While the anti-missile system known as Iron Dome has saved countless lives and—together with David’s Sling and the Arrow missiles—is a wonder of modern military technology, it hardly guarantees that Israelis can enjoy security in their land. Geoffrey Corn explains why:

Iron Dome, like any defensive system, has its limits. Those limits are constantly being tested by Israel’s enemies, and because both Hamas and Hizballah act as proxies for Iran, every time the system is employed Israel’s enemies are paying close attention and seeking to identify vulnerabilities.

What makes the current situation different is not, however, the unavoidable reality that no defensive shield is impenetrable; it’s where the missiles are coming from. Unlike past flareups between Israel and Hamas—the terror group that controls the Gaza Strip and uses it as a launch-pad for attacks against Israel—the most recent attacks have come from Israel’s northern borders with Lebanon and Syria. This indicates a very different threat. Unlike Gaza, these areas are controlled by Hizballah, a much more capable and battle-hardened enemy; . . . the sheer volume of missiles facing Israel from Hizballah-controlled areas represents a fundamentally different security challenge than that posed by Hamas in the south.

It is impossible to know for sure what the density of that missile threat is, but credible estimates put the number in the range of 150,000. This capacity enables Hizballah to threaten Israel with a missile campaign that would rapidly overwhelm Iron Dome and necessitate prioritizing the protection of vital infrastructure at the expense of civilian exposure. And, while no one can know for certain how Israel would respond to that threat, it is highly likely that it would find itself having little choice but to conduct a major ground incursion into southern Lebanon to neutralize missile sites before they are used.

Israel will likely respond directly against Iran after yesterday’s attack, and has made known that it will calibrate its retaliation based not on the extent of the damage, but on the scale of the attack. The specifics are anyone’s guess, but Edward Luttwak has a suggestion, put forth in an article published just hours before the missile barrage: cut off Tehran’s ability to send money and arms to Shiite Arab militias.

In practice, most of this cash comes from a single source: oil. . . . In other words, the flow of dollars that sustains Israel’s enemies, and which has caused so much trouble to Western interests from the Syrian desert to the Red Sea, emanates almost entirely from the oil loaded onto tankers at the export terminal on Khark Island, a speck of land about 25 kilometers off Iran’s southern coast. Benjamin Netanyahu warned in his recent speech to the UN General Assembly that Israel’s “long arm” can reach them too. Indeed, Khark’s location in the Persian Gulf is relatively close. At 1,516 kilometers from Israel’s main airbase, it’s far closer than the Houthis’ main oil import terminal at Hodeida in Yemen—a place that was destroyed by Israeli jets in July, and attacked again [on Sunday].