Why is the damage from Iran's missile fire more destructive than Houthi missiles?

After this evening's (Tuesday) fire from Yemen toward the country and its successful interception, many Israelis wonder why missiles sent from Yemen are intercepted with much greater success than missiles from Iran. We all still remember, and some of us even feel on our own flesh, the damage from the Iranian attack.

Dozens of buildings were destroyed, entire houses collapsed and left many civilians homeless. Well, there are several reasons for this, we will detail them and try to explain to the public at home the differences.

First, the angle of fire from Yemen makes interceptions easier. The firing line passes through Saudi Arabia and Jordan, who are happy to help us. Interceptors are placed along the line and it is intercepted even before the missiles reach Israel. In contrast, Iran has many more options for launches, which makes intercepting them more difficult.

Second, the distance. Missiles from Iran are at a distance of between 1,200 kilometers to 1,600. From Yemen it's a bit more than 2,000 kilometers so a more serious missile is needed. Most of them disintegrate on the way or are intercepted by the Saudis. And because of this, it's not worth it for them to "invest in quality missiles."

Third, Iran has tried repeatedly to transfer heavier and more serious missiles to Yemen, but usually those trucks trying to transport the missiles are bombed before they reach their destination. And here of course comes the difference between missiles that manage to fool interceptors, both due to their speed and due to advanced technology that helps them change course all the time.

The explosive material that those missiles carry is also much more significant and destructive in missiles launched by Iran. More than 500 tons of explosive material that can erase an entire street.

This appears to be a news analysis explaining the tactical and strategic differences between missile attacks from Yemen versus Iran on Israel.