NextFin News - In a high-stakes clash between executive rhetoric and institutional intelligence, U.S. President Trump’s recent claims regarding Iran’s missile capabilities have come under intense scrutiny from the nation’s own security agencies. During his State of the Union address on Tuesday, February 24, 2026, at the U.S. Capitol, U.S. President Trump informed a joint session of Congress that Tehran is “working on missiles that will soon reach” the United States. This assertion was framed as a primary justification for potential preemptive military strikes against the Islamic Republic, following a period of heightened regional tensions and a massive U.S. military buildup.
However, the narrative provided by the White House appears to diverge sharply from established intelligence assessments. According to three sources familiar with classified reports, as cited by Reuters, there have been no updates to the unclassified 2025 U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment. That report concluded that Iran would likely require until 2035 to develop a “militarily viable intercontinental ballistic missile” (ICBM) from its current space-launch vehicle (SLV) technology. Even with hypothetical technological infusions from partners like North Korea or China, intelligence officials suggest a minimum window of eight years—not months—before an operational ICBM could threaten the U.S. mainland.
The discrepancy centers on the technical distinction between Space Launch Vehicles and ICBMs. While Iran has successfully used SLVs to put satellites into orbit, the transition to a weaponized ICBM requires sophisticated re-entry vehicle (RV) technology. According to David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, an RV must survive extreme thermal and atmospheric stresses when re-entering the Earth's atmosphere at hypersonic speeds. Albright notes that Iran currently lacks a proven RV capable of protecting a nuclear warhead during this phase, a technical hurdle that historically takes years of flight testing to clear.
This intelligence-policy gap suggests a strategic shift toward what analysts call "threat acceleration." By compressing the perceived timeline of an Iranian threat, the U.S. President may be attempting to manufacture the domestic and international political capital necessary for a "maximum pressure 2.0" campaign. This approach mirrors the lead-up to the June 2025 airstrikes, which U.S. President Trump claimed “obliterated” Iran’s uranium enrichment sites. However, the current rhetoric from Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been notably more measured. Rubio stated on Wednesday that Tehran is merely on a “pathway” to such weapons, a linguistic nuance that provides the administration with diplomatic maneuverability while still maintaining a hawkish stance.
The geopolitical implications of this rhetoric are already manifesting in global markets. Following the State of the Union address, Brent crude futures saw increased volatility as traders priced in the risk of a kinetic conflict in the Strait of Hormuz. If the U.S. President proceeds with strikes based on these disputed claims, the impact on the global energy supply could be catastrophic. Iran currently maintains the largest ballistic missile force in the Middle East, and while they may not reach Washington, they can certainly reach the Al-Dhafra Air Base in the UAE or the Ras Tanura refinery in Saudi Arabia. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi reinforced this defensive posture on Wednesday, telling India Today TV that Tehran has intentionally limited its missile range to 2,000 kilometers to avoid being perceived as a “global threat.”
Looking forward, the divergence between the White House and the intelligence community creates a precarious environment for U.S. foreign policy. If the administration ignores the DIA’s 2035 timeline in favor of immediate action, it risks a repeat of the intelligence failures that preceded the 2003 Iraq War, potentially alienating European allies who still rely on IAEA monitoring. Furthermore, the damage dealt to Iranian liquid- and solid-fuel facilities by Israeli strikes in 2024 and 2025 has already set back Tehran’s production capabilities. Analysts predict that if U.S. President Trump continues to push the “imminent threat” narrative, the U.S. may find itself in a unilateral conflict, as the data-driven reality of Iran’s technical limitations makes a multilateral coalition difficult to sustain through the remainder of 2026.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
