The THAAD defense system is one of the US military’s most powerful anti-missile weapons, capable of intercepting ballistic missiles at ranges of 150 to 200 kilometers (93 to 124 miles) and with a near-perfect success rate in testing.

Using a combination of advanced radar systems and interceptors, THAAD, short for Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense, is the only US missile defense system that can engage and destroy short-, medium-, and intermediate-range ballistic missiles both inside or outside the atmosphere during their terminal phase of flight – or dive on their target.

THAAD interceptors are kinetic, meaning they take out incoming targets by colliding with them rather than exploding near the incoming warhead.

According to a report by the Congressional Research Service, the US military has seven THAAD batteries, each consisting of six truck-mounted launchers – with eight interceptors apiece – a powerful radar system and a fire control and communications component.

One of those prized batteries is now being dispatched to Israel to help bolster its already impressive ability to counter incoming missiles “following Iran’s unprecedented attacks against Israel on April 13 and again on October 1,” according to the Pentagon. But to do that, it needs US boots on the ground.

Through a broad command and control and battle management system, THAAD batteries can communicate with a range of US missile defenses, including Aegis systems – commonly found aboard US Navy ships – and Patriot missile defense systems that are designed to intercept shorter-range targets.

Those other missile defense systems are more numerous than THAAD, an illustration of the importance the Biden administration is placing on this deployment to Israel.

THAAD can be quickly deployed by US Air Force cargo aircraft like the C-17 and C-5, but the Pentagon did not give a timetable for when it will be active in Israel.

What makes THAAD so accurate?

What makes THAAD so accurate is the radar system that supplies its targeting information, the Army Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance radar, or AN/TPY-2.

The radar system, which can deployed with the missile battery or already be in place on US Navy ships or at other installations, can detect missiles in two ways. In its forward-based mode it is configured to acquire and track targets at ranges of up to 3,000 kilometers (1,865 miles), and in its terminal mode it is aimed upward to acquire targets during their descent, according to the Missile Defense Project. Iran is about 1,700 kilometers (1,100 miles from Israel.)

“When it is put in place, it will actually add a layer to the existing Israeli air and missile defenses,” Leighton said.

Production models of the THAAD system have never failed to intercept incoming targets in testing, according to the Missile Threat Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

What about Israel’s other anti-missile systems?

Israel has multiple anti-missile systems already in place designed to shoot down incoming projectiles.

David’s Sling, a joint project of Israel’s RAFAEL Advanced Defense System and US defense giant Raytheon, uses Stunner and SkyCeptor kinetic hit-to-kill interceptors to take out targets as far as 300 kilometers away (186 miles), according to the Missile Threat Project.

Above David’s Sling are Israel’s Arrow 2 and Arrow 3 systems, jointly developed with the United States.

The Arrow 2 uses fragmentation warheads to destroy incoming ballistic missiles in their terminal phase – as they dive toward their targets – in the upper atmosphere, according to the CSIS.

Meanwhile, the Arrow 3 uses hit-to-kill technology to intercept incoming ballistic missiles in space, as THAAD can do.

The lowest level of projectiles fired at Israel is combatted by the Iron Dome defense system, made up of 10 batteries that each carry three to four maneuverable missile launchers.

This isn’t the first time Washington has sent a THAAD battery to Israel. One was dispatched in 2019 for an exercise.

Elsewhere THAAD deployments have also been watched closely by US rivals, most notably China.

The deployment of a THAAD battery to South Korea in 2017, as ballistic missile threats from North Korea ramped up, drew vehement opposition from Beijing, which experts said was worried that the powerful radar could be used to spy on activities well inside China.

The US has also deployed THAAD to Guam, to protect vital US military bases on the Pacific island from possible ballistic missile threats from North Korea or China.

A 39-year-old British woman was killed when a malfunctioning ottoman bed fell on her neck and asphyxiated her, a coroner’s report said.

Helen Davey, who lived in northeastern England and ran a beauty salon, died in June as she “was leaning over the storage area of an Ottoman-styled ‘gas-lift’ bed,” coroner Jeremy Chipperfield said in his report, released last week.

Ottoman beds have a base that can be raised – usually using gas-lift hydraulics – to access a storage space underneath. They are a popular choice for householders wanting to keep bedding or unseasonal clothes out of sight.

The mattress platform on Davey’s bed fell unexpectedly, “trapping her neck against the upper surface of the side panel of the bed’s base,” Chipperfield explained. “Unable to free herself, she died of positional asphyxia. One of the two gas-lift pistons was defective.”

Davey was found by her daughter, Elizabeth, according to a statement read in court and reported by local paper The Northern Echo.

