The Perpetual Missile Threat
FIRST INSTANCE: The 'Red Line' Baseline The notion of Iran's missile program as an insurmountable 'red line' in nuclear talks can be traced back over two decades. In 2005 , during initial EU3 (France, Germany, UK) negotiations with Iran, the missile program, though less developed than today, was already being framed by Western powers as a significant non-starter for comprehensive deals. The
consistent message from Iranian officials, then as now, positioned these missiles as purely defensive, non-negotiable assets. This established the foundational impasse, setting expectations for future talks. REPETITIONS: Scripted Escalations and Pre-Negotiation Plays We've seen this playbook many times. In 2015 , leading up to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the missile program was
loudly debated. While the JCPOA ultimately excluded ballistic missiles from its direct purview, the discussions surrounding them served to shape public opinion and harden negotiating positions. The constant media focus on the 'formidable threat'—despite the missiles not being nuclear-tipped—created a climate of perpetual threat. Again, in 2018 , after the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA,
the rhetoric intensified, with claims of enhanced Iranian missile precision and reach often preceding new sanctions or diplomatic pressures. This generated a convenient justification for escalating pressure, rather than engaging in productive dialogue. The timing of such reports is always notable, often coinciding with diplomatic windows or the consideration of new sanctions, serving to pre-empt