Retired Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery and Marine veteran Elliot Ackerman reviewed U.S. and Israeli operations against Iran, laying out what they see as the opening moves and the campaign likely to follow.
Montgomery described the initial action as a “comprehensive first day” that would concentrate on Iran’s senior leadership — including strikes aimed at top IRGC commanders and, he said, attempts against the Supreme Leader’s circle — while also suppressing air defenses. He said U.S. forces would simultaneously target any air-defense systems that survived earlier attacks.
He expects follow-on operations over roughly the next two weeks focusing less on surprise and more on hard targets: ballistic and cruise missile batteries, drone launch and production sites, weapons production facilities and, if needed, remaining elements of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Montgomery emphasized the campaign would be predominantly air-based, with the bulk of effects delivered from the air rather than by ground forces.
Drawing on comparisons to past U.S. air campaigns in Libya (2011) and Kosovo (1999), Montgomery noted those efforts succeeded in part because substantial armed opposition already existed on the ground. Iran is different: it has large activist and disaffected populations but not an organized armed insurgency, so political outcomes are far less certain. He urged observers to watch whether Iranian civil society mobilizes in ways that create meaningful political pressure.
Montgomery framed the immediate phase as a tactical “race”: U.S. and partner strikes to degrade Iran’s ability to launch missiles and drones versus Iran’s efforts to move, arm and fire those systems. He predicted the coming days would see concentrated strikes on ballistic and cruise missile sites and drone facilities to prevent launches.
On logistics, Montgomery noted carrier strike groups can stay on station for months in combat conditions — typically three to six months before rotation — though some ships, like the USS Ford, have been deployed unusually long and may need relief.
Ackerman called the operation inherently risky and complex — “move one moving into move two of what’s going to be a 40-move game.” He stressed outcomes will determine the operation’s wisdom. He observed the U.S. appears unwilling to send ground forces, so any regime-change pressure would have to come from inside Iran: protests, defections or internal fractures rather than U.S. boots on the ground.
Both speakers warned of uncertainty and unintended consequences. They highlighted the danger of a power vacuum if senior figures are removed and the risk that instability could lead to civil conflict or empower harder-line elements. Ackerman said he would be watching for civic mobilization; Montgomery cautioned that an air-heavy campaign offers limited ability to shape internal political outcomes.
In short, Montgomery foresees a targeted opening strike with suppression of air defenses, followed by about two weeks of strikes aimed at missile and drone capabilities and production. Both experts stressed the complexity, risks of retaliation and escalation, the limits of airpower to produce political change, and the need to monitor Iran’s military capabilities and any domestic response in the coming days.