Israel Iran war: Netanyahu is spending THIS amount every night to stop Iranian long-range ballistic missiles and..., Pakistan's economy is not even...
Israel Iran war: Netanyahu is spending THIS amount every night to stop Iranian long-range ballistic missiles and..., Pakistan's economy is not even...
Israel Iran war: It is raining missiles on the skies of Israel and Iran. Israel is running short of Arrow interceptor missiles to defend against long-range ballistic missiles. According to a report, this shortage will put Israel's ability to deal with missile attacks at risk if the conflict with Iran continues.
Israel's defensive interceptors cost a lot. After Iran's missile and drone attacks, reports of their stock decreasing rapidly have started coming. This is the reason why their cost has become a matter of great concern. Israel is spending crores of rupees every night to stop Iranian missiles.
If comparison is done, small countries like Pakistan cannot even imagine this. Know here how much these defensive interceptors of Israel cost and how much it is spending daily to protect against Iranian missile attacks.
Israel's multi-layered air defense system mainly consists of three interceptors:
1. Arrow system: Arrow interceptor missiles are designed to intercept long-range and very high-altitude ballistic missiles. These are most effective in intercepting Iran's ballistic missiles. These are the most expensive. The cost of an Arrow interceptor missile is said to be between $2 million and $3 million (approximately Rs 16.7 crore to Rs 25 crore).
2. David's Sling is meant to intercept medium to long-range missiles, such as large rockets and cruise missiles. An interceptor missile of the David's Sling system costs more than $1 million (approximately Rs 8.3 crore).
3. Iron Dome is designed to intercept short-range rockets, mortars and drones fired from Gaza by groups such as Hamas. The Iron Dome interceptor, known as Tamir, is relatively inexpensive. It can cost anywhere from $20,000 to $100,000 (roughly Rs. 16.7 lakhs to Rs. 83 lakhs) per missile. Some reports put the price at $50,000 to $150,000.
Total cost comes up to…
Israel's depletion of interceptor stock and cost impact Israeli financial daily 'The Marker' estimates that Israel is spending up to $285 million (about Rs 2,380 crore) every night to prevent Iranian missile attacks. This expenditure mainly includes the use of expensive interceptors such as the Arrow system.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
36 minutes ago
- India Today
This Gulf War will Boomerang
Aap chronology samajhiye! Donald Trump, chasing a Nobel Peace Prize, is striking out. His buddy Vladimir Putin won't pause the Ukraine rumble, and Trump's claim of brokering an India-Pakistan ceasefire has more holes than a sieve. The only takers? Pakistan's military brass and the political leadership under their thumb, whose backsides were saved by the deal. Trump even coaxed their self-styled Field Marshal Asim Munir to nominate him for the Nobel, bribing him with a White House lunch. No selfies allowed, mind desperate Trump saw a chance to play peacemaker in Oman, where US and Iranian officials were set to negotiate on Sunday. Trump attempted to pre-empt Benjamin Netanyahu by striking a deal or something like it. Trump wanted to bolster his Nobel intentions, Tehran wanted to buy more time. Benjamin Netanyahu, fearing the lust for a 'deal' could jeopardise his plan trumped Trump. On Friday, Bibi set off the fireworks, hurling missiles at Iran. Trump, after a toddler-level tantrum, is now cheerleading for Bibi's war on Truth Social, while Netanyahu boasts of delivering a crushing defeat to Iran's mullahs. Newsflash: the only thing they're crushing is their own paracetamol stash, because this war is a headache with no or not, this war has two objectives: 1. Eliminate or severely degrade Iran's nuclear Regime change. Ayatollah out, a puppet years, Iran's been repeating about wiping Israel off the map. Israel, watching Iran's centrifuges, is convinced the mullahs are one tip away from a nuclear bomb. Tehran swears it's just brewing kesar tea in Qom. Netanyahu, well-versed in Persian promises, went for a bomb-now, talk-never plan. The US, after some grumbling, has joined the fireworks, with bunker-busters likely raining by the weekend. Iran's enriched uranium stash is buried deep in Qom's mountains. Israel's week-long bombing has scratched the surface, maybe pushing Iran's weapons programme back a decade. The damage to its nuclear sites is widespread yet only superficial. Not dead by a long shot. Even if the Fordow and Natanz stock goes bust, the Iranian regime will be back and this time for the bang. The so-called peaceful nuclear programme will fast-forward to bomb mode with a vengeance. Unless the regime brings us to Objective No. 2: Regime the missiles, Tehran's youth were regularly taking to the streets to chants of 'Marg bar Khamenei' or Death to Khamenei. Often risking their life and freedom. Now, Israel's bombs have united Iranians under the flag. They hate the mullahs and the IRGC, but you can't bomb people into loving the US or Israel. The regime, wobbly last week, is now strutting