Israel and Iran Locked in Attritional Duel as Interceptor Supplies and Missile Stocks Shape War’s Course

By: Fern Sidman

 As Israel’s long-range jets continue to hammer Iranian nuclear and military assets with surgical precision, and Iran responds with a diminishing but dangerous barrage of ballistic missiles, a quietly intensifying crisis is taking hold within Israel’s security establishment—one that could prove decisive in determining how long this war will last and how it will end.

Beyond the headlines of dramatic airstrikes and retaliatory fire lies a duel of endurance: Israel’s reserve of advanced missile interceptors versus Iran’s stockpile of long-range ballistic missiles. As The New York Times reported on Thursday, this arms race of attrition could shape the tempo, character, and political calculus of a war that is steadily dragging the region toward a prolonged and perilous confrontation.

Since Iran began its direct retaliation last week—after suffering heavy losses from Israeli strikes on nuclear infrastructure in Arak, Natanz, and Khondab—the Israeli Air Force has relied on its unmatched aerial defense network to shield the nation from destruction. From Arrow-3 and David’s Sling to the Iron Dome and newly deployed laser systems, Israel has constructed a multi-tiered matrix capable of neutralizing most incoming threats.

But there’s a catch: every interceptor fired is one less in the stockpile and replenishing them is far slower than depleting them.

According to senior Israeli officials interviewed by The New York Times, the Israeli military is now facing “a finite reality” in its air defense arsenal. While the nation’s missile defense system has demonstrated a near-miraculous ability to intercept hundreds of incoming ballistic missiles—including some launched from as far as western Iran—questions are now swirling behind closed doors: Will Israel run out of interceptors before Iran runs out of missiles?

“Interceptors are not grains of rice,” Brig. Gen. Ran Kochav, former commander of Israel’s air defense forces, told The Times. “Their number is finite. We can make it, but it’s a challenge.”

The Israeli military, in a terse official statement, maintained that it “is prepared and ready to handle any scenario and is operating defensively and offensively to remove threats to Israeli civilians.” But beneath the defiant rhetoric, officials concede that decisions must now be made about what is truly critical to protect.

The result is an emerging triage doctrine, where military commanders must decide, in real time, which incoming missile threats justify the use of precious interceptors. Densely populated civilian areas and national strategic assets—such as oil refineries in Haifa, the nuclear facility at Dimona, and military headquarters in Tel Aviv—are now prioritized. Sparsely populated areas like the Negev, while still within range of Iranian fire, are increasingly left to risk.

By Wednesday, Iran had fired an estimated 400 ballistic missiles since the war began, of which about 360 were either intercepted or deemed to pose no threat as they fell into empty terrain or the sea, The New York Times reported. Nearly 40, however, breached Israel’s defenses, resulting in the deaths of at least 24 civilians and injuries to more than 800. A hospital in southern Israel was among the latest targets struck on Thursday.

The strain on Israel’s air defense is now not just logistical, but psychological. Military planners and civilians alike are aware that a single lapse—a missed interception of a warhead targeting critical infrastructure—could inflict mass casualties or catastrophic economic disruption.

The other half of this attritional equation is Iran’s missile supply—and its capacity to launch them. At the war’s outset, Israeli intelligence estimated that Iran held approximately 2,000 ballistic missiles capable of reaching Israeli territory. Since then, between a third and a half of that arsenal has either been fired or destroyed in Israeli strikes on launch facilities and storage sites, according to Israeli defense sources quoted by The New York Times.

Moreover, Iran’s rate of fire has notably declined. Initial volleys, which involved dozens of simultaneous launches, have given way to smaller, more sporadic salvos. Israeli analysts interpret this as a sign of operational caution: Tehran appears wary of depleting its reserves too quickly, particularly as it loses the fixed and mobile launchers necessary to deliver its payloads.

Indeed, the Israeli Air Force, with active support from U.S. intelligence and regional reconnaissance, has reportedly destroyed more than a third of Iran’s known missile launchers. The impact is strategic: with fewer launch platforms, Iran cannot maintain the scale and frequency of attacks that characterized the war’s opening days.

As Asaf Cohen, former head of the Iran portfolio within Israeli military intelligence, explained to The Times, “The real issue is the number of launchers more than the number of missiles. The more of them that are hit, the harder it will be for [Iran] to launch barrages.”

Cohen warned that as Iran’s launcher capacity degrades, it may resort to harassment-style tactics—firing one or two missiles at different cities in an attempt to create uncertainty and psychological stress, rather than overwhelming destruction.

While the back-and-forth continues, the single most decisive variable looming over this attritional standoff is the question of American intervention. According to the information provided in The New York Times, there is growing pressure within the Trump administration to act decisively—perhaps through a joint strike on Iran’s underground nuclear enrichment facility at Fordo, one of the last major elements of Iran’s weapons program still intact.

Such an intervention, were it to occur, could alter the dynamics of the war overnight. It would dramatically expand the conflict, risk retaliation against U.S. assets in the region, and potentially force Tehran to either abandon its nuclear ambitions or escalate in ways that drag Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria deeper into the conflict.

Yet in the absence of American action, Israel is left to weigh whether it can sustain this war of attrition alone. “When planning how to defend Israel in future wars, no one envisaged a scenario in which we would be fighting on so many fronts and defending against so many rounds of ballistic missiles,” Zohar Palti, a former senior Mossad official, told The Times.

Palti added that Israel may now have “a window of two or three days to declare victory” after having successfully struck the bulk of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

All of this unfolds against the backdrop of growing civilian suffering. As The New York Times has reported extensively, public opinion in Israel remains largely supportive of the military campaign, but that support could erode as the civilian death toll mounts and economic disruptions intensify.

Crucially, Israel’s leadership now faces a dual challenge: sustaining national morale while preparing for the grim possibility that interceptor reserves will eventually run low. If that happens, even a single Iranian missile breaching Israeli skies and striking a major urban center could provoke a national trauma on par with the darkest days of Israel’s past conflicts.

And while Iran, too, is suffering from internal strain—economically isolated, militarily degraded, and diplomatically cornered—it is betting that a longer war could sap Israel’s public resolve.

As of now, the war continues in measured fury. Israeli jets strike by night; Iranian missiles follow by day. The skies over Tel Aviv and Tehran remain alive with threat and response, steel and fire.

But as The New York Times report observed, this is not merely a war of rockets and rhetoric. It is a war of arithmetic and endurance—of how many interceptors remain, how many missiles are still hidden in hardened bunkers, and how long two determined adversaries can sustain a contest that now touches the edge of catastrophe.

What happens next may depend less on ideology or diplomacy, and more on something far simpler: who runs out of ammunition first.