For more than two decades, Iran's nuclear and missile programs have dominated international discourse, accompanied by a steadily widening gap between official declarations and reality on the ground. This gap is not merely a matter of interpretation or mutual mistrust. It has evolved into a systematic strategy, employed both by the Iranian regime and by the international community, including the US and Israel.
Following the June 2025 "12-day war," this dynamic became even more pronounced. President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly declared since then and up until recent days that Iran's nuclear project was "completely destroyed," is the same president who in recent weeks has called on Iran to reach an agreement to halt its nuclear program. At the same time, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has frequently said since last June that Israel had "removed an existential threat" posed by Iran, has recently emphasized that Iran's ballistic missile threat constitutes an existential danger to Israel. Threats expand and contract according to timing, opportunity and interests.
Declarations against reality
Iran continues to stress that its nuclear program is purely civilian and that it will not relinquish uranium enrichment on its own soil. Regarding missiles, Tehran insists these are defensive measures, necessary in light of the constant threat from the US and Israel. Reality, however, points to a consistent pattern of concealment, obfuscation and gradual progress toward the nuclear threshold. This includes recent reports of attempts to rehabilitate nuclear sites damaged in June 2025, reduced cooperation with inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency and the development of advanced centrifuges. All of this goes far beyond any reasonable civilian requirements.
When it comes to Iran's missile program, the gap is even more striking. Iran is investing massive resources in the development of ballistic missiles with ever increasing ranges, some capable of carrying advanced payloads. It is difficult to reconcile this with claims of "regional defense," given improvements in accuracy, increased lethality, expanded intercontinental range and extensive testing.
Between the hammer and the anvil
This gap is not Iran's alone. The international community, led by the US and Israel, also excels in a persistent dissonance between words and deeds, between declarations and actions. Red lines and ultimatums are repeatedly declared, alongside assertions that "all options are on the table" and promises of "zero tolerance for violations."
The latest wave of protests, which emerged with surprising and precise timing alongside Israel's efforts to persuade the US to recognize and agree to the removal of the ballistic missile threat, once again raised the level of rhetoric. This time, it was accompanied by an unprecedented buildup of US forces and a sharp escalation in verbal threats not heard in the region for a long time. Yet, in the name of "consistency," there has also been a turn toward the diplomatic track, keeping the door open to an alternative outcome. This may even be the preferred option of the US and President Trump, much to Israel's displeasure.
The gap's price
I do not know how the current crisis will end or whether the US will act on its threats. It is unclear whether the situation will escalate into a regional war, or whether Israel will be directly involved, either defensively in response to an Iranian attack or as part of an offensive effort.
What is clear, is that the ongoing gap between declarations and reality creates a dangerous environment. It encourages Iran to continue a policy of testing limits, weakens the credibility of regional and international deterrence and pushes other countries to consider arms races of their own. At the same time, Iran's citizens pay the economic and social price, while the leadership uses the external threat as justification for internal repression.
The Iranian issue is not only a question of nuclear weapons or missiles, revolution or regime. It is a question of credibility. As long as declarations by all sides are not matched by consistent policies and clear action, the gap will continue to widen. In the Middle East, such gaps tend to close not through diplomacy, but through crises and military confrontation.
