The Geopolitical Chess Match Over Iran’s Military Might

• Despite President Trump’s public emphasis on diplomacy, the core dispute between the US and Israel centers on including limits to Iran’s expanding missile capabilities in any agreement, which Tehran has repeatedly rejected.
• Israeli strategists, viewing the nuclear issue as currently controlled, prioritize stopping Iran’s missile program, which they see as its most significant military asset and only deterrent capability.
• Analysts suggest that the public differences between the US and Israel over the scope of a potential deal could be strategic messaging, while the US is expected to rely on intensified sanctions rather than imminent military strikes.

US President Donald Trump publicly emphasized diplomacy with Iran following his February 11 meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But experts say the deeper dispute may center not on Iran’s nuclear program, but on its expanding missile capabilities.

After the meeting, Trump signaled that negotiations with Tehran should continue. Netanyahu, however, has pushed for Iran’s missile program to be formally included in any agreement — something Tehran has repeatedly rejected.

Speaking to RFE/RL’s Radio Farda, UK-based defense analyst Hossein Aryan argued that Israel’s long-term strategic objective extends beyond the nuclear issue.

“If we look at this issue in a broad picture, Israel’s goal is to drastically reduce Iran’s defensive capabilities, both under the Islamic republic and even in the period after it,” he said.

According to Aryan, Israel views Iran’s missile arsenal as its most significant military asset and “its only deterrent capability.”

While other regional states possess ballistic missiles, he said Israeli strategists see Iran’s program as fundamentally different because it has become increasingly indigenous and self-sustaining.

Israeli estimates suggest that, if left unchecked, Iran could expand its arsenal to as many as 8,000 missiles by 2028. Such projections help explain Israeli concerns about future saturation attacks overwhelming missile defense systems.

“That is precisely why Netanyahu’s focus is not currently on the nuclear program, because they believe that part is under control or not presently at a critical stage; his main focus is on stopping Iran’s military and missile machine,” Aryan said.

Iran’s nuclear program suffered a major setback after the United States joined Israel’s aerial campaign against Iran in June 2025, targeting nuclear facilities in Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz.

No Treaty Banning Missiles

The missile issue presents a major diplomatic obstacle. Tehran insists its conventional missile program is nonnegotiable, and Aryan noted that no binding international treaty has any outright prohibition on missile development.

Frameworks such as the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and the Hague Code of Conduct are voluntary arrangements rather than enforceable bans.

At the same time, Aryan said US military movements near Iran suggest contingency planning if negotiations fail. He characterized the deployments as part deterrence, part pressure tactic.

“Some of this is media shaping, and part of it is brinkmanship — to push Iran toward diplomacy and extract maximum concessions,” Aryan said. Still, he expressed doubt that such pressure would compel the Islamic republic to scale back or abandon its missile program.

‘Deception Operation’

While Trump and Netanyahu share the goal of stopping a nuclear Iran, they differ on the breadth of a potential deal — at least publicly. Wary of a narrow nuclear agreement, Netanyahu traveled to Washington specifically to ensure missiles are a nonnegotiable part of any US proposal.

Some analysts urge caution in interpreting Trump’s public optimism for diplomacy.

“In my view, Trump’s statements do not necessarily indicate anything specific, and one cannot rely on them with certainty,” said Mohammad Ghaedi, a lecturer at George Washington University.

He suggested that apparent differences between Washington and Israel over what constitutes an acceptable deal could be strategic messaging.

“These remarks may reflect differences between the United States and Israel, but they could also be considered a deception operation, meaning he speaks of gaps and disagreements while simultaneously preparing for a surprise attack,” Ghaedi said.

Although the United States has bolstered its military presence in the region, Ghaedi assessed the likelihood of imminent strikes as relatively low.

Instead, he anticipates intensified sanctions and economic pressure. He pointed to remarks by US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent at the World Economic Forum in Davos, where Bessent credited sanctions with weakening Iran’s economy and fueling domestic unrest.

Still, Ghaedi said Trump, potentially influenced by regional actors such as Qatar and Turkey, might accept a temporary arrangement, even if Netanyahu insists that any agreement must be permanent and include limits on Iran’s missile program.

Iran and the United States held talks earlier this month in Oman, and negotiations are expected to continue. But Tehran maintains that discussions can focus only on its nuclear program. On February 11, Ali Shamkhani, a senior adviser to Iran’s supreme leader, reiterated that “the missile issue is not in the negotiators’ remit.”

By RFE/RL

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com

• Tony Blair Think Tank Calls For North Sea Oil Revival
• Venezuela Oil Revenue Projected to Hit $5 Billion Under U.S. Control
• Indian Scrapyards Welcome Growing Number of Dark Fleet Tankers

Download The Free Oilprice App Today

RFE/RL staff

RFE/RL journalists report the news in 21 countries where a free press is banned by the government or not fully established. We provide what many…

More Info