A reversal four decades in the making just played out in front of cameras in France. President Donald Trump confirmed that Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal will survive the peace process his administration is negotiating, abandoning a demand that every American president before him treated as untouchable.
The admission came casually, almost as an aside, during a press availability at the G7 summit. Trump waved off the notion that Tehran could be stripped of its conventional missiles entirely, explaining that the regime “got to have some.”
He framed the logic around regional parity, pointing to America’s own ally in the Gulf. “What am I going to do? Am I going to let Saudi Arabia have missiles, but they can’t have them?” he asked the assembled press.
From there, Trump minimized the danger the weapons actually pose. “Missiles aren’t the problem. They hurt a little location, but they don’t blow up the planet,” he told reporters, brushing aside decades of strategic concern in a single sentence.
A journalist in the room wasn’t ready to let it go, reminding the President that wiping out Iran’s missile capability had been billed as a central goal of the recent military campaign codenamed Epic Fury.
Trump’s answer leaned on numbers rather than principle. “What are they keeping? They have less than other nations now. The rest of them are underground. They can’t even get them out,” he said, asserting that strikes had already destroyed close to 85 percent of Iran’s stockpile.
There was also uncertainty about Trump’s own role in finalizing the arrangement. He suggested he could remain in France through Friday for a signing ceremony, but immediately hedged, warning the paperwork “might not be the kind of document” he’s prepared to sign.
The press conference took an unexpected turn when Trump began joking about who would shoulder the blame if the agreement falls apart, singling out his own Vice President.
“I like that idea. This way, if it works out, I’m going to take the credit. If it doesn’t work out, I’m blaming JD. You better be careful, JD. He’s going to turn his plane around and get the hell out of here,” Trump said.
The comments arrive at an uncomfortable moment for Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who has spent months making the public case that Iran’s missiles represented an active and growing danger to American interests.
Rubio described Tehran’s refusal to put its arsenal on the negotiating table as a “big problem” and an “unsustainable threat,” insisting the weapons existed for one purpose: a program “solely designed to attack America and attack Americans.”
Missile disarmament has functioned as a bipartisan red line for generations, surviving Democratic and Republican administrations alike without exception until now.
That red line is exactly what doomed Barack Obama’s 2015 nuclear accord in the eyes of its critics, since the deal left missiles untouched after Iranian negotiators flatly refused to discuss them — a concession that drew sustained fire from hawkish voices, Trump included.
Trump’s own rhetoric in 2017 left little room for ambiguity. Addressing the United Nations General Assembly, he declared, “We cannot let a murderer’s regime continue these destabilizing activities while building dangerous missiles.”
That position drove him to pull out of the Obama-era agreement altogether in 2018, citing the missile program as “unfinished business” before launching a maximum pressure campaign explicitly built around eliminating it.
Measured against that record, his latest remarks represent a direct contradiction of his own first-term doctrine, not merely a departure from the policies of his predecessors.
Beyond the missile question, the broader framework taking shape would pause hostilities across the region, hand Iran a measure of economic relief, and open a “60–day negotiating process” between American and Iranian officials.
Controversy is already building around one provision in particular: language reportedly tied to a “$300 billion reconstruction and development fund for Iran,” a number critics say raises serious doubts about how much ground Washington is willing to give.
The underlying memorandum remains unpublished, but accounts describing its contents portray it as a stopgap measure meant to prevent renewed fighting after a period of conflict that included direct American strikes on Iranian nuclear sites.
Its reach extends well past the nuclear file, reportedly touching Lebanon, the Strait of Hormuz, sanctions policy, maritime security, and the long-term footprint of U.S. forces across the Middle East.
Continue Scrolling for the Comments
Leave a Comment