A fierce debate is raging over how the war with Iran ends, or at least if US President Donald Trump has a plan to ensure that this is a short conflict.
If the contest involving “Great Satan” (the US) and “Little Satan” (Israel) can be described as a half-century psychodrama, the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is undoubtedly a turning point. The key question now is what happens to the position of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, without whose demise it is impossible to imagine that this war will end the psychodrama.
The IRGC is the ideological heavy hand of the Iranian revolution both at home and abroad. It is a sophisticated operation that is ruthlessly dedicated to that role. While it is conceivable to argue that the Iranian establishment can be changed to accommodate a new reality, that is not possible as long as the IRGC stands intact.
As an outcome of the war, targeting the IRGC does change everything. A carve-up of every position in the IRGC would amount to excavating all parts of the regime. That’s even if Tehran acknowledges that the US has a strong hand of coercion now, and that like Venezuela, it must bargain with Washington to survive. Even a pause in the US air strikes would only presage a new stage in which the future is up for grabs.
Survival by way of a new leadership formation in Tehran is an option on the table. That is why what happens to the IRGC is key.
This is not only true of American interests. It is vital to the immediate region. European countries have already shifted from stressing that they did not participate in the US action to offering support for allies under an unjustified attack by Tehran and offering the US defensive support, such as access to air bases.
These countries will benefit from ensuring the right outcome of this conflict. At the very least, they have to take the option of joining the US-led coercion of the IRGC.
The Revolutionary Guards themselves have thrived under international sanctions not only by dominating the domestic economy but through their vast empire of crypto.
The IRGC’s reported new head, Ahmad Vahidi, has been sanctioned by the US Treasury Department for his leadership role in developing an international funding network to evade and defy sanctions. The Treasury said Mr Vahidi has had a career-long involvement in the IRGC’s “external operations” and illicit financing networks.
Another report by blockchain intelligence researchers has said that the IRGC has tried to build a crypto-treasury, accounting for more than half of all Iranian transactions. In particular, it is a dominant player in the Tether platform worldwide with accounts not only holding but actively trading in billions of dollars last year.
Starving these funds is key to cutting off Iran’s direction of its proxies, particularly in Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen.
Hezbollah has already fired parts of its arsenal into Israel and is facing retaliation. It remains an open question if the Lebanese group and others like it elsewhere in the Middle East will enter the fray in a way that they did not in the 12-day war last year. But it is clear that the proxy arm of the IRGC empire is not functioning well.
At stake is the free passage along the Red Sea around Yemen, a potential calamity that would add to the consequences of disrupting the Strait of Hormuz, as well as the stability of states such as Iraq. And even the security of major European cities.
Before offering the US defensive support, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer issued a statement on Saturday that pointed to the very real threat the IRGC posed in his country, as much it poses directly against Iran’s neighbours.
“The Iranian regime poses a direct threat to dissidents and the Jewish community,” Mr Starmer said. “Over the last year alone, they have backed more than 20 potentially lethal attacks on UK soil.” Yet London has not introduced new laws that would deal with the type of activities the IRGC undertakes within its borders.
On Monday, Ali Larijani, the former speaker of the Iranian parliament and someone many see as the de facto leader in Tehran, vowed there would be no talks with the US. It is a very brave and defiant statement. Mr Trump had said overnight that people like Mr Larijani wanted to talk.
Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at the UK-based Chatham House, both recognised the integrity of Mr Khamenei’s death and its potential to change Iran. “He died as a martyr in a resistance war with the US and Israel, which, by my view, was the only face-saving way to go out,” Ms Vakil said at the weekend.
The key question is when does the system crack (and whether the IRGC is the key to unlocking that box)? It is the most powerful player on the ground, it has a regional reach, and it has an unrivalled international footprint.
Short of a revolution, and without bargaining by the remaining elite that tackles these three factors, the military action that Mr Trump launched over the weekend has not, and cannot, change Iran.
