Trump says Iran’s missiles could soon hit America. U.S. intelligence reportedly says — not so fast.
U.S. intelligence assessments do not support President Donald Trump’s recent claim that Iran is on the verge of deploying a missile capable of striking the United States, according to three sources familiar with classified briefings.
During his State of the Union address, Trump warned that Tehran was “working on missiles that will soon reach the United States of America,” framing the threat as part of his broader justification for potential military action.
But intelligence officials say there has been no new evidence to back that assertion.
Two sources told reporters that the most recent unclassified 2025 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment remains unchanged. That report concluded Iran could potentially develop a “militarily viable intercontinental ballistic missile” by 2035 — and only if it chose to pursue that capability using its satellite launch vehicle technology.
The continental United States lies more than 6,000 miles from Iran, well beyond the range of Tehran’s current short- and medium-range missile arsenal.
While Iran has advanced its missile program and demonstrated the ability to strike regional targets and U.S. bases in the Middle East, U.S. intelligence agencies have not publicly indicated that Tehran is close to fielding an operational ICBM capable of reaching North America.
The White House declined to comment on the discrepancy.
The debate comes at a sensitive moment. The United States has increased military deployments in the Middle East, and diplomatic negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program are described by officials as reaching a critical phase.
Trump has repeatedly said he will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon and has signaled he is prepared to use force if talks collapse. Intelligence agencies, however, have assessed that while Iran has positioned itself to potentially produce a nuclear device, it has not restarted a formal weapons program.
The gap between political rhetoric and intelligence assessments now raises a familiar question in Washington: how much of the case for escalation rests on facts — and how much on strategic messaging.
