In recent days, Iranian state media coverage has intensified attention on the United States’ insistence that any new agreement with Tehran go beyond nuclear constraints to also address Iran’s expanding ballistic missile program and regional military activities. The reporting shift underscores ongoing tensions both within Iran’s ruling circles and between Iran and the West, particularly as renewed negotiations loom with potentially far-reaching consequences for regional stability and Israel’s security.
The catalyst came from Kayhan, a newspaper closely tied to the Iranian regime, which produced an in-depth piece about unresolved issues in US-Iran diplomatic negotiations. While according only minor space to missile and regional matters, the wider Iranian media apparatus latched onto these details. When the Entekhab News Agency syndicated Kayhan’s analysis, it placed the missile program and regional strategies front and center, with headlines declaring, ‘Trump did not forget the missile issue and regional cases.’ This editorial decision highlights strategic messaging: Iranian outlets are preparing their domestic audience for America’s likely demands that any future accord with Iran impose limitations on its missile development and curb its support for armed proxies throughout the Middle East.
This intensified focus reflects longstanding US and Israeli concerns. Both countries, along with moderate Arab states, argue that Iran’s proliferation of advanced missiles, and its direct coordination with groups such as Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen, pose immediate threats to regional and international order. These states cite October 7, 2023—the deadliest antisemitic massacre since the Holocaust, carried out by Hamas terrorists under Iranian sponsorship, resulting in the murder of over 1,200 Israelis and mass abductions—as evidence of the catastrophic consequences of leaving Iran’s regional apparatus unchecked.
Historical context is critical. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) addressed Iran’s nuclear activities but did not constrain its missile program or sponsorship of regional terror groups. Israel and Arab allies denounced the omission, a position ultimately adopted by then-President Donald Trump, who withdrew the US from the agreement in 2018, stating it failed to address Iran’s ballistic missiles and aggression across Arab capitals. Iranian media are now explicit in concluding that any successor agreement—especially one shaped by Trump or like-minded policymakers—cannot ignore these issues. As new rounds of negotiation appear on the horizon, both Iran’s state media and its strategic messaging apparatus are signaling refusal to accept restrictions on the weapons and operations at the heart of the regime’s doctrine.
Inside Iran, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) sees missile advancement and extraterritorial operations as inseparable from the regime’s security and influence ambitions. Iranian commanders oversee and supply dozens of regional militias, with recent months marked by Houthi attacks on commercial shipping, missile launches from Hezbollah operatives into Israel’s north, and arms transfers across the Syrian and Iraqi theaters. UN monitors and independent researchers have documented the sophistication and increased numbers of Iranian-provided missiles and drones in these groups’ arsenals, all of which threaten Israel, US interests, and international maritime transit.
Israeli security officials, led by Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir, insist that compartmentalizing the Iranian threat—negotiating on nuclear issues while ignoring missiles and proxy warfare—risks enabling further violence. They point to the IRGC’s central role in orchestrating attacks not only against Israeli civilians but also against American and moderate Arab targets. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu maintains Israel’s right to act unilaterally in self-defense, preempting attacks when necessary if international diplomacy again falls short.
The evolving position from Washington also reflects new realities: after the events of October 7, Congress and US allies in the region have increased pressure to secure guarantees beyond uranium enrichment, linking regional stability to the dismantling of Iran’s missile and proxy networks. US negotiators now find little domestic or allied support for single-issue agreements that might leave Israel or regional partners exposed to Iranian aggression.
Iranian news agencies, therefore, are carrying a dual message to local audiences: one of defiance in refusing to concede military capabilities and regional posture, and one of warning that the US and its partners will demand a broader deal. While Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and leadership figures frame such demands as violations of sovereignty, the regime’s messaging also acknowledges the growing international impatience with Iranian-backed destabilization from Gaza to the Red Sea.
For Israel, the stakes are existential. The government demands any future accord include binding, verifiable restrictions on missile development and proxy activities, warning that exclusion of these threats disregards the public lessons of the October 7th massacre. Security planners insist that Israel will retain freedom to defend itself, especially in the face of a regime unwilling to limit its pursuit of missile supremacy and regional influence through military proxies.
This standoff has broader implications for the entire Middle East. Arab states, increasingly aligned with Israel and the US, seek new frameworks that contain Iran’s coercive adventures, arguing that peace and economic growth depend on rolling back threats from Tehran’s armed partners. Europe, too, supports more expansive negotiation parameters despite internal divisions about tactics and timelines.
As talks approach, all parties confront a hard reality: technical compromises on nuclear oversight cannot substitute for a comprehensive approach to regional security. The risk, veteran diplomats and intelligence professionals warn, is that premature deals invite further escalation, emboldening Iran and its clients to test Israel’s and the region’s tolerance for aggression. With destabilizing incidents and terror atrocities still fresh in memory, the international community faces a stark choice—demand real curbs on Iranian power or face renewed cycles of violence and uncertainty.
Iranian state media’s decision to highlight American insistence on the missile and regional files thus marks more than a rhetorical turn. It reflects deeply-entrenched positions on both sides and serves as a clear signal: this round of diplomacy will have to grapple with the full spectrum of regional threats. For Israel and its allies, nothing less will constitute progress—and the consequences of failure will be felt across the Middle East for years to come.
