When Will Sudan Have the Iron Dome?   Captain Mohamed Hassan Al-Tahir

Date: May 6, 202

In a historical reflection on security breaches—from the bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory, through the missile that struck Port Sudan decades ago (with responsibility never officially determined, though fingers pointed toward Israel), to the recent attack on Khartoum Airport—these events highlight the fragility of Sudan’s security, where innocent lives are lost. Against this backdrop, the title of this article emerges as a pressing question asked by ordinary people, whose lives are directly affected, even before decision-makers entrusted by God to safeguard them: When will Sudan possess the Iron Dome?

The question of Sudan acquiring the Iron Dome system represents a strategic challenge tied to the country’s political and security realities. The Iron Dome is not merely a technical defense system; it reflects power dynamics and international alliances. So far, it remains limited to Israeli use, with some experimental deployment in the United States.

The Iron Dome:

– An Israeli short-range air defense system developed by Rafael.

– Its function: intercept short-range rockets (4–70 km), mortar shells, and drones.

– Mechanism: relies on advanced radar and Tamir interceptor missiles, launched only if the threat is heading toward populated areas.

– Success rate: over 90% according to official data.

Countries that possess it:

– Israel has operated it since 2011.

– The United States acquired test batteries but is not a primary user.

No other countries have officially announced its deployment.

Similar systems worldwide:

NASAMS

– (Norway/USA), used in Ukraine.

SAMP/T

– (France/Italy).

Patriot

– (USA), used in Saudi Arabia, UAE, Germany.

S-400 (Russia).

But the key question remains: What is the benefit of Sudan acquiring the Iron Dome?

– Sudan’s security reality is dominated by civil war and internal conflicts. The threats are not necessarily rockets or external attacks, but armed domestic disputes.

– In such a context, owning the Iron Dome will not end the civil war, because the roots of the crisis are political, social, and economic—not purely military.

– Its utility could lie in protecting major cities if missile or drone threats arise, but it would not address the causes of internal conflict.

Thus, the more realistic alternative is investment in political solutions, economic reforms, and state-building, alongside strengthening conventional military capabilities to protect civilians.

Conclusion:

Sudan acquiring the Iron Dome seems far-fetched at present—not only due to cost and international alliances, but because civil wars cannot be solved by air defense systems. The Iron Dome may protect the skies, but it cannot rebuild trust among communities or stop internal bloodshed. The real solution lies in peace and national reconciliation, while defense systems remain auxiliary tools against external threats.

Finally, people of Sudan, do not be like the brothers of Joseph, and do not cast Sudan into the pit to sell the homeland for a cheap price. In your opinion, what is the solution to Sudan’s crisis—a crisis that testifies to the failure of political thought, with Sudan awaiting the issuance of its death certificate after a slow demise?