“I went upstairs, my mam’s bedroom door was wide open, and I saw her lying on her back with her head under the bed,” Elizabeth said in court.

“Her legs were bent as if she was trying to get up. I dropped everything that I was holding and tried to lift the top of the bed off her head. The bed was no longer a soft close and could fall heavily if it was released. It was so heavy for me to lift it up and try to pull her out. I managed to lift it up enough to use my foot to support it.

“I noticed that her face was blue with a clear indent on her neck from the frame. I managed to pull her clear. I feared that she was dead as she made no sound. I started CPR and noticed that she wasn’t breathing,” she said.

Chipperfield warned in a letter to Britain’s business secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, that there is a risk of future deaths “unless action is taken,” highlighting the “existence and use of gas piston bed mechanisms whose failure presents risk to life,” as a “matter of concern.”

Under UK law, coroners must report to the relevant organization or government agency when they think action should be taken to prevent future deaths.

It was the perfect feel-good story, just in time for Christmas.

On December 20 last year, the United States secured from Venezuela the release of 10 US citizens – six of them wrongfully detained – in exchange for a close ally of authoritarian President Nicolas Maduro and a commitment from Caracas that it would stop detaining Americans to use as negotiating pawns.

“The administration has made abundantly clear the expectation that additional Americans are not detained, and has secured commitments along those lines,” a cheerful US official announced at the time.

That deal, which also included the extradition of a former military contractor known as “Fat Leonard” who orchestrated the largest corruption scandal in US Navy history, was hailed as a thawing of relations in the long-running standoff between the countries that has seen the US impose sanctions on Venezuela and accuse its leader of illegally usurping power, abusing human rights and trafficking drugs.

But fast-forward to nearly a year later and the vibe has turned more Halloween trick than Christmas treat.

Venezuela recently announced it had detained at least four US citizens, along with a handful of other foreign nationals, alleging they were part of an international conspiracy masterminded by the CIA and Spanish intelligence to overthrow Maduro.

That claim has been strongly denied by both the US and Spanish governments.

The US State Department has said the claims are “categorically false” and intimated that the detentions are linked to American criticisms of Venezuela’s disputed presidential election, which Maduro claims to have won despite widespread skepticism. The United States “continues to support a democratic solution to the political crisis in Venezuela,” the State Department said, pointedly, when commenting on the allegations.

So, is there anything to Venezuela’s claims? And if not, what does Maduro hope to gain by returning to an old playbook?

Hollywood script and a convenient bogeyman

The details of the alleged plot read like the script of a Hollywood thriller. Maduro’s interior minister Diosdado Cabello claims the detained foreigners – who also included two Spaniards and a Czech – were part of a shadowy unit who traveled to Venezuela to kill Maduro, apparently motivated by the up to $15 million reward the US Justice Department offered in 2020 for information leading to his arrest or conviction.

According to Cabello, the plot not only involved the CIA but was led by an active duty US Navy Seal, and involved a shipment of 400 (now seized) US-manufactured rifles and other firearms.

Two other US citizens, Cabello claims, were “hackers” intent on disrupting Venezuela’s chronically inefficient power service. (Not the first time Cabello has cried foul over blackouts; he alleged “terrorist actions” by the opposition were behind a late-August blackout that affected at least nine Venezuelan states and dozens of cities including the capital Caracas.)

Intriguingly, White House spokesperson John Kirby confirmed that the man Caracas identified as the alleged ringleader – Wilbert Castañeda – is an active service member in the US Navy whom, Kirby said, went to Venezuela on “personal travel.” Other media have reported that Castañeda, who is a dual Mexican-US citizen, used to serve as a Navy Seal but was stripped of his status sometime in the past.

Given the nature of the allegations, Venezuela’s claims are almost impossible to independently verify.

But then skeptics might say that’s exactly the point – that for Maduro, the CIA is merely a convenient, tried-and-tested bogeyman.

Maduro has in the past also alleged, without proof, that the US government and former US President Donald Trump were behind a 2018 assassination attempt in which an explosive-laden drone detonated mid-air during one of his speeches (an ‘attack’ prosecutors initially tried to pin on then-Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos). Maduro has also alleged, again without evidence, that the CIA and Washington in general were to blame for an insurrection in April 2019, and in September of the following year his government detained US citizen Matthew Heath on allegations of spying on oil refineries in the state of Falcon. Heath was later released in a prisoner exchange, and the US government has always denied involvement in any of the alleged schemes.

All that said, Maduro knows there is an audience receptive to such narratives, precisely because the CIA does have a well-documented history of meddling in the region. And it’s likely not lost on him that the US was aware of a plot to overthrow his predecessor, Hugo Chavez, weeks before a coup d’etat was attempted in 2002.

