Dr. Amer Al Sabaileh

Iran is facing a growing logistical and military dilemma in sustaining the fight, as it gradually loses its ability to effectively target Israel, despite continuing to launch limited rocket attacks. These strikes aim to demonstrate that Iran can still reach deep inside Israeli territory, projecting a sense of "parallel deterrence," but they have little effect on the actual balance of power.

On the other side, Israel continues to carry out military operations around the clock, accelerating its efforts to hit all predetermined targets before entering a phase of exhaustion that could challenge the sustainability of its momentum. Despite its military, technological, and intelligence superiority — and its air dominance over Iran, Israel’s arsenal is being visibly depleted, especially its air force, which is engaged in extensive operations over vast geography, requiring major logistical and maintenance efforts. This may eventually push Israel to adopt a strategy of "prioritization," focusing on key targets such as the assassination of Iranian commanders, missile infrastructure, and the nuclear program, especially as its air defense systems are increasingly strained under repeated attacks.

Although Iran has used up over 60 per cent of its ballistic missile stockpile, its capabilities remain functional — unless Israel succeeds in destroying what remains in fortified storage sites. This could prompt Israel to pursue a "final stage" scenario, conducting precision strikes with advanced bunker-busting bombs designed to cripple Iran’s command and control infrastructure. Such actions could include covert special operations deep inside Iranian territory, executed by elite units and coordinated with cyberattacks on vital infrastructure like energy grids, water networks, and civil data systems.

Conversely, Iran may resort to its last option: launching its remaining missile arsenal in a single salvo, targeting symbolic and strategic locations inside Israel — particularly Haifa, Dimona, and major industrial facilities in the south. While this would be a suicidal move, it could be seen as a final attempt to shift the strategic balance ahead of ceasefire negotiations.

Regionally, Iran's allied tools are no longer as available or effective as they once were. Israel timed its military campaign after neutralizing nearby fronts, especially Syria and Lebanon. Hezbollah has yet to join the fight and is fully aware of the grave consequences such an escalation could bring to Lebanon. For now, keeping Hezbollah as a latent threat appears the most strategic choice. The Houthis’ impact has significantly diminished, while Iraqi militias may only become active if Israel launches a major strike on Iran or if the U.S. intervenes militarily — which could prompt them to target American interests in Iraq, Syria, or even Jordan.

The direct U.S. involvement has already resolved key obstacles to striking Iran’s nuclear sites, particularly Fordow and Bushehr. The former was once considered nearly invulnerable due to its geographic fortification, while the latter raises fears of catastrophic radiation fallout across the Gulf. Yet, Israel has continued to target and disrupt these facilities. Despite U.S. strikes and President Trump's call for Iran to return to negotiations, Tehran’s continued escalation — especially if it threatens U.S. assets — could drive Israel to consider a rare opportunity: targeting Iran’s political leadership, including the Supreme Leader or key figures in the ruling council. Such a move, while risky, is not off the table.

If U.S. involvement expands further and Iran refuses to de-escalate, the war may shift beyond nuclear concerns toward strikes that could undermine the regime’s grip from within — opening the door to a scenario of regime change.

The coming days are open to all possibilities. Before the U.S. entered the conflict, Israel was racing to hit the regime’s structural backbone. Now, with Washington directly striking nuclear sites, forcing Iran to halt the war may not deliver Israel a full strategic victory — but it could secure a practical one, ending the military phase and shifting the conflict toward a long-term political and diplomatic confrontation, one that may not conclude without a fundamental transformation of the Iranian regime itself.