Global & US Headlines
Israel Signals Unilateral Strike Plans on Iran’s Missile Arsenal Ahead of Trump Meeting
Between 8–11 Feb 2026, Jerusalem formally told Washington it will attack Iran’s ballistic-missile infrastructure if U.S.–Iran diplomacy omits missile limits and Tehran’s stockpile expands beyond Israel’s red line.
Focusing Facts
- Israeli briefings estimated Iran fields ~1,800 ballistic missiles with 60–80 launchers; a “significant increase” would trigger Israeli action, officials said on 9 Feb 2026.
- Prime Minister Netanyahu met President Trump at the White House on 11 Feb 2026 to press for U.S. negotiations that cap Iran’s missiles, not just its nuclear work.
- U.S.–Iran indirect talks resumed in Muscat on 9 Feb 2026, but Iran publicly ruled out any discussion of missiles.
Context
Israel’s threat echoes its 1981 strike on Iraq’s Osirak reactor and the 2007 attack on Syria’s Al-Kibar site—both unilateral moves taken when Jerusalem judged outside diplomacy too slow. The episode fits a decades-long pattern: states facing what they deem existential weapons in rival hands often choose pre-emptive force (cf. Britain’s 1940 raid on Taranto’s fleet) rather than trust distant guarantors. It also spotlights a structural problem in non-proliferation: missile technology, cheaper and easier to hide than enrichment plants, has proliferated from Scud transfers in the 1980s to today’s underground “missile cities.” Over a 100-year arc, whether Israel actually strikes matters less than the precedent—normalising preventive attacks on delivery systems could erode already-fragile norms against first use and push regional actors toward further hardening, dispersion, and potentially nuclear hedging, locking the Middle East into an accelerating offense–defense spiral.
Perspectives
Israeli security-oriented media
The Jerusalem Post, ynetnews — They frame Iran’s expanding ballistic-missile force as an existential menace and insist Israel must be ready to strike the program unilaterally if U.S. diplomacy proves too soft. Reporting is steeped in national-security urgency that can inflate the imminence of the threat and portrays military action as almost inevitable, minimising diplomatic alternatives that might undercut domestic support for hard-line policies.
Regional Arab & international news-wire outlets
Asharq Al-Awsat English, Al Arabiya, Reuters/APA, Devdiscourse — Coverage centers on the high-stakes Trump-Netanyahu talks and stresses the need to broaden—but ultimately pursue—U.S.–Iran diplomacy, warning that Israeli pressure or U.S. strikes could ignite a wider regional war. By foregrounding diplomatic process and regional stability these outlets tend to soft-pedal Israel’s stated red lines and may portray Israeli threats as political brinkmanship, reflecting Gulf and diplomatic incentives to avoid direct confrontation with Iran.
U.S. policy-analysis/business press
Forbes — Commentary argues that Iran’s missiles have long been used offensively rather than purely for deterrence, proving any deal that ignores them is fatally flawed. A Washington-centric, hawkish analytic lens spotlights every Iranian missile launch to justify tougher containment, underplaying Tehran’s security narrative and nudging readers toward maximalist restrictions or force.