
Though Israel’s Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow systems successfully intercepted the majority of incoming threats, the sheer volume of projectiles revealed potential cracks in the defensive armor. The question now is whether Israel is ready for a repeat—or something worse.
According to military sources cited by Kann News, the exercises simulated missile strikes and drone swarms targeting high-value installations. Units drilled for multi-wave attacks, assuming compromised runways, disrupted command chains, and degraded radar functionality.
Israeli Air Force officials also used the drills to test integration between air defense systems, and command and control structures, preparing for scenarios in which all branches—Air Force, Military Intelligence, Cyber, and the Home Front Command—must coordinate under sustained siege conditions.
These weren’t just drills. They were rehearsals for war.
At the heart of this regional tinderbox lies a decade-long concern: Iran’s nuclear program. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has confirmed that Tehran possesses enough enriched uranium for multiple nuclear warheads. Iran insists its ambitions are peaceful. Israel calls it an existential threat.
The two sides are locked in a high-stakes game. On one side, Iran, advancing technologically, backed increasingly by Russia and China, and emboldened by its ability to strike Israel directly. On the other side, Israel, nuclear-armed (though undeclared), backed by the United States, and haunted by the doctrine of “Never Again.”
Reports from Reuters indicate that Israel is seriously weighing limited, targeted strikes on Iran’s fortified nuclear sites—Natanz, Fordow, and possibly others hidden from international inspection. Such attacks would likely combine airstrikes with special forces operations and cyber warfare, aiming to delay Iran’s nuclear progress rather than eliminate it entirely.
But Tehran has warned that any strike would trigger a “full-spectrum retaliation.”
Iran has steadily developed an extensive arsenal of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and Shahed-series drones, including the widely used Shahed-136—a loitering munition with a range of over 2,000 km. These drones are cheap, small, and hard to intercept, especially when launched in saturation attacks.
More concerning to Israeli and U.S. military planners is Iran’s unveiling of the Fattah-1, a solid-fuel ballistic missile with claimed hypersonic capabilities—meaning it could potentially evade interception by current systems like Arrow-3.
While Iran’s hypersonic claims remain unproven, the psychological and strategic threat is real. With the help of 1,000 tons of missile fuel components from China, as reported by CNN, Iran has accelerated production despite Israeli strikes on its factories.
The bottom line: Iran cannot match Israeli technology, but it doesn’t need to. In modern warfare, volume can beat precision. Russia’s experience in Ukraine has shown that even the best air defenses can be overwhelmed by persistent, low-cost attacks.
Israel’s multi-layered air defense is among the most advanced in the world. The Arrow system intercepts high-altitude ballistic threats; David’s Sling takes out medium-range missiles; and the Iron Dome handles short-range rockets and drones.
Still, Israel’s systems face challenges:
Cost disparity: An Arrow missile can cost up to $3 million, while a Shahed drone costs under $50,000.
Saturation limits: Even advanced radar systems struggle to detect hundreds of small, low-flying drones simultaneously.
Sustainability: Prolonged, multi-day assaults could exhaust interceptor supplies and force Israel into hard choices about what to defend.
Israel is therefore looking to complement its systems with Iron Beam, a laser-based defense system under development. If successfully deployed, it could intercept drones and rockets at a fraction of the cost, dramatically shifting the economics of defense.
Iran’s conventional deterrence isn’t just its own firepower—it’s the “Axis of Resistance”: Hezbollah, Syrian militias, Iraqi Shia groups, and the Yemeni Houthis. But that axis has taken major hits:
Hezbollah’s leadership has been decimated by Israeli operations.
The fall of Bashar al-Assad in December 2024 shattered Iran’s logistics corridor through Syria.
Israel’s strikes on supply chains have limited Hezbollah’s missile stockpiles.
Still, Iran remains dangerous. In March 2025, the Houthis launched missiles at Israel, intercepted by Iron Dome. Iranian influence persists in Iraq and Lebanon, and their ideological commitment to Israel’s destruction hasn’t wavered.
The U.S. remains Israel’s indispensable ally—but tensions are growing. Reports from Kann News suggest the U.S. delivered bunker-busting bombs to Israel in April 2025, possibly for use against Iranian nuclear bunkers.
But at the same time, the Trump administration (having returned to power in 2025) has emphasized diplomacy. A second round of nuclear talks with Iran took place in Rome on April 19, according to Al Jazeera.
This dual-track strategy—arming Israel while negotiating with Tehran—has frustrated Israeli officials who see any delay as a danger.
The New York Times recently reported that President Trump personally halted a planned Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear sites in May 2025, favoring a negotiated outcome. This move, while easing global tensions temporarily, has stirred debate within Israel about whether it can rely on Washington in a moment of crisis.
There are unmistakable signs that Iran is not standing alone. Reports from Newsweek indicate that Russian missile experts have visited Iran in recent months, potentially contributing to improvements in Iranian targeting systems and warhead design.
China’s economic support—fueling missile production, trade, and oil purchases—has helped Iran weather U.S. sanctions. And while no direct military alliance exists between Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing, their strategic alignment against the U.S.-led order is clear.
This growing axis threatens to upend the balance in the Middle East—and beyond.
Israel has not hesitated to act unilaterally in the past. The 1981 strike on Iraq’s Osirak reactor and the 2007 bombing of a Syrian nuclear facility are deeply embedded in Israel’s strategic DNA.
But Iran is not Iraq or Syria.
Its nuclear sites are deep underground, spread across multiple cities, and protected by modern air defenses. Any strike would not be surgical—it would be a campaign. And the retaliation would almost certainly be swift and broad.
These latest drills are not just about preparedness—they’re about deterrence, psychology, and messaging. Israel is telling its enemies it can absorb a hit and strike back harder. It’s telling its citizens it won’t be caught off guard. And it’s telling the world that if diplomacy fails, it’s ready to act.
But the risks are immense.
An Israeli strike on Iran could ignite a regional war involving Hezbollah, the Houthis, and possibly U.S. assets in the Gulf. Energy markets would erupt. Civilian populations in Tel Aviv, Tehran, Riyadh, and Beirut could find themselves under fire. Cyberattacks could ripple globally. Miscalculation could be catastrophic.
Israel’s latest military exercises are a microcosm of the larger reality: a standoff fueled by mutual distrust, rapid technological advancement, and deep-rooted ideological opposition. The drills show that Israel is ready for the worst. But readiness is not a solution—it’s a safeguard.
