Detecting a rocket launch from space is child's play. If they tried to launch something in earnest, they'd be signing their own death warrants. The Cold War proves even the most godawful dictators want to die in their beds and not roasted in a thermonuclear blast.

Let 'em go on building them. Build a million! Stack them up like pencils in a coffee cup, put 'em on trailers and roll them down the avenue on National Victory Day past the reviewing stands, it won't make them any more threatening. Nations who've had ICBMs know they might act as a deterrent, but they don't serve any offensive purpose. China was smart enough to build a few dozen nukes, then stop. They never participated in the arms race, beyond having just enough deterrent capability to stave off any threat they might otherwise face.

If I wanted to respond to that threat, I'd have the commander of a nuclear submarine take a photograph of a targeting console on board his boat, with the GPS coordinates of downtown Tehran on the display. I'd take another picture of a smiling submariner with his finger poised right over the Big Red Button. Send them to Iran by diplomatic courier.

missiles with equal or greater range, the main difference is the claim of solid fuel only. As far as the US/Israeli response, it doesn't seem like "we'll be threatened with solid fuel missiles!" is a whole lot more compelling than being threatened with liquid or hybrid missiles.

It might mean they are getting closer to having satellite launch capability, since the solid fuel part is apparently what they were having trouble with on their SLV.

On the other hand, it might mean nothing. A lot of their technology claims seem to be intentional misdirection or bluster.