First I want to talk a little about 1 Peter 5:13. I've argued before against Peter going to Rome, and explained why in general placing Babylon anywhere other then Babylon comes from that Catholic Dogma.
There is a third theory about what Peter meant, and that is that he was referring to Babylon in Egypt, because this passage also refers to Mark who tradition links to Alexandria. There is a fortress in Egypt that was called Babylon for some reason. It is part of the embryo of what became Cairo, the Islamic/Modern Capital of Egypt. And it was in On/Heliopolis, which did have a Jewish Population, and I mention potential Old Testament Prophetic relevance to On in an Isaiah 19 study. One ancient explanation for this fortress being called that implies it could have been called that as far back as Isaiah's time.
Generally no one arguing for that theory attempts to then suggest that that is the Babylon of Revelation. However if you made that suggestion it could add a whole new angle to my developing Egyptian Antichrist theories. However since there is no Biblical confirmation of Mark's association with Egypt, more evidence would need to be uncovered for me to consider such a theory.
I decided however that before I state definitively that what Peter meant by Babylon must be the Babylon of Revelation, to look at the Greek texts because I know many New Testament names often appear in different forms. And indeed when I checked I saw that Peter distinct from any other reference to Babylon spelled it with an Iota at the end. Babyloni.
Ending with an Iota like that is I think in Greek usually a diminutive, meaning it could be translated "Little Babylon". That could fit the Babylon in Egypt which was a small settlement at the time. But I could also see it being used by Jews of Seleucia, a city who's Jewish population of the period had moved there from Babylon a few decades earlier. But it certainly would not fit how one would use Babylon as a code for Rome.
[Correction on the above paragraph, I've now researched it and it makes the Daitive Singular form. In which case there is no solid reason to think it refer to a different place then any other references to Babylon]
On to the second part.
Chuck Missler likes to define End Times Babylon on three pairs of Chapters, Isaiah 13&15, Jeremiah 50&51, and Revelation 17&18. Isaiah and Revelation I've talked about extensively but not the Jeremiah one, it is the longest, I have read it, but I feel I need to read it more to discern what specific clues it has.
One detail about it I do want to address now however is that many will insist Jeremiah mentioning Nebuchadrezzar by name must be proof only a Preterist interpretation is valid.
First of all, when Babylon fell to Cyrus Nebuchadrezzar was dead by then too, unless you believe the fringe theory that Nabonidus was the same person. I am intrigued by some aspects of that argument, but it has major holes in my view.
Second, Revelation 17 seems to define the Eight King as a King who ruled before John's time resurrected. So you can't entirely rule out Nebuchadrezzar personally being there in the Futurist interpretation. But that's a Rabbit hole for another study or two.
Third and last of all. The two verses in this two chapter Prophecy that mention the name of Nebuchadrezzar, are not like similar verses mentioning him by name elsewhere in Jeremiah or in Ezekiel. The language used in context does not necessarily make Nebuchadrezzar himself contemporary with the Judgment in question. They are 50:17 and 51:34.
The former is about how this connects to it being him who conquered Jerusalem. The latter simply about Babylon being his legacy. Saddam Hussien's reconstruction projects in Babylon and many other cities (including Basra) were driven by his personal obsession with Nebuchadrezzar, he depicted himself as Nebuchadrezzar on his coins. So yes even modern Iraq is directly the legacy of Nebuchadrezzar.