Alas, the article refers to the contrails that show mostly failed intercepts. So you have an Iron Dome engagement, as you claim, on an incoming that was determined to be a threat. It also demonstrates in terms of high school physics why such intercepts are bound to fail in the conditions listed. It's pretty much as simple as that. The king is naked, but a lot of adults have a problem acknowledging such simple truths.
On top of that, Israel-located commenters of the article seem to have a bit of a problem with discriminating successful and failed intercepts. That's because a lot of intercepts happen during the unpowered, ballistic part of the incoming's flight. Yes, the interceptor will explode, but that's immaterial. It will poke a couple holes in the expended motor case and will alter the incoming's trajectory a slight bit. Again, it's all very simple, and people somehow can't swallow the simplicity of the argument.
It's like Feynman's famous presentation of the root material cause of the Challenger disaster. All the while the bureaucratic machine of the Commission, and NASA, was expending untold resources skirting this material cause, and the root underlying organizational cause that then proceeded to kill the Columbia crew.