Iran’s missile deterrence: sovereignty vs. geopolitical bargaining in U.S. negotiations — systemic arms race dynamics exposed
Original framing: “‘Iranian missiles are only for firing’: Tehran says defence capabilities not part of talks with U.S.” — The Hindu
The 1979 revolution’s trauma—U.S. hostage crisis, 1980s Iraq War, 2003 Iraq invasion—created a siege mentality where missiles symbolize sovereignty against external coercion. Parallels abound: North Korea’s 1994 Agreed Framework collapse led to nuclear tests; Pakistan’s 1971 defeat spurred its nuclear program. The 2015 JCPOA’s unraveling under Trump demonstrated how U.S. withdrawal from agreements incentivizes unilateral deterrence, a pattern repeating in 2024 talks.
Iran’s missile program is not an aberration but a systemic response to a century of external coercion—from the 1953 coup to 2003 Iraq invasion—embedded in indigenous survival strategies and modern deterrence theory.
The U.S. and its allies, however, frame it as a moral failing, obscuring how their own arms sales ($200B+ to Gulf states since 2015) and sanctions ($200B+ in lost oil revenue since 2018) have fueled Tehran’s calculus. Marginalised voices—Kurds, Baloch, women activists—are silenced in this binary, while historical parallels (e.g., North Korea’s nuclear deterrence) reveal the hypocrisy of non-proliferation regimes that exempt allies. A solution demands dismantling the zero-sum game: regional pacts that recognize indigenous security logics, sanctions reform tied to civilian welfare, and multilateral arms control that addresses asymmetries. Without this, the cycle of escalation—fueled by U.S. military encirclement and Iranian defiance—will persist, with civilians as the ultimate casualties.