The Perennial 'Threat': Leveraging Missile Diplomacy for U.S. Subsidies
The Actors: Benjamin Netanyahu , then-Prime Minister of Israel, consistently highlighted Iran's ballistic missile capabilities as an existential threat during his visit to Trump. Donald Trump , then-U.S. President, aligned with Netanyahu's framing, signaling a hardline stance against the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and, by extension, Iran. Iranian officials , including Revolutionary
Guard commanders, emphasized their missile program as a defensive 'red line,' asserting sovereignty in the face of perceived external threats. The Funding: The discourse surrounding Iran's missile program frequently precedes or coincides with U.S. commitments to military aid for Israel. For example, in 2016, the Obama administration finalized a $38 billion military aid package over ten years
(2019-2028), the largest in U.S. history, much of which was justified by regional threats including Iran (US State Department, 2016). Statements like Netanyahu's are integral to maintaining the domestic political will for such outlays. The annual budget requests for missile defense systems, both for the U.S. and its allies, are also bolstered by the persistent narrative of an aggressive Iranian
missile capability. The U.S. allocates significant portions of its defense budget (e.g., $10.3 billion for missile defense in FY2023 , Congressional Research Service) to counter such threats, domestically and through foreign military sales. The Incentives: For Netanyahu's government, portraying Iran as an imminent, technologically advancing threat—specifically with missile capabilities—directly