- ‘Highly unlikely Iran will agree to any limits on its missile program ... real possibility that the talks will fall apart over this issue,’ Jim Lamson of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies tells Anadolu
- 'The next round is likely to be an all-out war, in which the US will have to try to destroy Iran’s missile program,’ says Ali Vaez, Iran project director at the International Crisis Group
ISTANBUL
As Washington and Tehran continue negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, the country’s ballistic missile arsenal remains a potential deal-breaker, with analysts warning that attempts to expand talks beyond nuclear issues could derail diplomacy and heighten the risk of war.
US and Iranian officials held a second round of talks in Geneva on Tuesday that lasted about four hours, according to Iranian state media, with discussions focusing primarily on technical aspects of the negotiations.
While the current agenda is centered on nuclear issues, analysts say any attempt to expand the talks to include Iran’s missile arsenal would likely face fierce resistance from Tehran and could derail negotiations altogether.
“I view it as highly unlikely Iran will agree to any limits on its missile program, and it is a real possibility that the talks will fall apart over this issue,” Jim Lamson, a senior research associate at the Middlebury Institute’s James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, told Anadolu.
Iran’s ‘red line’
Iran’s ballistic missile program is an integral part of its defense doctrine and has been described by its leaders as non-negotiable.
Prior to last year’s 12-day war with Israel, Iran’s ballistic missile inventory was said to be between 2,500 and 3,000. Analysts estimate that arsenal was reduced by roughly half during the conflict.
“Iran’s ballistic missiles play a key role in Iran’s military strategy for anticipated conflict scenarios, such as an aerospace conflict with Israel or the US, a naval conflict with the US where Iran would use anti-ship ballistic missiles, retaliatory strikes against non-state actors or to defend against a ground invasion,” Lamson said.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said earlier this month that Iran’s missile program is not subject to negotiations now or in the future, describing it as a “defensive matter.”
The refusal to negotiate, according to Lamson, is driven by the fact that the Iranians are likely well-aware that the US would push for monitoring or verification measures for any missile-related limitations.
“Measures such as on-site monitoring or inspections of Iranian missile deployment and production facilities, detailed declarations from Tehran about its missile arsenal, Iranian sharing of missile design or flight test data to prove Iran is not developing missiles beyond a 300 or 500 kilometers (186 to 311 miles) range limit, as well as limits on its development of space launch vehicles, would be unacceptable to Tehran,” he explained.
He added that Iran’s missile arsenal forms the backbone of its conventional long-range strike capabilities.
Ali Vaez, Iran project director at the International Crisis Group, also emphasized that Tehran sees its missiles as core to its national security, not as a bargaining chip.
“It might be willing to make symbolic concessions, like codifying a 2,000-kilometer (1,243-mile) range limit, but it won’t disarm itself,” he said.
Netanyahu’s push
Experts also point to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pressing US President Donald Trump to expand negotiations to include Iran’s missile program and its support for regional armed groups.
Israel has long described Iran’s nuclear program and ballistic arsenal as an “existential threat.”
The two leaders met behind closed doors at the White House last Wednesday in what Trump described as a “very good meeting.”
According to Lamson, Israel’s concerns about Iran’s missiles fall into three main categories.
“First, they allow Iran to target Israeli military and non-military sites with conventionally-armed medium-range ballistic missiles. Second, Iran’s transfers of missiles and production technology … allow groups such as the Lebanese Hezbollah and the Yemeni Houthis to target Israel with short-range ballistic missiles and medium-range ballistic missiles.”
He added that Israel also fears the missiles could eventually serve as delivery systems for nuclear warheads.
Lamson said Netanyahu is likely to push for missile limits as part of any deal, including restrictions on missile range, total numbers, development, production and deployment.
Trump’s preference for a deal
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in an interview with Bloomberg on Saturday that Trump would prefer resolving issues with Iran through negotiations.
“As was the case in the past, there seems to be a degree of daylight between the US and Israel when it comes to Iran,” said Vaez. “President Trump is more interested in striking a deal with Iran, whereas Prime Minister Netanyahu is more interested in striking Iran.”
“If the past is prelude, the two leaders have probably agreed that if diplomacy fails, war should follow,” he added.
According to Vaez, if Trump seeks a maximalist deal, he will get no deal. But if he pursues a realistic agreement, Iran seems more prepared than before to sign on the dotted line.
“There are creative solutions available for non-nuclear disagreements,” he said. “The parties could agree to a non-aggression understanding that could extend to their respective allies. Iran could then contend that it has received a security guarantee against another US or Israeli attack, and President Trump can sell the deal as Iran stepping aside from supporting its regional proxies against Israel.”
Military escalation
At the same time, the Pentagon is preparing for a possible military escalation, having moved many major naval and air assets to the region over the past few weeks.
Vaez warned that any new confrontation would likely be far more serious than previous exchanges.
“The next round is likely to be an all-out war, in which the US will have to try to destroy Iran’s missile program,” he said.
Trump warned last month that the US could strike Iran if it refused to curb its nuclear program, writing on Truth Social that a “massive armada” was heading toward Iran and that “time is running out” to negotiate a “fair and equitable deal.”
But senior US officials reportedly urged him to delay action until forces in the region were better positioned.
An estimated 30,000 to 40,000 US troops stationed across the Middle East, including at eight permanent bases, were said to lack sufficient air defenses to withstand a large-scale retaliation.
Lamson said a possible outcome is a partial deal, with the US and Iran agreeing to limits on Tehran’s nuclear program and its support for regional groups, but not on missiles.
If that happens, he added, Israel could “unilaterally conduct an aggressive air and missile campaign to destroy Iranian ballistic missile deployment, production, and development sites.”