like a peacock in the monsoon. Even if the US and Israel eliminate the Ayatollah, a new turbaned cleric will walk in, same Shiacracy, different regime change requires boots on the ground, which the US, scarred from Iraq and Afghanistan, knows is like signing up for a never-ending soap. Only bloody and 10 body bags per Pakistan, the US's dodgy dost with a PhD in two-timing. Trump rolled out the red carpet for Asim Munir, who has just had a wholesome lunch at the White House, wondering how to pitch this to his awaam. Pakistan is a circus: its textbooks teach kids to hate Jews and Hindus with the zeal of a cricket fan. The Hindu bit softens over shared sanjha chulha stories in Punjab, but Israel? Zero love. Munir's already slipping intel to the US while texting 'solidarity, Islami biraadar' to Iran. If Trump demands more than just bases, read men and not just material, Munir is in deeper doo-doo than a Kanpur cow in a downpour. Trump's entire campaign was 'no boots, ever,' and his MAGA fans are already crying 'betrayal'. Iran is not even a flat desert like Iraq. It's more mountainous than Afghanistan. Boots on the ground has a very fat chance and if that happens, a slim chance of exiting without humiliation. Remember, Kabul in August 2021?advertisementHere's how this will most likely end: this war is a boomerang with worse aim than a drunk dart player. Iran, bruised and battered, will rise like a phoenix with a grudge. The mullahs, glowing with patriotic fervour, will flip their 'peaceful' nuclear programme to 'bomb mode' faster than Trump orders a burger and Diet Coke. Israel's pre-emptive strike will have handed Iran a reason to go full kaboom. The US? Stuck in another Middle East mess, with Trump tweeting 'tremendous victories' while the Pentagon hunts for an 'exit ramp'. There is a visible lack of coordination between Israel and the US, especially their leaders. This script has no endgame. And even if there is one, a war of attrition seldom follows the script. This war, like every misadventure from Kabul to Baghdad, is a masterclass in shooting your own foot while aiming for the moon.(Kamlesh Singh, a columnist and satirist, is director of news with India Today Digital)(Views expressed in this piece are those of the author)Tune InMust Watch
Indian Express
37 minutes ago
- Indian Express
How India's disavowal of SCO statement signals a new realism in global politics
— Amit Kumar and John Harrison As the Israel-Iran conflict rages on, India has distanced itself from the statement issued by the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) last week, condemning Israel's military strikes on Iran. As one of the most influential members of the SCO, currently chaired by China, India dissociated itself from the statement and said it didn't even participate in the discussion. This diplomatic friction within the 10-member bloc is more than a technical disagreement. It poses a critical question: What does the SCO's statement criticising Israel reveal about China, and what does India's quick withdrawal from it indicate about global politics? The answer opens a window into the dynamics of rising powers, shifting alliances, and the strategic contest to control not just geography, but global narratives. At first glance, the SCO's intervention in the Israel-Iran conflict might seem like a bold assertion of a regional security body stepping up to global relevance. But the deeper context matters. The Israel-Iran relationship has long been defined by hostility, espionage, and proxy warfare. Israel's strikes on June 13, deep into Iranian territory, marked a dangerous escalation in a conflict that often teeters on the edge of a regional war. But why would the SCO – a forum traditionally focused on Central Asian stability and counterterrorism – involve itself in the conflict so visibly? The answer lies in the bloc's new composition, particularly the recent inclusion of Iran as a full member, and more fundamentally, in the growing centrality of China within it. What looks like a gesture of support for a fellow member is, more subtly, a reflection of the SCO's transformation into a geopolitical lever for Chinese diplomacy. By positioning the SCO as a moral counterbalance to Western-aligned military action, it looks like China is seeking to extend the SCO's relevance far beyond its founding mandate. This pivot also suggests that China is attempting to redefine the normative language of international conduct, one that seemingly aligns less with UN charters or US-led alliances and more with a China-centric worldview that selectively invokes sovereignty, non-intervention, and regional stability based on who benefits from the narrative. Behind the SCO's statement lies a bold, if underappreciated, strategy. China is no longer content to merely participate in global forums. It is repurposing them. By mobilising the SCO to speak collectively against Israel, China was not just defending Iran; rather it was testing a model of bloc-based legitimacy that could challenge Western diplomatic hegemony. The symbolism was potent – a group representing over 40 per cent of the world's population speaking in unison against a close US