Iranian analyst argues a new war would cost Washington more than stalemate

In an analysis published by the Al Jazeera Centre for Studies on 7 November, Arash Marzbanmehr, a senior analyst at the Meshkat think-tank, asks whether the US and Israel will launch another major operation against Iran. In his view, the war that began on 28 February damaged Iran's military power and infrastructure but did not end its deterrence. Nor did it resolve the nuclear file or the Hormuz problem. The author notes that Washington has sent two ships to the region and that two more aircraft carriers are expected to join by the end of November.

He lists signs of recovery on the Iranian side. Citing a Times of Israel report of 31 May, the analysis says the entrances to 18 missile bases have been reopened. A 15 September estimate by the US Congressional Budget Office put the cost of the war at 38 billion dollars and found that two-thirds of the US interceptor stockpile had been used up. The author highlights a meeting in Tehran on 26 October between officials from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Türkiye. It was Tehran's first high-level contact with three members of the Mecca defence pact.

The analysis sets out three scenarios. The first is a blockade and economic pressure continuing without war; the second, short strikes to regain freedom of movement around Hormuz; the third, a broad escalation that also targets buried nuclear sites. The author argues that a broad escalation is more feasible before 3 January 2027, when the new Congress convenes. Democratic majorities in both chambers, a depleted interceptor stockpile and energy market risk all make a large campaign expensive. The cost of pressure is visible in Europe too; according to the analysis, Italian inflation has risen to 5.4% and energy inflation to 31.4%. The path the author considers most likely is a conflict that stays below the threshold of full war and resembles the first scenario.