Coming from a similar background, I agree with you 100%. While Iron Dome is certainly better than nothing, a better alternative approach toward defending against high-volume, low-tech rockets barrages that is more economically viable (lasers, TBD) is needed.
Asymmetric warfare requires creative thinking - not necessarily tons more money on high tech gadgets that are easily defeated by low tech tactics for a relative pittance. Or at least high tech solutions with "ammo" that costs less. In the interim it's the best thing they've got, so they'll have to pay to keep it going. But claims that it's "the answer" to low tech rocket attacks just sound like a sales job to me.
As for the claims in the article - the current costs don't match up with many other reports I've seen, even ignoring the super optimistic future cost projections. Does the author have a stake in selling more high tech Iron Dome systems and/or missiles?
What is need is to take the war to the enemy. Civilizations for centuries have built fortresses to protect them, none have ever worked. Israel should have some history with that concept.