ally. This messaging also marks a subtle recalibration of China's non-interference doctrine. Beijing is no longer sitting on the fence when its strategic partners are involved. Whether by abstaining from condemning the October 7 Hamas attacks or by amplifying Iranian grievances through multilateral forums, China is beginning to act with strategic asymmetry. It remains non-confrontational with the West on its own borders, yet assertive when it comes to Western partners in volatile regions like West Asia. Such moves reveal China's attempt to build a moral alternative to US exceptionalism, not by mimicking Western institutions, but by gradually bending others, like the SCO, into ideological alignment. Through carefully orchestrated diplomatic theater, China is reshaping the perception of who holds the moral high ground, casting itself as a defender of sovereignty and stability against Western chaos. India's prompt disavowal of the SCO statement was neither accidental nor reactionary. It was a calibrated act of diplomatic insulation – a move designed to protect its carefully balanced relationships with both Iran and Israel, while also signalling its discomfort with China's dominance over the SCO's voice. In doing so, India reaffirmed a principle that is becoming the hallmark of its foreign policy in the multipolar age: alignment without entanglement. What makes India's move even more significant is its context within the global narrative competition. China may have tried to portray the SCO condemnation as reflective of a broader anti-Israel, implicitly anti-Western consensus, and India, had it stayed silent, would have been passively co-opted into that message. But India's refusal disrupted the choreography. It showed that multilateralism, in a world of self-confident middle powers, can no longer be orchestrated so easily. Moreover, India's action speaks to a subtle transformation in its global identity. It no longer sees itself as a bridge between East and West, nor as a swing state, but as a sovereign power center shaping its own trajectory in the global order. In distancing itself from the SCO statement, India is rather projecting a future in which it refuses to let other powers define its strategic posture, even within forums it has co-founded or supports. The incident reveals more than a disagreement between two members of a regional bloc. It exposes the tectonic shifts in global governance. China's attempt to manufacture a diplomatic consensus through the SCO is emblematic of a broader ambition. It seeks to build a non-Western geopolitical ecosystem where legitimacy flows from shared grievance, not shared values. In this system, countries like Iran find a voice not because of shared vision, but because of shared opposition to the US-led order. At the same time, India's dissent points to a new realism in global politics. Multipolarity is not about blocs competing with one another. It is about a growing number of states refusing to be defined by any bloc at all. India's stance implies that true global influence now depends on agility, narrative independence, and the ability to defy both Western and Eastern orthodoxy. If China's rise is defined by the repurposing of institutions like the SCO into ideological tools, India's ascent is marked by its refusal to be absorbed into any ideological project, not of its own making. This divergence in strategy, one building a club of allies, the other cultivating freedom of motion, may well define the contours of the coming global order. In trying to turn the SCO into a stage for its foreign policy theatre, China revealed both its growing capabilities and its limitations. While it may script the lines, not all actors will follow. India's silent refusal to play the part it was assigned shows that even in the age of emerging powers, autonomy, not alignment, remains the highest currency of diplomacy. India's disavowal of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation statement on Israel's attack against Iran reaffirmed a principle that is becoming the hallmark of its foreign policy in the multipolar age: alignment without entanglement. Comment. Critically examine the aims and objectives of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. What importance does it hold for India? By positioning the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation as a moral counterbalance to Western-aligned military action, is China seeking to extend the bloc's relevance far beyond its founding mandate? Multipolarity is not about blocs competing with one another. It is about a growing number of states refusing to be defined by any bloc at all. Explain with examples. Virus of Conflict is affecting the functioning of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation; In the light of the above statement point out the role of India in mitigating the problems. (Amit Kumar is a PhD candidate at the Birla Institute of Technology & Science, Pilani, Rajasthan, India. Dr. John Harrison is an Associate Professor at Rabdan Academy, specialising in homeland security.) Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week. Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.
