Iran has significantly accelerated the construction and operational readiness of its underground military infrastructure, aimed at enhancing its long-range ballistic missile capabilities. Verified satellite imagery and credible intelligence assessments indicate that, in western Iran, state-directed engineering teams, under the supervision of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), are close to completing at least one major subterranean missile launch complex. According to Israeli defense officials and independent Western intelligence sources, these efforts form part of a wider Iranian push to maximize the number and capacity of hardened sites from which its forces can launch ballistic attacks, even in the face of potential preemptive airstrikes or hostile action.
Current analysis, based on imagery reviewed by defense think tanks and corroborated by the Israeli Ministry of Defense, reveals that this near-finished underground installation is configured for the near-simultaneous firing of up to 90 long-range surface-to-surface ballistic missiles. This operational capacity is achieved with nine launch shafts situated within a secured, reinforced complex, capable of rotating or cycling missile launches in quick succession. The means and methods of construction align with open-source evidence about Iran’s broader missile doctrine, which prioritizes survivability, rapid reaction capability, and the overwhelming of adversary missile defense systems.
The revelations about this facility do not stand alone: officials at Israel’s Ministry of Defense, as well as analysts at the International Institute for Strategic Studies and defense correspondents from major international news outlets, have highlighted a marked shift towards underground missile deployment across multiple undisclosed sites in Iran. This trend has intensified since the October 7, 2023, terror massacre by Hamas in southern Israel—an attack that resulted in the largest antisemitic atrocity against Jews since the Holocaust, and which has subsequently shaped regional military calculations and threat perceptions among the United States, Israel, and their partners. In the post-October 7 environment, Western-aligned states have stepped up intelligence-gathering over Iran and its allied terror networks, monitoring the potential for rapid missile escalation or attempts at strategic surprise.
Iranian officials assert that such underground construction projects fall under sovereign defense prerogatives, citing the need for deterrence against what they describe as external threats. Nonetheless, multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions—chiefly Resolution 2231—have called on Iran to refrain from activities related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons. The U.S. Department of Defense, NATO’s eastern Mediterranean command, and Israel’s Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir have all issued warnings, noting that while Iran’s current missile arsenal is conventionally armed, the potential to adapt these platforms for unconventional payloads remains a primary concern. Western governments emphasize that Iran’s missile program is not isolated, but rather forms part of its broader “Axis of Resistance” strategy, executed with and through proxies including Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and affiliated groups in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.
Engineering analyses of the recent site in western Iran show advanced integration of reinforced concrete, shock-absorbing tunnel geometries, and operational redundancies intended to defeat bunker-busting munitions. Technical reviews, based on commercial satellite passes and infrared analytics, indicate ongoing activity at several other deep-underground facilities across Iran, suggesting a systemic approach to expanding protected launch infrastructure. These developments raise significant challenges for planners in Jerusalem and Washington; deep-layered defenses and fast reload capabilities could allow Iran to saturate missile defenses, exploiting both the limitations of existing interceptor batteries and the fog of war during a crisis.
The strategic ramifications extend beyond Israel’s immediate security environment. U.S. Central Command has stressed that Iranian long-range missile reach includes not just Israel, but also U.S. military assets and allied facilities throughout the Gulf and southeastern Europe. Past IRGC missile tests have demonstrated theoretical ranges exceeding 2,000 kilometers, with the Shahab, Emad, and Sejjil classes forming the backbone of Iran’s deterrent and coercive armory. This regional threat is amplified by the operational linkage between underground complexes in Iran and advanced missile stockpiles provided to proxy forces across the Middle East—a supply chain repeatedly documented by international arms control monitors and United Nations panels.
Israel’s response has been multilayered: it has redoubled investment in private-public innovations for missile defense, upgrading and expanding the deployment of Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow-2/3 systems. In parallel, the Israeli Air Force, in cooperation with partner intelligence services, has calibrated operational plans for striking hard-to-reach underground missile emplacements should preemptive action prove necessary. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz have repeatedly underscored that Israeli military doctrine is built on an unambiguous distinction between the targeted defense of civilians and the deliberate attacks on noncombatants by terror networks. Jerusalem continues to call for intensified Western cooperation, not only in intercepting imminent threats but also in dismantling the transnational financial and logistical pipelines that sustain Iranian missile and terror operations.
Within Iran, the IRGC’s focus on underground assets signals both a commitment to regime security and a strategy of strategic ambiguity: by withholding details about the full extent or distribution of missile complexes, Tehran aims to deter attack while maximizing uncertainty among its adversaries. This mirrors a broader ideological posture, established since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, in which external confrontation is coupled with internal claims of technological sovereignty and resistance. Regional analysts frame the expansion of Iran’s missile infrastructure as part of a calculated effort to maintain escalation dominance, allowing Iran to credibly threaten Western allies and regional rivals alike while minimizing its own exposure to swift military retaliation.
The dangers of miscalculation in this environment remain acute. U.S. and European defense officials warn that Iran’s rapidly hardening missile posture complicates both early-warning indicators and crisis de-escalation mechanisms. The destructive potential of even a limited barrage of Iranian long-range missiles—especially if coordinated with parallel attacks by Hezbollah or other proxies—poses a serious risk to civilian populations throughout the Levant and beyond. Humanitarian and legal organizations, including the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, have repeatedly emphasized the urgent need to uphold civilian protections and international legal standards amidst intensifying military competition.
At the operational level, Israeli and U.S. defense planners are refining both kinetic and non-kinetic options for countering the underground missile threat, ranging from cyber operations to advanced deep-penetration munitions and more robust satellite surveillance. Significant intelligence-sharing agreements, including those brokered over the past two years with several Gulf states, have enhanced collective situational awareness and bolstered the West’s capacity for deterrence and rapid response.
As Iran pushes forward in its race to operationalize these underground complexes, Western policy must balance deterrence with ongoing diplomatic efforts and investment in emerging missile defense technologies. The dynamic realities of the Middle East require adaptive strategies—from strengthening the alliance architecture that underpins both Israeli and American security, to holding state sponsors of international terrorism accountable via sanctions, interdictions, and, when necessary, judicious use of force. The stakes for regional stability, and for the maintenance of the rules-based international order more broadly, are underscored by Iran’s determination to shield its missile forces underground—raising new questions about crisis management, escalation control, and the future of warfare in an age defined by advanced precision strike capabilities and proliferating technologies.
