The Iranian Missile Program is Non-Negotiable: Trump Demands the Impossible and the Gulf is Stuck in the Middle

On February 13, 2026, Ali Shamkhani, Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council of Iran, announced that Iran's missile capability is a "firm element" of its defense doctrine and part of its deterrence mechanism. This statement was a direct response to U.S. President Donald Trump's demands, who warned just a day earlier that Iran had "about one month" to reach an agreement, or it would face "very tough times." Trump added in an interview with Fox Business on February 10 that an acceptable deal with Iran means "no nuclear weapons, no missiles."

The numbers speak clearly: the U.S. Navy deployed the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford to the Middle East, joining the USS Abraham Lincoln, in an unprecedented military escalation since the Iraq War in 2003. At the same time, U.S. officials revealed that the United States smuggled 6,000 Starlink devices into Iran during the recent wave of protests, in an attempt to support the protesters in "overthrowing the regime."

Why are Missiles a "Red Line" for Iran?

From a purely military standpoint, Shamkhani's position is not political rhetoric - it is a strategic reality. Iran lacks a modern air force; its fleet of F-14 Tomcat fighters (purchased from the U.S. before the Islamic Revolution in 1979) has become hopelessly outdated. Its conventional ground forces, despite their numbers, cannot match the technological superiority of the U.S. and Israel.

In October 2025, General Mohammad Ali Jafari, the former commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, explained Iran's strategy with rare candor: "Iran has deliberately developed missiles and drones at the expense of its air and ground forces to counter the superior capabilities of the United States and Israel." In other words, ballistic missiles are the "air power of the poor" - Iran's only means to impose a real cost on its adversaries.

Any military officer who has served in the region understands this equation: without ballistic missiles, Iran has no credible deterrent mechanism. Trump's demand for "no missiles" is equivalent to asking Iran to remove its teeth while the U.S. and Israel maintain their full arsenals.

Israeli Pressure and Netanyahu's Dilemma

On February 11, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with Trump in Washington, where they discussed the Iranian nuclear and missile program. According to Israeli media reports, Netanyahu urged Trump not to accept any agreement with Iran that does not address its ballistic missile program.

The Israeli position makes sense from an Israeli security perspective: the Iron Dome, David's Sling, and Arrow 3 systems - despite their proven effectiveness against Hamas and Hezbollah missiles - may struggle to intercept a barrage of hundreds of Iranian medium- and long-range ballistic missiles simultaneously. Israel wants to eliminate the threat at its source, not just manage it.

But the irony is clear: Israel itself has one of the largest ballistic missile arsenals in the Middle East, including Jericho III missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Demanding "no missiles" from Iran while Israel retains its missile capabilities reinforces the Iranian narrative that the U.S. goal is not "regional disarmament" but permanent dominance.

Gulf States: Caught in Crossfire

At the World Defense Exhibition 2026 in Riyadh (which just concluded a few days ago), Saudi Arabia signed contracts worth $8.8 billion. A significant portion of these deals was to enhance air defense: additional THAAD batteries, upgraded Patriot systems, advanced radars. The United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait - all have invested billions in U.S.-made missile defense systems.

But in practical terms, the effectiveness of these systems critically depends on direct U.S. support: maintenance, munitions, intelligence, software updates. In the event of a large-scale Iranian-Gulf conflict, will Washington stand by Riyadh and Abu Dhabi? The answer has become less clear under Trump.

The Gulf states face an unenviable strategic dilemma:

• Scenario One: If the U.S. and Israel strike Iran militarily, Gulf bases will become legitimate targets for Iranian retaliation. Iranian missiles can reach Riyadh, Dubai, and Manama in minutes.
• Scenario Two: If the U.S. and Iran reach an agreement (even if partial), the value of Gulf defense investments decreases. Why spend tens of billions on air defense systems against a "diplomatically neutralized" Iranian threat?

In either case, the Gulf states are the losers. They have spent fortunes on equipment without building real independent capabilities - a pattern I have repeatedly warned about in my previous analyses on the "Triangle of Capability" (equipment × training × institutions). The Gulf has the equipment, but it lacks the other two sides.

The Structural Contradiction with No Solution

The essence of the current crisis is not in the technical details of nuclear enrichment or missile ranges - it is in a structural strategic contradiction: the United States demands that Iran abandon its only effective deterrent means, without offering any credible alternative security guarantees.

Iran, for its part, will never accept "no missiles" as long as Israel possesses a nuclear and missile arsenal, and as long as the United States continues to deploy aircraft carriers 200 nautical miles from its shores. This is not political obstinacy - it is a logic of survival.

Shamkhani stated that Iran's missile capabilities are "a natural part of the essential defensive components of states" and that they are "off the table for political negotiations." The translation of that: Iran will negotiate its nuclear program (within limits), but it will not negotiate its survival.

Meanwhile, the Gulf states - which have just spent $88 billion at the World Defense Exhibition and countless other contracts - find themselves caught in the middle of a strategic chess game they cannot control. They have bought weapons, but they have not bought security. And the difference between the two, as any professional military officer knows, is everything.