The memorandum of understanding signed early Thursday by US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian formally halted a regional war that erupted on 28 February with joint American-Israeli strikes. The accord lays the groundwork for detailed negotiations on Tehran’s nuclear ambitions and the unwinding of economic sanctions, yet it is conspicuously silent on Iran’s ballistic missile programme — a longstanding concern for Washington and a red line for Israel. Within hours, both sides signalled starkly divergent interpretations of that omission, exposing a rift that could define the next phase of diplomacy.

Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of the G7 summit in France on Wednesday, Trump argued that denying Iran missiles while its neighbours field similar arsenals would be unjust. He cited Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Arab states as possessors of ballistic capabilities, and suggested that a proportional Iranian force was acceptable. “Missiles are not the problem,” he said, downplaying their destructive potential. The remarks marked a sharp departure from the traditional US posture, which has long treated Iran’s missile programme as a destabilising threat and a potential nuclear delivery system.

Tehran swiftly reinforced its own red line. Foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei told state television that Iranian missiles “do not like at all to be talked about by anyone” and are “only for firing, not for negotiating.” Defence capabilities, he insisted, would not be discussed in any forum or process. This uncompromising stance, while superficially aligned with Trump’s permissive tone, effectively shuts the door on a core Israeli demand: the dismantling of Iran’s ballistic missile forces. Viewed from Jerusalem, the emerging Washington-Tehran consensus represents a strategic blow.

The MoU’s silence on missiles thus creates a paradox. It enabled the war-ending deal to proceed, but it also embeds a fundamental disagreement into the architecture of future talks. Analysts in European capitals note that while the nuclear file may advance, the absence of a missile framework risks perpetuating regional instability. Gulf states, themselves possessors of advanced missile systems, may see Trump’s logic as validation of their own arsenals, but Israel is likely to intensify diplomatic efforts to ensure the issue is not permanently shelved. The coming negotiations will test whether this omission was a tactical pause or a strategic concession.