The ring of fire: From Tehran to southern Lebanon, the battle lines are drawn

US aircraft carrier strike group reaches the Middle East. The region holds its breath. Six months have passed since the June 2025 twelve-day war that allegedly destroyed Iran’s nuclear facilities. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and US President Trump have renewed their threats of a military strike on Iran. At the same time, protests rage through Iran’s 31 provinces. Across the Middle East, the focus has shifted from whether the conflict will erupt to a more volatile pair of questions: when, and how deep will the scars run?

Timing and triggers

Iran’s uranium enrichment to 90 percent, as intelligence agencies have speculated, is a measure to prevent regime change, which may lead to a military conflict in 2026. All the signs are there: the meeting between US President Trump and Netanyahu on December 29, 2025, at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, during which Trump threatened to “knock the hell out” of Iran if it rebuilds its ballistic missile or nuclear program. The IRGC’s January 4 missile and air defense drills in Tehran and Shiraz indicate Iran’s growing alarm over Israeli attacks.

A strike is more likely if Netanyahu and Trump conclude that Iran has crossed the nuclear red line, or if the expansion and advancement of the missile program gather unstoppable force and speed. Geopolitical analysts argue that Iran’s nuclear progress is the primary flashpoint; specifically, building a considerable number of advanced centrifuges and weapons-grade enrichment are the most probable triggers for future conflict.

Netanyahu’s electoral calculus

The Israeli election on 27 October 2026 is looming, and Netanyahu’s ruling coalition holds only 51-57 seats, short of the 61-seat Knesset majority required to form the government. According to Middle East expert Zvi Bar’el, the Iranian threat “serves Netanyahu politically” because it deters the protests against the government by branding them as a threat to Israeli security.

Nevertheless, electoral desperation has a double edge. A failed operation may spell the end of Netanyahu. On the other hand, a successful operation that weakens Iran without inviting catastrophic reprisal may save Netanyahu from political oblivion. Experts believe this scenario makes war more probable, particularly since Netanyahu is under pressure from intelligence failures on October 7 and corruption charges.

Iran’s capability for retaliation

Despite sustaining heavy losses from continuous US and Israeli bombardment, Iran’s ability to strike back remains potent. Its arsenal still holds roughly 2,000 heavy ballistic missiles, a critical factor in the region’s altered security landscape. Mora Deitch, an expert from Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies, states that Iran is increasingly using advanced ballistic missiles equipped with several warheads or decoys, which can saturate Israel’s air defense systems.

Sina Toossi, an expert from the Center for International Policy, states, “Iran has to make it so expensive for Israel, so it becomes a deterrent, or else it will be attacked every six months.” The June war, for example, has cost Israel an estimated six billion dollars. Iran plans to make it even more costly the next time. Raphael Cohen, an expert from the RAND Corporation, states, “Any potential new round of conflict will be largely air-based, but more intense than June, and Israel will be trying to set back Iran’s programs even further.”

READ: Iran says it has ‘complete control’ of Strait of Hormuz as threat of war with US looms

Strategic objectives: Degradation or decapitation?

Military experts view regime change as a high-risk objective rather than a feasible goal. Israel’s strategic objectives, on the other hand, are to degrade IRGC external operations, destroy rebuilt nuclear facilities, and intensify internal elite perceptions of the regime’s viability.

However, uncertainty also means risk. Avi Melamed, a former Israeli intelligence official, warns that this situation increases the risk of miscalculation, as Iran believes it can survive the unprecedented pressure and move forward after the June war. Iran’s resilience may actually make it more likely to take risks in 2026.

Israel’s defensive vulnerabilities

The June war highlighted several vulnerabilities for Israel. Iran launched over 550 ballistic missiles and 1,000 suicide drones on Israeli civilian centres, hospitals, and military installations. Although Israel’s Iron Dome and Arrow defense systems against Iranian missiles were partially effective, saturation attacks pose a genuine threat. David Roule of the Center for Strategic and International Studies states, “Iran’s objective may be to develop a missile arsenal so large and diffuse in nature that neither Israel nor the U.S. can destroy the Iranian missile threat before Iran retaliates with devastating effect.”

In the next round, Iran will not fight alone. Hizballah Secretary General Naim Qasim’s recent declaration of an upcoming “war for us all” will likely be read in Tel Aviv as a signal of total mobilization. For Hizballah, this engagement is viewed as a final opportunity for retribution and a chance to redeem its standing after previous military miscalculations. Beyond Iran and Hizballah, a persistent uncertainty remains: the extent to which the Houthis of Yemen will seize this moment to integrate themselves into the broader confrontation.

The Russia-China factor

Neither China nor Russia is likely to come to Iran’s rescue. China has called for restraint and continues to rely on Iranian oil supplies. However, the Chinese leadership is unlikely to commit military resources to a crisis, as is their general practice. Russia is preoccupied with the Ukraine crisis and is in no position to commit military resources to Iran, even if it wanted to.

However, both powers are against US hegemony in the Middle East. They will give Iran diplomatic support at the UN, cyber and intelligence support—enough to make US operations difficult without going into a full-scale conflict.

The inconclusive war scenario

Perhaps the most significant threat is that of an inconclusive war. What if the strikes only damage but don’t destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities? Decision-makers must consider the consequences of an intelligence gap: what happens if the actual impact of an Iranian strike eclipses established expectations? Alan Eyre of the Middle East Institute says that very little is certain in the Middle East, and the current instability in the region in the wake of fragile ceasefires in Gaza and Israeli attacks against Lebanon and Syria makes the outcome very unpredictable.

An inconclusive war scenario could lead to the worst of all possible worlds: Iran accelerating its nuclear development in greater secrecy than ever, instability in the region getting worse, and both sides preparing for round three. We may not be witnessing the end of the Israel-Iran war but only the evolution of the conflict into a chronic and devastating form.

The world waits. The missiles stand ready. And the margin for miscalculation has never been narrower.

OPINION: Trump, Tehran, and the trial: The countdown to the unknown begins

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.