Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrives at Mar-a-Lago on December 29th carrying an intelligence dossier designed to convince President Donald Trump of a singular claim: Iran's ballistic missile program now represents a more immediate existential threat to Israel than its nuclear ambitions. The meeting marks a fundamental recalibration in Israeli threat assessment, pivoting from a decades-long focus on preventing a future Iranian bomb to confronting a present danger—the capacity to overwhelm Israeli defenses with massed conventional missile salvos.
Netanyahu is seeking what Israeli officials describe as a "green light" for military action. The request comes seven months after joint U.S.-Israeli strikes in June 2025 degraded Iran's nuclear infrastructure and halved its missile inventory from approximately 3,000 to 1,500 projectiles. Israeli intelligence now indicates Tehran has prioritized rapid replenishment of those stocks, treating missile production as its most reliable deterrent after the June campaign exposed vulnerabilities across its strategic programs.
The strategic pivot from Natanz to Khojir
For two decades, Israeli security doctrine centered on preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Facilities like Natanz and Fordow dominated intelligence collection and strike planning. The June 2025 air campaign represented the culmination of that strategy—a massive operation that set back Iran's enrichment capabilities and bought time, according to Trump administration assessments.
Yet Jerusalem's calculus has shifted. The new focus is on missile production complexes like Khojir and Modarres, where Iran manufactures the Shahab-3, Sejjil-2, and increasingly sophisticated precision-guided systems. Israeli defense sources have used stark language to describe the threat: a coordinated barrage of several hundred missiles could produce devastation comparable to "a small nuclear weapon" through sheer volume and accuracy, even without unconventional warheads.
This pivot reflects hard-earned lessons from recent conflicts. During the June escalation, Iran demonstrated its willingness to launch mass salvos, testing Israel's multi-layered air defense architecture. While Iron Dome, David's Sling, and Arrow systems performed effectively, they face mathematical limits. Each interceptor costs significantly more than the missiles it destroys, and inventory constraints become critical under sustained bombardment.
Members are reading: Analysis of why Iran's missile focus creates a dangerous escalation trap that another round of strikes may accelerate rather than resolve.
The Monday meeting's broader implications
The Mar-a-Lago meeting will test whether Washington shares Jerusalem's assessment of urgency. Trump administration officials believe the June strikes bought substantial time on the nuclear front. Netanyahu's task is to convince them that the missile threat operates on a different, faster timeline—one measured in months of production cycles rather than years of enrichment progress.
The outcome will shape regional stability through 2025 and beyond. A green light would signal American willingness to engage in sustained military pressure on Iran, potentially opening a new phase of the shadow war. Hesitation would leave Israel weighing unilateral options with all their attendant risks. Either path leads deeper into a conflict neither side appears able to resolve through military means alone, yet neither seems prepared to de-escalate. The shift from nuclear facilities to missile plants may change the targeting priorities, but it does not change the fundamental reality: the Iran-Israel confrontation has become a self-perpetuating cycle where each tactical success generates the conditions for the next strategic crisis.
Subscribe to our free newsletter to unlock direct links to all sources used in this article.
We believe you deserve to verify everything we write. That's why we meticulously document every source.
