Missiles, carriers, and red lines: Washington, Tehran and Jerusalem face off in a historic confrontation. Who blinks first? |
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s trip to Washington last week was far from a routine diplomatic exercise. The objective was straightforward: convince President Donald Trump to intensify pressure on Iran. Netanyahu’s demands were unambiguous and uncompromising: Iran must be stripped of its nuclear program, the missile production plants must be dismantled, and the number and range of hypersonic missiles must be capped. For Israel, the Iranian missiles are an existential threat.
But Trump has also been unambiguous in his response. “Either we reach a deal, or we’ll have to do something very tough,” he said in a statement to Israeli Channel 12. The attempt was to sound tough, but in the process, the President has also placed himself in a tight spot. Iran has not hesitated to call the President’s bluff. While agreeing to consider lowering the level of uranium enrichment, Iran drew a red line around the missile program. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi was very clear and blunt. The Iranian ballistic missile program was “never negotiable,” he said following the talks in Oman. “For talks to actually lead to something meaningful, they will have to include the range of their ballistic missiles, their sponsorship of terror organizations, and the treatment of their own people,” chimed in Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
The Pentagon’s deployment of a second carrier, the USS Gerald Ford, intensified regional tensions, leaving analysts to debate whether the move was a strategic show of force to intimidate Iran or a tactical preparation for an imminent strike. Trump’s announcement of this deployment came after he met with Netanyahu, reinforcing his commitment to a diplomatic solution with Iran, even as he deployed additional military assets into position. The RAND Corporation and CSIS experts point out that carrier deployments often serve as a demonstration of force that often leads to action, as miscalculations come into play.
READ: Iran’s top general warns new war will be ‘lesson’ for Trump ahead of next round of talks
The Impasse
This raises a critical question: Have the players reached a strategic impasse? Trump has laid down five tough demands that Iran has rejected. Iran has conceded on uranium enrichment but refuses to discuss missiles. Netanyahu insists that Iran’s missiles must be curbed.
The question now is who blinks first. Trump does not want war. His base is weary of endless conflicts, but he cannot afford to back down and appear weak. Iran, for its part, sees missiles as the backbone of its deterrence strategy.
The question now is who blinks first. Trump does not want war. His base is weary of endless conflicts, but he cannot afford to back down and appear weak. Iran, for its part, sees missiles as the backbone of its deterrence strategy.
As Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group has argued,
“For Tehran, missiles are not bargaining chips — they are survival tools.”
“For Tehran, missiles are not bargaining chips — they are survival tools.”
The confrontation is a high-stakes gamble—a definitive trial of strength and resolve. The current standoff hinges on a fundamental disagreement: Iran is prepared to engage on the nuclear front, yet it continues to treat its missile development as a non-negotiable red line. Ali Shamkhani, Representative of the Supreme Leader in the Supreme Defense Council, made it unmistakably clear what Iran’s bottom lines were during celebrations of the 47th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, declaring, “The Islamic Republic’s missile capabilities are non-negotiable.” For Iran, its missiles serve as a shield against the overwhelming military superiority of its adversaries.
Netanyahu, meanwhile, maintains that missiles should be addressed as well. Prior to his departure, Netanyahu expressed strong doubts about the deal. “I’m saying we should have an agreement, but it should be an agreement that deals with not only the nuclear issue, but also ballistic missiles and Iranian proxies in the region,” Netanyahu said. Barbara Slavin, director of the Stimson Center, noted, “Netanyahu had maximalist demands to present to the president, and those were driven by his belief that Iran poses a mortal threat to Israel.”
READ: Increased US military presence in Middle East aims to defend forces: Rubio
The Israeli factor – and the American one
The real question now is who blinks first. Trump wants no war, as his base is war-weary. However, he also cannot afford to appear weak and lose the deal. “There was nothing definitive reached other than I insisted that negotiations with Iran continue to see whether or not a deal can be consummated,” Trump wrote after the Netanyahu meeting, “I let the Prime Minister know that will be a preference,” but added, “If it cannot, we will just have to see what the outcome will be.”
Domestic politics are also at play here, as the Israeli lobby is exerting strong pressure on President Trump, reminding him of his commitment to stand by Israel’s side against Iran. On the other hand, the MAGA movement, which supports President Trump, may not be too keen on another war in the Middle East, nor would they like the intervention of the donor class.
Tucker Carlson, the influential voice in right-wing media, recently warned that a war with Iran “would be a middle finger in the faces of the millions of voters” who wanted America First.
Tucker Carlson, the influential voice in right-wing media, recently warned that a war with Iran “would be a middle finger in the faces of the millions of voters” who wanted America First.
The President faces a stark choice: maintain his alliance with the Israel lobby or lean into populist rhetoric, casting the war effort as a “deep state” manoeuvre intended to force his hand. While the thunder of war may echo across the Persian Gulf, the true battle is being waged in the shadowed corridors of American power.
The President faces a stark choice: maintain his alliance with the Israel lobby or lean into populist rhetoric, casting the war effort as a “deep state” manoeuvre intended to force his hand. While the thunder of war may echo across the Persian Gulf, the true battle is being waged in the shadowed corridors of American power.
The escape bridge.
This is where Sun Tzu’s wisdom comes into play: “Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across.” Both Trump and Iran’s Supreme Leader are high up in their respective trees. Neither wants to come down, but both know that if they do, it could be catastrophic. The problem is to find a golden bridge, a compromise that allows both sides to save face without war. Maybe a new agreement to limit uranium enrichment and regional missiles could be it. In an interview with the BBC in Tehran, Majid Takht-Ravanchi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, said the ball was “in America’s court to prove that they want to do a deal”, adding: “If they are sincere, I’m sure we will be on the road to an agreement.” He stated clearly that Iran is ready to consider compromises to reach a nuclear deal with the US if the Americans are willing to discuss lifting sanctions.
The agonising month of waiting
Iran’s Foreign Minister Araghchi heads to Geneva for Tuesday’s second round of Iran-US talks. The world is holding its breath. Netanyahu, Trump, and Iran’s Supreme Leader are locked in a precarious dance. Each has drawn a red line. Each has to answer to a constituency that demands they not retreat. But history shows us that brinksmanship often leads to tragedy, not triumph. So, we wait for a month. Carriers head for the Gulf, and diplomats shuttle between capitals. Lobbyists whisper in Washington’s corridors, and the world waits to see who blinks first. Will Trump go all in on a war he does not want? Will Iran miscalculate, thinking America will not strike? Will Netanyahu’s pressure campaign succeed, or will it force America’s hand into a war that could remake the Middle East? For now, the region waits – and watches – for the first blink or the first spark.
OPINION: Two scorpions in a jar: How Trump and Netanyahu’s alliance became a cage
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.