Iran and the United States have been attempting to deescalate current tensions regarding Iran’s nuclear and missile programs. However, Iran has made it clear that their missile program is “non-negotiable” and essential for responding to future attacks, while the U.S. and its ally, Israel, view these missiles as a tool for Iran to dominate the Middle East. The U.S. has been responding to this clash of opinions by applying economic sanctions and deploying the USS Abraham Lincoln, a navy aircraft carrier. While Iran claims it would consider “curves” in its nuclear program if the U.S. releases certain economic sanctions, a lack of action by the U.S. indicates unwillingness to compromise in any regard.  

To understand this current event, it is important to analyze the historic actions of both the U.S. and Iran. Iran is known for their military support for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, both considered terrorist organizations by many countries. In 2023, Iran increased its involvement with Hamas after Israel’s military operations in the Gaza Strip, Global Conflict Trafficker states. This increased involvement led to a series of back-and-forth military responses, with the U.S. launching strikes against Iran-affiliated targets to counter a surge in attacks on American bases. According to a timeline published by the Council on Foreign Relations, tensions reached a breaking point in June 2025, when Israel launched an unprecedented bombing campaign against Iran that resulted in a 12-day war including U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. 

Therefore, Iran wants to continue its nuclear and missile programs while the U.S., backed by Israel, does not want them to do so. This disagreement persists because the two countries remain committed to their respective positions and are unwilling to compromise on what they believe should happen. Past efforts, such as the Join Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) have been mildly successful in temporarily limiting Iran’s nuclear activities. The Guardian states that the JCPOA agreement lasted ten years, with the US pulling out of the agreement after three years in order to reinstate oil sanctions on Iran. However, other sources claim that the JCPOA was overall unsuccessful since Iran was not in compliance with the agreement during the ten-year span.  

At the core, the conflict reflects deeper concerns about security and transparency. Both sides view the other as a threat and base their international measures on that perspective. Iran has shown a desire for a regional security that excludes non-regional powers such as the U.S. military. Meanwhile, Israel has consistently voiced concern over Iran’s growing military capabilities, and the U.S. remains involved due to its commitment to Israel’s security.  

The U.S. has focused primarily on restricting the weapons themselves, rather than addressing why Iran believes it needs them. Iran views its missile program as a form of deterrence, particularly given tensions with the U.S.-Israel military presence in the region. Addressing the wider regional security environment could potentially create conditions in which Iran feels less reliant on missile development, making cooperation more achievable. 

An alternative to this conflict would require compromise and security guarantees from both sides. One possibility would be an agreement in which the U.S. provides conditional security assurances to Iran that are similar to the commitments it maintains with Israel in exchange for compromises from Iran. Those compromises would include a halt to the development and expansion of its missile program (but being permitted to continue strictly monitored scientific research), and an end to financial and military support to Hamas. In return, the U.S. could gradually lift certain economic sanctions and provide limited security guarantees against external attacks, contingent on Iran’s compliance. 

Rather than increasing direct U.S. military occupation—an approach likely to heighten tensions—a more realistic compromise might involve expanded international monitoring, confidence-building measures, and regional security dialogue. This would allow oversight without infringing heavily on Iran’s sovereignty. This framework would aim to reduce immediate military tensions, address Israel’s security concerns, and give Iran economic incentives to cooperate. Without careful balancing of incentives and enforcement mechanisms, even an agreement under good intentions could collapse under political pressure from both sides, continuing the cycle of mistrust and escalation.  

In conclusion, the conflict between the U.S. and Iran over nuclear and missile programs reflects deeper issues of security, trust, and regional influence. While Iran views its missile program as essential for deterrence, the U.S. and Israel see it as a threat to Middle Eastern stability. Past efforts, such as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, have shown that negotiation is possible, but fragile.