Retired Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery and Marine Corps veteran Elliot Ackerman discussed the U.S. and Israeli operations in Iran, describing the initial strike and the likely campaign ahead.
Montgomery called the opening action “a comprehensive first day” that focused on Iranian senior leadership — including attempts against the Supreme Leader and IRGC commanders — while suppressing enemy air defenses. He said that simultaneously the U.S. would target remaining air-defense systems that had survived prior strikes. Montgomery predicted the operation will include follow-on strikes over the next two weeks against other targets that did not require the surprise used on day one: ballistic and cruise missile systems, drone launch facilities, production sites and, if necessary, remaining elements of Iran’s nuclear program.
He emphasized the campaign he envisions is primarily air-based. Drawing on past U.S. air campaigns (Libya 2011 and Kosovo 1999), Montgomery noted those efforts succeeded when there were large armed opposition groups already in play. Iran, by contrast, has large groups of activists and disaffected citizens rather than armed factions, so outcomes are less certain. He urged watching whether Iranian civil society responds in ways that create political pressure.
On the immediate exchange, Montgomery said the initial Iranian response was to be expected but that adversaries can still impose costs on U.S. and partner forces. He outlined a near-term “race” between the U.S. effort to degrade Iran’s ability to launch missiles and drones at Israel and U.S. forces across the region, and Iran’s effort to move, arm, and fire those systems. He expected the next few days to see strikes focused on ballistic and cruise missiles and drone facilities to prevent launches.
On logistics, Montgomery noted carrier strike groups can remain on station several months in combat conditions; strike groups can typically maintain station for three to six months. He observed that some ships, like the USS Ford, had been deployed unusually long and might need rotation.
Elliot Ackerman framed the operation as inherently risky and complex — “move 1 moving into move 2, of what’s going to be a 40-move game.” He said the wisdom of the operation depends on outcomes. Ackerman argued that the Trump administration has signaled it does not intend to deploy U.S. ground forces. That leaves regime change, if it were an objective, to rely heavily on internal Iranian dynamics: civil society protests, defections, or internal fractures that could lead to change without U.S. boots on the ground.
Both speakers warned of uncertainties and possible unintended consequences. Montgomery and Ackerman noted the potential for a power vacuum if senior leaders are removed, and the risk that internal instability could produce an outcome worse than the status quo — including civil conflict or the rise of hardline elements. Ackerman said he would be watching whether Iranian civic mobilization emerges; Montgomery cautioned that because the campaign is air-based, U.S. ability to shape internal political outcomes will be limited.
In sum, the retired admiral expected an initial, targeted strike with suppression of air defenses followed by a two-week sequence of strikes aimed at missile and drone capabilities and production. Both experts emphasized the operation’s complexity, the risks of retaliation and escalation, the limits of airpower in producing political outcomes, and the importance of monitoring the coming days for Iran’s capabilities and any civil response.