100% of missiles reached targets and 90% of it hit them - this is what, wishful thinking or what? If it's true, what you can say about objects shot down in Jordan Airspace for example?
It is purely my guess but based on the available evidence (eg. the number of missiles intercepted in the videos like the ones above) and my knowledge of Iran's military tech, otherwise for those of us without access to classified information it is impossible to measure accurately or give any kind of correct percentages.
For example I never saw any video showing they intercept 5 out of the incoming 10 incoming missiles, what I saw was dozens of ABMs shot at the incoming targets and they barely get 1 with the rest landing successfully.
I should have been more precise though, by "reached their targets" I meant achieved what they were supposed to do (as opposed to experience engine failure and fall down). I explained their purpose
here from a more technical perspective. For example the Paveh cruise missiles or the Shahed-136 drones were never meant to "hit any targets on the ground". Their sole purpose was to overwhelm air defense systems making it easier for eg. the low tier 30+ year old Rezvan ballistic missiles that lacks maneuverability to land successfully "hitting" its target. It both keeps cost low and is in accordance with Iran's doctrine of only revealing 10% of its strength and use 1% of that 10% in any action.
So when for example the US airforce hits a $10k Shahed-136 drone using a $1 million missile (or when the French do it in Jordan), that means Shahed-136 reached its target which was that $1 mil missile
depleting USAF/USN/NATO resources
softening them up for the possible next phase.
Otherwise if 0 interception was the goal and Israel was the only target/adversary, Iran would have never used low tier weapons. For example instead of using Rezvan, the Fattah-2 would have been used which is a hypersonic MaRV BM and the technology to counter it does not even exist and won't exist at least for another decade.
And if 90% of missiles weren't inercepted, I guess that consequences would be much more, it would be difficult to hide it and it internet would be full of videos with hits.
It is trivial to hide it because:
1. The targets were heavily protected military facilities like the Nevatim airbase. "Regular people" are not allowed to even get close let alone be able to take any kind of picture to show the consequences.
2. In majority of videos we'll hear Arabic not Hebrew. That's Palestinians and they are farther from the targets (eg. they're in West Bank 50-200 km away from the base) to be able to get any close picture/video, also the Zionist occupiers were hiding under ground so there weren't anybody up to film anything to have any evidence to publish on the internet.
3. Don't underestimate censorship. The first picture below is from Israeli TV saying they are banned from publishing anything about this "punishment" (other mainstream media have received such bans) and the second is I believe a short message sent to everyone banning them from posting anything either. Zionist regime has a history of arresting anyone who posts anything about the "aftermath" over the past decades.
P.S. If a large percentage were intercepted there would be a lot more videos showing that. Something they won't have any reason to censor.
