A debate has emerged regarding Israel's decision to continue transferring Arrow missile defense systems to Germany amid the 40-day conflict with Iran, raising questions about the potential impact on Israeli lives during the war. Sources confirm that Israel maintained Arrow missile deliveries to Berlin throughout the conflict despite facing a shortage of interceptors at home.

Critics argue that the choice to send Arrow systems abroad, while Israel was targeted by Iranian ballistic missile attacks—including deadly strikes in Dimona and Arad—may have contributed to Israeli casualties. It is reported that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) employed the David’s Sling air defense system instead of the Arrow against these ballistic missile attacks, resulting in missed intercepts during two mass casualty events that caused multiple deaths and injuries. Unlike the David’s Sling, designed primarily for medium-range threats such as cruise missiles, the Arrow system was specifically engineered to intercept long-range ballistic missiles, including those launched by Iran, operating even outside Earth’s atmosphere.

Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), the developer of the Arrow system, directed inquiries to the Defense Ministry concerning the rationale behind continuing Arrow deliveries to Germany during an active conflict and sought to understand the benefits beyond economic gains. Prior to the war, Israeli officials downplayed concerns that Arrow exports might undermine national defense, emphasizing instead the economic and strategic advantages of partnering with Germany.

According to Israeli sources, the lucrative contracts with Germany, valued at approximately $6.7 billion over two agreements signed in 2023 and 2024, have significantly expanded Israel’s missile production capacity. These deals represent the largest defense contract in the country’s history and reportedly enable Israel to manufacture seven to ten times more Arrow interceptors than it could have without German involvement. Officials contend that this expanded production capability will enhance both Israel’s short- and long-term air defense capacities, as well as strengthen the domestic defense industry.

German purchases of the Arrow 2 and Arrow 3 systems have also paved the way for potential sales to other European nations, according to Col. Dennis Kruger, German Air Defense Commander. Kruger has expressed commitments to acquiring Israel’s ongoing Arrow 4 and 5 models, which are currently in development. This broader European deployment is cited by Israeli sources as a factor that ultimately bolsters Israel’s security.

Nonetheless, questions remain about the timing of the Arrow transfers, particularly why Israel did not suspend shipments during the most intense phase of the Iran conflict to maximize its own defenses. Reports suggest that concerns about straining diplomatic relations or jeopardizing future defense deals influenced the decision to maintain transfers. In addition to direct financial benefits, German funding reportedly served a critical role amid budgetary stalling by the Israeli Finance Ministry, which delayed force buildup spending approvals and restricted payments to defense contractors involved in Arrow interceptor production.

Despite efforts by the defense establishment to accelerate missile production and related procurement over the past year, payment constraints limited full compensation to contractors until after the recent war concluded. It was only weeks after hostilities ceased that the Knesset approved additional Arrow-related defense expenditures, a timing criticized for its failure to address Israel’s air defense needs during the conflict.

The ongoing debate centers on balancing immediate defense requirements against strategic economic partnerships and long-term military capabilities, with divergent views on whether the Arrow missile transfers during wartime were warranted or detrimental.