‘Loose dogs’, or a threat from within?

Still, even among those in the Venezuelan government who believe the security services have stumbled on some kind of plot, there are some who are skeptical of Cabello’s claims of CIA involvement.

“I think these are more loose dogs than a real involvement from the US government, because everyone knows that removing Maduro by force would only escalate the conflict around Venezuela,” said a government source who, like other people consulted for this article, asked not to be named due to the confidential nature of the topic.

“But you cannot underestimate the allure of the ($15 million Department of Justice) reward especially for crazy adventurers, or do you really believe a Navy Seal on active duty travelled to Venezuela for a summer romance?” the source said.

One scenario that doesn’t seem to be under consideration in Caracas’ corridors of power is whether a plot could have originated from within the country.

That may sound surprising, given Maduro has alienated vast swathes of the population with his election ‘victory’ and subsequent crackdown on the opposition. He has also likely alienated some of those within his own government with his habit of chopping and changing key personnel on a whim.

But while it’s not impossible to imagine former Chavistas plotting to bring Maduro down, a more likely explanation may simply be that the Venezuelan leader has cooked up the whole story for political leverage against his old foe, the US.

If so, what does Maduro think he has to gain?

A negotiating tactic?

The obvious answer leads back to the election. In October last year, before the release of “Fat Leonard” and Co, Maduro had promised the US that Venezuela’s election would be free and fair. And as recently as six months ago, the economic community in Caracas was hoping it would be at least fair enough for the US to lift its remaining oil sanctions and bring Venezuela back into the fold of the world’s democracies.

The subsequent electoral farce, and Maduro’s desertion of his commitments to restore democracy, pulverized those hopes and made it clear that any further steps toward reconciliation would have to be painfully negotiated by diplomats.

It would seem Maduro sees the newly detained Americans as pawns to be used in those negotiations, with a view to quieting US criticisms of the election, and as leverage in any sanctions negotiations.

It’s an approach that sends a calculated message to US President Joe Biden, whose administration has prioritized the release of US citizens unjustly detained abroad – having reached similar deals with Russian President Vladimir Putin over the releases of WNBA star Brittney Griner and the Wall Street Journal journalist Evan Gershkovich.

But beyond Biden, the detentions are also a message to the new Commander in Chief, be it Kamala Harris or Donald Trump.

Since the disputed vote in Venezuela, the State Department has only minimally acted against the country, imposing personal sanctions on 16 individuals and calling for Venezuela to release the full voting ballots to clarify the result.

While the US has imposed economic sanctions on Venezuela’s oil exports for years, a special authorization allowing oil company Chevron to operate in the country is still valid despite the international outcry this summer.

Whoever wins the US election in November will have the fate of the detainees weighing on them when they are faced with deciding whether to continue that minimal approach or to turn the screw.

And they can forget any hope that the detainees’ fate can be left to the courts.

“You cannot even talk of a trial, to be honest,” said a lawyer who represented US citizens wrongfully detained in Venezuela in the past. “In most cases, there’s no file with the charges presented against your client, you don’t have access to the investigation, there are no witnesses, and you cannot present new evidence, all of those proceedings happen in a court, but they’re a farce.”

“It’s frustrating, you basically go to court, and you know nothing ruled there will make any difference for your client,” said another lawyer, whose client was released after spending more than two years in jail without being sentenced.

So, what’s Maduro’s bottom line?

Even for those convinced that Maduro has cooked up the plot to gain leverage with the US, there’s one mystery left: his preferred endgame.

In previous negotiations over prisoner exchanges, Maduro was able to obtain the release of his alleged money fixer, Alex Saab, and of two of his wife’s nephews who were serving time for trying to smuggle 800 kilograms of cocaine into the United States.

He was also able to secure the withdrawal of some of the oil sanctions the US imposed on Caracas in recent years.

This time around, with none of his close associates in US hands, it’s unclear what Maduro could ask at the bargaining table other than legitimacy and further sanctions withdrawal.

Likewise, it’s unclear how a new US administration would entertain the idea of giving in to – and being seen to give into – an authoritarian bully.

Hostage negotiation is an awkward topic for any government, none more so than the United States, which has in the past made a point of refusing to engage with kidnappers.

On the other hand, the US may decide the freedom of its citizens are worth whatever limited concessions Maduro is seeking.

As one of the people involved in last year’s negotiations put it: “Free societies decide that no innocent man should be in jail. When you accept that a criminal walks free but no detainee is innocent, that is real freedom.”