US vs Iran: Is war approaching? Expert forecasts on Caliber.Az

In recent days, the situation surrounding a potential U.S. strike on Iran has been marked by a sharp increase in American military presence in the region and tough rhetoric from the Donald Trump administration. On January 22, the U.S. president confirmed that a “naval armada” was being sent to the Iranian coast. The core of the forces consists of a carrier strike group led by the USS Abraham Lincoln, which was redeployed from the Indo-Pacific region to the Indian Ocean and is moving toward the Persian Gulf. By January 23, this fleet had already reached the striking range of Iran.

In addition, 12 F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jets, along with tanker and transport aircraft, have been deployed to airbases in Jordan. Strategic B-52 Stratofortress bombers have arrived at Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar. Under the supervision of U.S. specialists, urgent maintenance has begun on Kuwait’s Patriot air defence systems, where more than five U.S. military bases are deployed. Additional Patriot 3 air defence batteries are being sent to the region and to Israel to protect against a potential retaliatory strike. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) had fully completed preparations for a possible U.S. operation by January 22, 2026. In December 2025, the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) established the Scorpion Strike operational group in the Middle East, specialising in long-range drone strikes.

Following U.S. strikes on Iranian targets in June 2025 (Operation Midnight Hammer), Donald Trump is demanding that Tehran fully abandon any nuclear development efforts. On the eve of these statements, President Trump, speaking aboard a plane en route from Davos to Washington, said that the United States is closely monitoring the situation in Iran and is deploying significant military forces to the region. According to Trump, Washington has warned Tehran of a possible U.S. strike if executions in the country continue.

Meanwhile, the commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) warned Washington on January 22 that its forces are “keeping a finger on the trigger.”

Against this backdrop, Israeli media report that U.S. strikes on Iran may occur soon. The most cautious forecast comes from Channel 12, which stated: “The U.S. is expected to complete preparations across the region in the coming days for a possible attack against Iran.”

The Times of Israel writes that an attack on Iran could happen at any moment: “The Israel Defense Forces have already completed preparations for a U.S. strike on the Islamic Republic.”

Naturally, all of this raises questions. What are the objectives and scale of a potential operation? What is the risk of escalation and retaliation by Iran? And could such an operation lead to a regime change in the Islamic Republic?

Caliber.Az asked well-known regional experts to answer these questions.

As noted by retired Israel Defense Forces officer and military analyst Yigal Levin, for a regime change to occur in Iran, there must be an alternative group, party, or structure capable of taking power—something that could, roughly speaking, replace the current regime.

“What is the Ayatollah regime? It is, of course, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and all structures connected to it. It also includes the Basij militia, but not only that. Is there currently in Iran any structure that could replace them, that could take power? Strikes may contribute to or lead toward this, but by themselves, any military operation—regardless of intensity—cannot bring about regime change.

If regime change were attempted, Iran would likely respond. Israel’s preparations—strengthening air defence and missile defence systems—are not for nothing. We remember that during the 12-day war, despite Iran’s limited performance in that campaign, it still launched attacks on Israel, and some rockets breached the defence system. There were civilian casualties in Israel. So Israel’s preparations are justified. This indicates that a response from Iran is expected and quite likely,” the expert explained.

As for the risk of escalation, he added, “That’s something you could only guess at, like reading coffee grounds.”

“We know that the U.S. is currently redeploying forces to the Middle East. This is a rather unprecedented level of military movement. We know that at least one carrier strike group is heading directly to the region, to the Iranian coast. There is also a second aircraft carrier that has left its base. There is no confirmed information yet that it is also heading to the Middle East, but the likelihood is high. In addition, the Americans are redeploying fighter jets and tanker aircraft from Europe to the Middle East. All of this is not happening without reason. Clearly, the level and number of forces the Americans are moving to the region do not indicate routine operations or merely the forces needed for security. Such a concentration of forces points to the preparation of a military operation to some degree.

Ultimately, we all know that the military prepares and does its job, but the decision to launch an operation always lies in the political sphere. That is, everything will depend on whether the U.S. administration gives its approval,” Levin concluded.

As Ihor Semyvolos, Executive Director of the Middle East Studies Centre (Kyiv), stated in his commentary, given the composition of forces, this is not a symbolic action but a campaign aimed at degrading Iran’s strategic potential. This would involve the complete destruction of the remnants of its nuclear infrastructure that survived Operation Midnight Hammer, as well as the paralysis of the IRGC’s command system.

“The deployment of additional Patriot PAC-3 batteries in Israel and Kuwait confirms that Washington expects a massive retaliatory missile strike. In turn, Iran could use its proxy forces to carry out simultaneous attacks on Israel and U.S. bases, or attempt to block the transit of 20% of the world’s oil through the Strait of Hormuz using mines and fast attack boats,” the analyst said.

According to him, the main question—whether this would lead to a regime change—remains unanswered.

“The United States views strikes as a ‘catalyst’ for an internal explosion. Large-scale protests with a high death toll indicate a critical level of delegitimisation of the authorities. An external strike against the security structures (the IRGC) could provide protesters with a ‘window of opportunity’ to seize administrative buildings and prompt the army to side with the people. At the same time, there are concerns that the strikes could result in mass civilian casualties or a humanitarian catastrophe, which could alienate part of the protest movement from supporting Western intervention.

The key unknown remains China and Russia's positions. If Beijing or Moscow were to provide Tehran with real-time intelligence support or electronic warfare capabilities, the effectiveness of a U.S. strike could be significantly lower than expected,” Semyvolos believes.

Israeli political analyst and Bar-Ilan University professor Zeev Khanin noted that, overall, the situation is still unclear, but, as always, there are two possible scenarios.

“The first scenario is that the Americans have merely postponed a strike on Iran (with or without Israeli involvement) to see how events unfold within the country. The protest movement may either be completely suppressed or, conversely, the struggle may continue beneath the surface, which, according to Israeli media reports, in some cases is already taking on a more forceful character. This is evident in attacks on government-linked facilities, arson targeting regime institutions, and cyberwarfare.

If the second scenario proves correct, at some point, the United States could decide to support the protest movement if the balance of power favours the protesters. In that case, strikes on government facilities, military bases, weapons production infrastructure, as well as nuclear sites and ballistic missile production facilities, would make strategic sense,” the professor believes.

However, he continued, there is a second option that should not be dismissed—namely, the serious concentration of armed forces, aviation, and naval assets at bases in the region.

“It is quite possible that, as has happened before, this serves as an additional pressure factor on the Ayatollah regime. In the past, these forces were not deployed directly but were used as leverage to compel the Tehran regime to accept the terms of a new nuclear deal. It is not excluded that a similar approach is at play today,” Khanin suggested.