Will Iran give up its missile program in exchange for a deal?

US President Donald Trump has publicly spoken about diplomacy with Iran following his meeting on February 11 with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

But experts say the deeper disagreement may not be centered on Iran's nuclear program, but rather extend to the Islamic Republic's missile capabilities.

After the meeting, Trump signaled that negotiations with Tehran would continue. Netanyahu, however, demanded that Iran's missile program be formally included in any deal, something Tehran has consistently rejected.

The new round of talks between the US and Iran is expected to take place on February 17 in Geneva.

Speaking to Radio Free Europe's Farda Radio, Hossein Aryan, a UK-based defense analyst, argued that the long-term strategic objective goes beyond the nuclear issue.

"If we look at this issue in a broader perspective, Israel's goal is to drastically reduce Iran's defense capabilities, both under the Islamic Republic and even in the period after it," he said.

According to Aryan, Israel sees Iran's missile arsenal as its most important military asset and as "its only deterrent capability."

Although other states in the region possess ballistic missiles, he said Israeli officials view the Iranian program as different, as it has become increasingly domestically produced and self-sustaining.

Israeli estimates suggest that, if unchecked, Iran could expand its arsenal to 8.000 by 2028. Such projections help explain Israeli concerns about possible massive future attacks, which could put enormous pressure on missile defense systems.

"This is precisely why Netanyahu's focus currently is not on the nuclear program, because they believe that part is under control or is not at a critical stage at the moment. His main focus is to stop Iran's military and missile machinery," Aryan said.

Iran's nuclear program suffered a major blow after the joint US-Israeli air campaign against the Islamic Republic in June 2025, a campaign that targeted nuclear facilities in Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz.

There is no treaty to ban missiles.

The missile issue poses a major diplomatic obstacle. Tehran insists its conventional missile program is non-negotiable, and Aryan stressed that there is no binding international treaty that explicitly prohibits missile development.

Frameworks like the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and the Hague Code of Conduct are voluntary agreements, not legally enforceable prohibitions.

At the same time, Aryan said that US military movements near Iran suggest backup plans in case negotiations fail. He described the deployments as part preventative measure, part pressure tactic.

“Part of this is media shaping, and part of it is pressure – to push Iran towards diplomacy and extract maximum concessions,” Aryan said. However, he expressed doubts that such pressure would force the Islamic Republic to scale back or abandon its missile program.

"Operation fraud"

While Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu share a common goal of preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons, they have different positions on a final deal — at least publicly. Worried about a tight nuclear deal, Netanyahu traveled to Washington to ensure that the missiles would be a non-negotiable part of any American proposal.

Some analysts advise caution in interpreting Trump's public optimism about diplomacy.

"In my view, Trump's statements don't necessarily indicate anything concrete and you can't rely on them with certainty," said Mohammad Ghaedi, a lecturer at George Washington University.

He suggested that the apparent differences between the US and Israel over what is considered an acceptable agreement could be strategic messages.

"These statements may reflect differences between the US and Israel, but they can also be considered a deception operation, meaning that there is talk of differences and disagreements while a surprise attack is being prepared," Mohammad Ghaedi said.

Although the US has strengthened its military presence in the region, Ghaedi assessed that the possibility of immediate attacks remains relatively low.

Instead of immediate attacks, he predicted an escalation of sanctions and economic pressure. He cited Scott Bessent's statements at the World Economic Forum in Davos, where Bessent assessed that sanctions have weakened Iran's economy and fueled internal discontent.

However, Mohammad Ghaedi said that Trump, potentially influenced by regional actors such as Qatar and Turkey, could accept a temporary deal, even though Netanyahu insists that any potential agreement must be permanent and include restrictions on Iran's missile program.

Iran and the US held talks earlier this month in Oman, and a new round is scheduled for Tuesday. But Tehran insists the discussions can only focus on its nuclear program. On February 11, Ali Shamkhani, a senior adviser to Iran’s supreme leader, reiterated that “the missile issue is not within the competence of the negotiators.”