re: Official US/Israel vs Iran war thread

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

quote:

---

A revealing pattern is emerging when you look closely at who the U.S. and Israel targeted during the war.

The heaviest blows were directed at the IRGC and key political leadership, while Iran’s conventional army, the Artesh, was largely left intact.

This does not mean the Artesh operates fully independently of the regime, but the contrast is clear. One force was systematically degraded, while the other was not.

Inside Iran, the IRGC is widely seen as the regime’s ideological core, while the Artesh is often viewed as more closely tied to the population and made up largely of ordinary Iranians.

Whether fully accurate or not, this perception appears to align with the targeting strategy of the United States.

Now layer in the ceasefire.

Many IRGC hardliners have, at least publicly, opposed it.

Negotiating with the United States is being framed by them as capitulation, and that message is resonating with parts of their base. There is visible frustration among regime supporters, with some openly criticizing figures like Ghalibaf for even engaging in talks.

This reveals a deeper fracture.

On one side, elements pushing for negotiation to stabilize a deteriorating situation. On the other, hardliners rejecting compromise entirely, even as pressure mounts.

But the distinction is not true. The regime’s so-called “hardliners,” “moderates,” and “reformists” all operate within the same system and ultimately serve its survival.

Against that backdrop, the military targeting begins to look more strategic.

Weaken the ideological and hardline power centers, while leaving the conventional military structure in place.

It reflects a familiar approach used in Iraq: degrade the core political force - the Baathists in Iraq’s case and the IRGC in Iran’s - while preserving institutions that could shape what comes next.

Whether that calculation holds is another question.

The divide between the IRGC and the Artesh is not clean, and political influence runs deep across both. Assuming one can function independently of the other may prove to be a misread.

But the pattern is there, and this helps shed light on what the U.S. may be thinking and what informed its strategic strikes.

And combined with the internal backlash over the ceasefire, it points to a regime under pressure both externally and from within.

Thanks to @InsiderGeo to highlighting this.

---