Indian Express
37 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Why Bombay HC upheld arbitral awards directing BCCI to pay over Rs 538 crore to Kochi Tuskers Kerala owners
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (June 17) rejected two pleas by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to quash the arbitral awards of over Rs 538 crore granted to owners of Kochi Tuskers Kerala, the now-defunct Indian Premier League (IPL) franchise. The two companies are Rendezvous Sports World (RSW), which was co-owned by Sunanda Pushkar, the late wife of Congress leader Shashi Tharoor, and Kochi Cricket Private Limited (KCPL). As reported by The Indian Express earlier, Pushkar had in April 2010 surrendered her shares in RSW. The dispute and legal trail that reached Bombay HC The Bombay HC passed a verdict on two pleas filed by BCCI challenging arbitral awards passed on June 22, 2015. Kochi Tuskers took part in only one season of the IPL in 2011, under a consortium led by RSW and later operated by KCPL. The dispute arose after the BCCI terminated the franchise in September 2011, citing an alleged breach of agreement. The agreement was signed between BCCI and RSW on April 11, 2010, pending the incorporation of the joint venture company KCPL. The KCPL had entered into an agreement with the BCCI on March 12, 2011. On September 19, 2011, the BCCI wrote to KCPL and RSW and terminated agreements with them, claiming that the two firms had failed to deliver the requisite bank guarantee on or before March 2011. The aggrieved firms initiated arbitration proceedings against the termination. On June 22, 2015, the arbitrator directed BCCI to pay Rs 384.83 crore to KCPL along with interest at the rate of 18 % from date of termination in 2011 till the date of award. Through another decision passed on the same day, the arbitrator directed BCCI to pay Rs 153.34 crore to RSW together with 18 % interest from the date of termination until the date of the arbitral award. In total, the arbitrator ordered an award of Rs 538.17 crore in favour of Kochi IPL franchise owners. Three months later, the cricketing body challenged the two awards before the Bombay High Court under section Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Based on the BCCI's interim plea, the High Court in April 2018 granted unconditional stay on the award in favour of KCPL, which the Supreme Court next month modified and directed the BCCI to deposit Rs 100 crore in the court. The High Court in April 2018, while dealing with the BCCI's challenge of the award in favour of RSW, had passed an order of stay on a condition that the BCCI deposited 50% of the awarded amount with interest. BCCI's contentions The BCCI argued that the arbitral awards were 'contrary to the agreements, patently illegal and prejudicial to the cricket board's rights.' The Board said that the arbitrator's observation that the non-availability of a brand new stadium in Kochi — which the team owners had cited as one reason why they could not get the bank guarantee — was a breach on the part of BCCI was 'ex facie materially contrary to the terms of governing contracts/documents'. The BCCI argued that the KCPL had requested that they be allowed to play at Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium in Kochi till Kerala Cricket Association made an alternative site for the new stadium. The BCCI also addressed the matter of then IPL commissioner Lalit Modi putting out tweets about Pushkar and others' ownership of Kochi Tuskers. It argued that the arbitrator's finding that the Board was bound by the consequences flowing from the tweets, made in April 2010, was 'erroneous.' The Board said that Modi's posts were made in his personal capacity and there was no evidence to suggest he made those posts in the course of his duties as the Chairman of the Governing Council of the IPL. It said that the KCPL raised the issue for the first time in 2012 as an 'afterthought'. The BCCI further claimed that the KCPL's failure to provide the bank guarantee was a breach of the franchise agreement and the damages awarded to the owners of the team for loss of profits and wasted expenditure were in excess of the agreements, and as the arbitrator acted 'beyond the terms of the contract,' the impugned decisions were flawed and should be set aside. The respondents KCPL and RSW claimed that the termination of the franchise was 'wrongful, malafide' and was done 'without giving reasonable notice to remedy the so-called breach' by them. They submitted that the time of furnishing guarantee was extended from time to time by the BCCI but abruptly brought to an end, which was unjust. For failing to furnish the bank guarantee by March 2011, the KCPL referred to the non-availability of a new stadium in Kochi, shareholding approvals, and a sudden reduction in the number of IPL matches. They further argued that the arbitrator rightly concluded that the BCCI had wrongfully invoked the bank guarantee, which amounted to 'repudiatory breach' of the franchise agreement. High Court ruling A single-judge Bench of Justice Riyaz I Chagla in its June 18 verdict held that the 'BCCI's dissatisfaction as to the findings rendered in respect of the evidence and/or the merits cannot be a ground to assail the Award.' What next The HC has permitted the KCPL and RSW to withdraw amounts deposited by the BCCI after six weeks. The HC had initially allowed withdrawal after four weeks. But on BCCI's request, so as to file an appeal before the Supreme Court, Justice Chagla extended the period by another two weeks.
