TEHRAN – Iran will not acquiesce to U.S. demands regarding its missile program, a senior Iranian defense official said, warning that the country is prepared to respond decisively should Washington choose to try out war for a second time.
Speaking to Al Jazeera, Rear Admiral Ali Shamkhani, secretary of Iran’s Defense Council—a body affiliated with the Supreme National Security Council—said Iran’s missile capabilities have always been, and will remain, a red line. “They are non-negotiable,” he said.
Still, Shamkhani left the door open to a diplomatic breakthrough, but only under clear conditions. “If negotiations are conducted realistically and without excessive demands,” he said, “they can move in a direction that serves everyone’s interests.”
Iran and the United States began a fresh round of nuclear talks earlier this month aimed at limiting Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Iranian officials have repeatedly warned the American side against raising non-starters: zero uranium enrichment, Iran’s missile program, or Tehran’s ties with regional Resistance groups.
Asked about Washington’s expanding military posture in the Persian Gulf—including President Donald Trump’s decision to deploy a second aircraft carrier—Shamkhani said: “Any adventurism against Iran will be met with a strong, decisive, and appropriate response.”
Trump’s options on Iran are increasingly narrow. His administration has already exhausted economic warfare through sanctions, overseen a direct military confrontation, and attempted to exploit unrest to engineer a political rupture inside the country.
The current talks were revived largely due to the efforts of regional states, which urged Tehran to give diplomacy another chance despite Trump’s decision to attack Iran in June 2025 while earlier negotiations were underway. Those same countries were alarmed more recently by Trump’s threats to strike Iran under the pretext of “helping” armed rioters who infiltrated peaceful economic protests last month, killed more than 2,500 civilians and security personnel, and torched public and private property across the country.
Iran warned at the time that even a limited strike would be treated as all-out war. Officials said U.S. bases across the region would be targeted, missiles would rain down on the occupied territories, and the Strait of Hormuz could be closed. Resistance groups in Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen also signaled they would enter the conflict if Washington attacked.
Sources told the Tehran Times that Trump ultimately shelved his plans not because of diplomatic appeals, but after U.S. military officials warned that American forces would be unable to defend their regional assets once Iran retaliated.
For Trump, the talks now offer a different utility: a chance to claim a diplomatic win ahead of the U.S. midterm elections. That prospect has gained importance as his campaign-trail promises to bring peace to Ukraine and Gaza remain unfulfilled. Compounding the pressure, Trump’s aggressive tariff policies have strained relations with European allies and key partners such as South Korea and India—countries Washington relies on in its strategic competition with China. While the tariffs may benefit U.S. industry in the long term, their immediate effect has been higher costs for American consumers.
Any agreement with Iran, however, hinges on Washington respecting Iranian redlines—chief among them missile capabilities and uranium enrichment for civilian use. Iranian officials have, meanwhile, indicated they are prepared to offer incentives that could make a future deal more attractive than the 2015 JCPOA, which Trump abandoned during his first term before launching his “maximum pressure” campaign.
Why Washington is so fixated on missiles
The U.S. fixation on missiles is neither abstract nor defensive. Ali Larijani, Iran’s security chief, has previously disclosed that Washington wants to cap Iran’s missile range at 300 kilometers—a figure chosen with Israel squarely in mind.
Under directives from the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, Iran already limits its missile development to a 2,000-kilometer ceiling. Even at that range, Iran cannot strike the U.S. mainland. Its deterrence doctrine instead focuses on regional targets—an objective it could still achieve even under a 300-kilometer cap.
Major U.S. installations such as Qatar’s Al Udeid Air Base—the forward headquarters of CENTCOM—as well as Al Dhafra in the UAE and facilities in Erbil, Iraq, all fall within that radius. With naval assets and fast-attack vessels, Iran could also threaten U.S. bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Oman.
The real consequence of a 300-kilometer limit would be strategic disarmament vis-à-vis Israel. With distances of 1,000 to 1,600 kilometers separating Iran from the occupied territories, such a restriction would strip Iran of deterrence against a regime that has killed at least 80,000 people and attacked seven countries, including Iran, since 2023.
That deterrence proved decisive last summer. During the joint U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign in June 2025, Iran’s air defenses experienced gaps. Yet Iran still forced both regimes into a ceasefire through the unprecedented damage its missile strikes inflicted on Israeli cities.
According to reports, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself joined Arab, Turkish, and Pakistani officials in urging Trump to avoid further escalation last month—an acknowledgment that Israel is not prepared to withstand sustained Iranian strikes, even for a period as short as the 12-day confrontation it endured.
Despite this, Netanyahu has continued pressing Washington to extract concessions from Tehran on missiles, enrichment, and regional alliances. The Tehran Times understands agreed to resume talks only after making clear that non-nuclear issues and the dismantling of its nuclear program were off the table. While Washington avoided these triggers during the first round of talks in Oman on February 6, the negotiations will collapse if the U.S. reverses course.
Recent Hebrew-language media reports suggest Israel is not seeking an immediate war—but does not want a deal either. “Any deal with Iran is a bad deal,” one analyst said on Channel 11. “War is one option. Another is that the talks simply go nowhere.”
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: tehrantimes.com
