>

Iron Dome's interceptors are the cheapest interceptors in the world, going from as low as $50k to as high as $150k (for unique US version). So how exactly are they "far from ideal"?
They are literally the cheapest way to down a cruise missile or a drone.
"Likely" is a teaser word.  No guarantee Israel will officially send the Iron Domes to Ukraine anytime soon. >

Didn't they say a few months ago that it was "impossible"? >

From what I know about the iron dome(which isn’t much granted), it’s primarily meant to stop low altitude, low velocity projectiles like mortars, artillery, RPG, etc. 
It is “impossible” in the sense that it wouldn’t protect against the high velocity of Russian missiles or the large number of artillery. 
Israel has a significantly worse equipped adversary in Hamas where the iron dome is possible. >

No, originally Israel said it was impossible to give the iron dome tech to Ukraine, that's what I mean >

Israel doesn't have spare batteries to send, and the Iron Dome is not a good response to the threats in Ukraine. I see 0 chances of this happening from my armchair general position. >

True and false.
Israel doesn't have spare batteries - True. Officially it has 10, declared desired minimum is 15, total desired unknown. 
Iron Dome is not a good response to the threats in Ukraine - False. Ukraine is mostly threatened with drones and cruise missiles, making Iron Dome an ideal system. >

Considering the area of coverage and the cost per shot versus the amount of threats, solely on a cost benefit analysis it is far from an ideal system.