I'm deeply impressed by Iskander as well. It's a very different approach to air attack. A power can hit & destroy targets like bridges, depots and likely even warships without the huge investment and proficiency requirements of an air force. No SEAD, AEW&C, CAP are necessary to get the warhead on target. The Russian original version with the terminal phase seeker is reputed with such a good accuracy that you can select WHERE to hit a building like a bridge, not just HOW LIKELY. And it's really no normal SRBM - it should rather be considered as a high-flying top-attack hypervelocity missile. It's probably more a descendant of the Soviet CVN-buster missiles than of Scud. The warhead does not separate - it seems to remain in one piece until impact. That does pretty much exclude the possibility of effective decoys. Cost limits prevent effective jamming. Survivability against normal AD and AD with ATBM does therefore likely rest on an (in effect) evasive maneuver pattern on descend. There are some technologies to detect & track such trucks, but there are effective countermeasures as well. A smart user wouldn't get busted in an inhabited region. The Hebollah example is not applicable. The Israelis had (as before the Bekaa valley campaign as well) enough time to collect intel during peacetime. NATO's inability to destroy much of the smart Yugoslavian air defences in 1999 is a better argument. Iskander is in my opinion the operational strike weapon technology of choice for powers that don't trust their fighter bombers' ability to accomplish strike missions.