Two-minute read
In the span of a few days, Iranian officials and state-linked outlets have amplified a familiar message: “Iran’s missile program is non-negotiable, military readiness is high, and international oversight bodies are acting politically.” The pattern—aggressive language, noisy reporting around missile activity, and confrontational responses to the IAEA and UN human-rights mechanisms—signals a regime intent on projecting strength to both external adversaries and a domestic base under strain.
A “non-negotiable” missile doctrine
At his weekly press briefing on Monday, December 22, 2025, Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei rejected any negotiations over the regime’s missile program, framing it as designed to protect sovereignty and territorial integrity and therefore not subject to bargaining.
In parallel coverage, Baghaei cast the broader Western focus on the regime’s military capabilities as politically motivated and argued Iran’s defense posture is deterrent in nature rather than a topic for diplomatic trade-offs.
Hours after Baghaei’s remarks, an information surge around alleged missile activity spread through Iranian media ecosystems.
#Tehran Escalates War Rhetoric to Mask Decline and Bolster Demoralized Forceshttps://t.co/nz151KuRIs
— NCRI-FAC (@iran_policy) August 20, 2025
On December 22, the IRGC-run Fars News Agency reported that “field observations and people’s reports” suggested missile testing occurred in several parts of the country, naming Khorramabad, Mahabad, Isfahan, Tehran, and Mashhad.
Later the same day, Mehr News Agency reported that IRIB (state broadcaster), citing “informed sources,” rejected the missile-test narrative, stating that no missile tests were conducted and that the white trails in the sky were attributable to a high-altitude aircraft rather than missile launches.
The divergence suggests a calibrated posture in which the mullahs in Tehran seek the psychological and deterrent value of showing off capability, while preserving deniability to avoid triggering the regional and international costs that can follow overt escalation.
#Iran’s Regime Projects Military Defiance as Domestic Crises Tighten the Squeeze https://t.co/IEQhI4QPSD
— Ali Safavi (@amsafavi) December 21, 2025
Defiance toward the UN
Meanwhile, Iranian state officials described ongoing “contacts” with the IAEA—while simultaneously rejecting what the regime characterizes as “politicized pressures” on its program.
On December 24, the regime’s ruling establishment signaled another obstructionist turn: nuclear chief Mohammad Eslami said Tehran would stonewall requests to inspect nuclear sites struck in recent attacks, hiding behind a procedural pretext that there is “no established regulation” for post-strike inspections. The same day, Eslami escalated the rhetoric further, smearing inspection demands as an attempt to “complete the enemy’s operations”—a line that makes plain the regime’s strategy: demonize oversight and block verification, rather than allow independent scrutiny.
#Iran's Regime Dismisses Gaza Ceasefire, Defies @IAEA and Keeps Missile Talks Off Limitshttps://t.co/clj8FHa6ZH
— NCRI-FAC (@iran_policy) October 6, 2025
Following the UN General Assembly’s adoption of the Third Committee resolution A/C.3/80/L.30 on December 18, IRNA quoted Gholamhossein Darzi, the regime’s ambassador and deputy head of its UN mission, railing against the text as “baseless,” “unnecessary,” and politically motivated, and complaining that “country-specific” resolutions are inherently confrontational and undermine “real dialogue.” In other words: rather than address the substance of the human-rights allegations, the clerical establishment defaulted to procedural attacks and vote-count propaganda meant to delegitimize scrutiny.
Ultimately, this belligerent rhetoric is less a sign of confidence than a tool of deception: it is crafted to mask strategic setbacks, to persuade foreign adversaries that Tehran remains formidable, and to keep a shrinking, demoralized support base from concluding that the regime is losing control. In that sense, the escalating language and choreographed signals are not about changing reality on the ground—they are about managing perceptions at home and abroad.