JERUSALEM—Amid ongoing U.S.-Iran negotiations aimed at curbing Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, one critical element remains virtually untouched: Iran’s expanding ballistic missile program. This persistent omission, demanded by Tehran as a precondition for every round of talks, continues to destabilize the region, with significant implications for Israel’s security and international efforts to constrain Iranian military capabilities.
Iranian authorities have repeatedly stated, both publicly and in diplomatic channels, that their missile development is a non-negotiable component of national defense. This position is explicitly codified by Iran’s Supreme National Security Council and articulated by top officials from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), who argue that any limitation on missile production would undermine the regime’s ability to deter external threats.
At the center of this stand-off is the United States, whose evolving policy under President Donald Trump has vacillated between maximum pressure—emphasizing broad restrictions and comprehensive inspections beyond the nuclear file—and an openness to narrowly focused deals, should Iran show flexibility. Despite attempts by Washington and European allies to expand the agenda to include missile controls, Iran’s leaders consistently refuse, asserting that the negotiations relate only to nuclear activities and should mirror the civilian energy programs of countries like Turkey and Egypt, which face no comparable restrictions.
The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), from which the U.S. withdrew in 2018, did not place binding constraints on Iran’s missile arsenal. Experts and Israeli officials have since criticized this gap, warning that it allowed Iran to accelerate both missile improvements and the transfer of advanced weapons to proxy groups across the region. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Israel Katz, and leading security officials have repeatedly told the international community that failing to address the missile dimension enables Iran’s aggression on multiple fronts—from Lebanon and Syria to Yemen and Gaza.
Within Israel’s security establishment, there is heightened concern that Iran’s progress in missile technology—including ranges exceeding 2,000 kilometers and improved precision guidance—brings Israeli population centers and strategic sites within closer reach of an Iranian strike. These anxieties are intensified by the October 7, 2023, Hamas massacre—the deadliest antisemitic attack since the Holocaust—which demonstrated the capacity of Iran-backed terror organizations to inflict civilian casualties with advanced weaponry supplied directly from Tehran.
Tehran justifies its enrichment of uranium as civilian, denying Western efforts to limit it by referencing similar programs in regional states. Israeli and Western intelligence agencies, however, warn that the ability to enrich uranium at high levels, when paired with sophisticated missile delivery systems, brings Iran alarmingly close to nuclear weapons ‘breakout’ capability. Israeli military leaders maintain that such a scenario is ‘unacceptable’ for Israel’s survival, placing all options—including pre-emptive military action—firmly on the table.
Efforts to broaden the negotiating framework have routinely broken down on this point. Iran’s chief negotiators insist that missiles are essential for its security, especially given the U.S. military presence in the Gulf and repeated threats from Israel. Iranian officials cite international law and invoke what they claim is hypocrisy: demanding Iranian disarmament while U.S. allies develop their own indigenous missile and nuclear infrastructures without censure.
Israel’s position is unequivocal: the unchecked growth of Iran’s ballistic missile program, combined with ongoing uranium enrichment, presents a threat not just to Israel but to the broader stability of the Middle East. The IDF, led by Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir, supports enhanced missile defenses, including the Iron Dome and David’s Sling, and demands international action to halt the flow of Iranian arms to proxies such as Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and aligned militias in Syria and Iraq. Each of these groups continues to receive funding, technology, and logistical support through a network coordinated by the IRGC, reinforcing the ‘axis of resistance’ against Israel and its regional partners.
The Trump administration’s dual-track strategy creates persistent ambiguity: on one hand, rhetoric about striking the ‘maximum deal’; on the other, statements indicating willingness to adjust demands if Iran engages in serious negotiations. Senior Israeli analysts warn that this unpredictability increases the likelihood of a crisis spiraling either into a return to a flawed diplomatic agreement or into direct conflict targeting Iran’s nuclear and missile sites. With diplomacy and deterrence equally balanced, Israeli officials privately estimate the chances of either outcome at 50/50.
As negotiations continue, the absence of progress on the missile issue underscores a dangerous reality: the failure to include these weapons in diplomatic frameworks leaves Israel and its allies facing a persistent threat. With Iran’s proxies on multiple borders and the lessons of October 7 fresh in Israeli memory, senior policymakers maintain that only firm, united international pressure holds any hope of constraining Iran’s military ambitions and protecting the lives of millions living under the daily threat of missile attack.
