Iran says its missile capacity now outstrips levels before the June strikes known as the 12-Day War, and that claim has Washington and Jerusalem scrambling to measure risk and readiness. This piece looks at Tehran’s boasts, expert reactions, and the defensive steps Israel and the United States are accelerating to blunt a growing missile threat. Expect a clear Republican view on the need for strong deterrence and sustained pressure instead of appeasement.
Five months after coordinated U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iranian military and nuclear sites, Tehran is answering with loud claims of recovery and expansion. Those public boasts are meant to send a message: Iran wants to be seen as resilient and dangerous, and it hopes others will treat its missile buildup as a fait accompli. That posture threatens regional stability and American interests across the Middle East.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi put the regime’s line bluntly: “Iran’s missile power today far surpasses that of the 12-Day War,” he recently declared, framing recovery as victory. He added, “The enemy in the recent 12-day war failed to achieve all its objectives and was defeated,” which is less about facts than about domestic and regional signaling. Those claims are part propaganda and part bargaining chip meant to shift international focus away from sanctions and inspections.
Defense Minister Brig. Gen. Aziz Nasirzadeh doubled down on the narrative, insisting on rapid expansion of arms production. “Iran’s defense production has improved both in quantity and quality compared to before the 12-day Israeli-imposed war in June,” Nasirzadeh said Monday, insisting that new missiles are rolling off production lines faster than ever. This is precisely the kind of public posture that should alarm policymakers who value credible deterrence.
Left unchecked, renewed Iranian missile production complicates American deployments and logistics across the region. U.S. forces and bases in the Gulf and Eastern Mediterranean would find themselves under a different kind of pressure if Tehran or its proxies begin a campaign of strikes. A Republican view is straightforward: capability equals leverage, and the only sensible response is to ensure Iranian advances do not translate into operational advantage.
Experts briefed on the conflict point out why missiles matter more than ever in Tehran’s calculations. “There’s no doubt that after the 12-Day War, Tehran understands the missiles constitute the long pole in its ability to deter and punish attacks,” Behnam Ben Taleblu observed, noting a strategic lesson learned. “Expect Tehran to therefore concentrate on building back better when it comes to its missile program, which pre-war was already the largest in the region.”
Those technical dynamics bring a blunt metric into play. “Moving forward, I’d pay attention to the ‘missile math’ between Israel and Iran,” he added. “Much now depends on rates of production between Israeli interceptors and Iranian medium-range ballistic missiles.” That is a simple, hard calculation: if production favors Tehran, escalation risks rise; if defenses outpace offensive output, deterrence holds.
Analysts in Israel make a similar point about politics behind the threats. “They are attempting to pressure the international community to ease sanctions and diplomatic isolation by issuing threats of escalation,” Brig. Gen. (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser said, pointing to internal factional dynamics inside Tehran. “To make these threats credible, and drawing lessons from the war in June, they are working intensively to replenish their arsenal of long-range missiles.”
Kuperwasser warned against complacency. “Their threats should not be dismissed,” he said. “They must be taken seriously.” That is sound counsel for anyone who remembers how quickly a regional stand-off can metastasize into a broader conflict when one side miscalculates or one regime seeks to test resolve.
On the technical front, Tehran has already tested satellite launch vehicles that use multi-stage propulsion and guidance systems similar to what you’d need for an intercontinental missile. American officials have repeatedly accused Iran of masking weapons development inside a civilian space program, a charge that demands scrutiny and a firm defensive posture. The danger is not just rhetoric; it is the technical pathway from satellites to long-range delivery systems.
Israel’s response has been pragmatic and fast. Its multi-layered air defenses were pushed hard during the 12-Day War, and the country is increasing production of interceptors while fielding new technologies. The Iron Dome, David’s Sling and Arrow systems were central to survival, and newer tools like the Iron Beam are being deployed with claims they intercept threats “at a fraction of the cost of conventional interceptors.” That mix of hard defenses and innovation is exactly the kind of posture partners should support.
Washington and Jerusalem now face a clear choice: treat Tehran’s boasts as a threshold that must be reversed through sustained pressure, vigilance, and upgraded defenses, or accept a riskier status quo that invites further coercion. The smarter, tougher path is obvious to those who believe deterrence backed by capability keeps Americans and allies safer.
Darnell Thompkins is a conservative opinion writer from Atlanta, GA, known for his insightful commentary on politics, culture, and community issues. With a passion for championing traditional values and personal responsibility, Darnell brings a thoughtful Southern perspective to the national conversation. His writing aims to inspire meaningful dialogue and advocate for policies that strengthen families and empower individuals.