The current tensions in the Middle East should be viewed as a multi-stage process in which Israel is consistently attempting to achieve its strategic objectives regarding Iran. According to political analyst Sergey Melkonyan, the developments taking place today represent the third phase of the war from Israel’s perspective.
Phase one: strikes against decision-making centers
According to Melkonyan, the first phase of the conflict focused on eliminating key decision-makers within Iran’s political and military system.
The targets included members of the Supreme Leader’s inner circle, the leadership of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, senior officials within the Ministry of Defense, the General Staff, and other influential figures.
In the analyst’s view, Israel attempted to present these strikes as a strategic success, particularly to demonstrate to US President Donald Trump that such actions could significantly affect Iran’s internal stability.
However, Melkonyan notes that even Iran specialists working in Israel understood that such strikes could not lead to the systemic collapse or fragmentation of the Iranian state.
Phase two: attempts at demilitarization
According to the analyst, the second phase can be described as an effort to weaken Iran’s military capabilities and pursue its demilitarization.
The main objective was the destruction of infrastructure responsible for the production and deployment of ballistic missiles.
This includes not only the missile systems themselves but also the broader production chain — factories, technological centers, and other elements of Iran’s military industry.
According to Melkonyan, the goal was to severely limit Iran’s military potential so that it would not be able to rebuild its missile capabilities in the future and threaten Israel’s security.
Phase three: attempts to overthrow the government
However, the analyst believes Israel’s strategic goals go beyond weakening Iran.
He argues that the ultimate objective may involve the collapse of the current government and even the disintegration of the state.
Melkonyan notes that the strategies applied resemble scenarios previously seen in other Middle Eastern countries, such as Syria or Lebanon.
In such approaches, the main target becomes the state’s governance system and its ability to ensure internal stability and security.
If authorities fail to provide security, serious humanitarian and socio-economic problems may arise.
Economic and energy crises could deepen, potentially fueling public dissatisfaction.
Decline in missile capabilities
Melkonyan states that although Iran’s military capabilities have not been completely destroyed, they have significantly decreased.
While Iran was reportedly able to deploy about 350 ballistic missiles during the early days of the conflict, he estimates that this number has now dropped to roughly 50.
However, the analyst stresses that Iran has not completely lost its strategic capabilities.
Some military potential remains and continues to influence the regional balance of power.
He also highlights reports that American air defense systems and radars in the Middle East have been damaged or destroyed, which changes the broader strategic picture.
The “leaders of long will” factor
Melkonyan emphasizes the role of political determination.
In conflicts of this scale, the decisive factor often becomes which side is prepared for long-term confrontation.
He refers to the concept of “leaders of long will,” emphasizing that the issue is not only about military resources but also political endurance.
According to him, the United States may be less prepared for a prolonged confrontation than Iran.
One reason is domestic political dynamics, particularly elections.
For American leadership, demonstrating quick results is politically important.
Melkonyan notes that for Donald Trump especially, presenting a victory before elections is crucial.
Therefore Washington may prefer rapid outcomes, while Iran does not face the same time constraints.
Even though Iran may experience economic, social, and political difficulties, its leadership does not operate under a strict deadline to achieve results.
Israel’s long-term strategy
According to Melkonyan, Israel approaches this confrontation as a long-term strategic process.
Even if military operations temporarily stop and Iran’s current government remains in power, Israel is unlikely to abandon its strategic objectives.
Pressure on Iran may therefore continue in the future.
Under such conditions, Melkonyan believes the region could eventually face the risk of a “third war.”