Over the last decade, I made three assumptions about the Israel–Iran situation. Two of them were right and the third was wrong. What I got right was that (1) Iran would never voluntarily give up its quest for nuclear weapons and (2) when Israel believed that Tehran was close to getting the bomb, it would strike. You can do two things regarding Israel. You can threaten to incinerate Israel, and you can have a nuclear weapon. You cannot do both simultaneously; the Israelis have a 100 percent track record in that regard.

The assumption I got wrong was that Israel had a penetrating weapon capable of taking out the centrifuges. I think our intelligence agencies thought so, too. Thus, the Israelis crossed the Rubicon with their strikes and took us with them because only we have the appropriate bunker busters. (RELATED: MOPping Up Iran)

He knew that if the critical centrifuges were not destroyed — and I hope they were — that Iran would double down on its bomb making efforts. He tried negotiations, although he probably knew they would not work, but for world and domestic opinion, he tried and was rebuffed. His two-week ultimatum was obviously misdirection to lull the Iranians into a false sense of security.

The question now is, where do we go from here? The administration says that it is a one-time, limited strike, but warns that if Tehran retaliates, there will be further action. The Iranians almost certainly will. Revenge is a given in that part of the world. (RELATED: ‘Midnight Hammer’ Doesn’t Mean Iran Can’t Hurt Us)

Iran’s Revenge Options

Their options are limited because Iran’s surrogates in Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza have been effectively neutered. They can attempt to close the Straits of Hormuz, which Iran has threatened, but the U.S. Navy would eventually reopen them. There is always the possibility of IRGC Quds force sleeper agents in the U.S. causing mischief, but it is unlikely that they can do lasting damage.

The most likely response is an attack on U.S. bases in the region; hopefully, they are ready for that eventuality. They can try to get a few loaner nukes from Russia or China, but that would be a very poor decision on the part of either of those nations. Putin has threatened to do that, but Mossad knows where he lives.

The worst American response to anything that Iran does would be an attempt at regime change by ground or amphibious forces. The debacle in Afghanistan and the problems with stabilizing Iraq have proved that. (RELATED: Let’s Hope Trump’s ‘Spectacular Military Success’ Is Not Bush’s ‘Mission Accomplished’)

At any rate, staging a ground invasion would take months. Due to some ill-founded decisions on the part of the Marine Corps leadership, an amphibious operation is out of the question. The Corps’ lack of tanks, logistical support, and amphibious shipping precludes such a course of action. The best option would be to use airpower to assist the Israelis in degrading the IRGC infrastructure to a point where a 1979-like uprising could not be suppressed.

We don’t know enough about the present culture of Iran to be sure if there would be an uprising, but hurting the IRGC would be in the best interests of Israel and the US.

Trump’s actions are justified. To use his analogy, without nuclear weapons or credible surrogates, Iran is just another sh*thole country.

READ MORE from Gary Anderson:

We’ll Need Innovation to Fight China, But Will We Have it?

The Most Dangerous War Game Finally Happened

Is Climate Change Destroying the Environment?

Gary Anderson is a retired Marine Corps Colonel who lectures on Alternative Analysis at George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs and served as a Special Advisor to the  Deputy Secretary of Defense.