The Two Faces of Iran’s Military

There are essentially two distinct military factions in Iran. On one side, there’s the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, a dedicated group that fiercely supports the theocratic regime, comprising around 150,000 personnel. They’ve indeed been in the crosshairs of U.S. and Israeli strikes.

On the other hand, there’s the traditional Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran, or Artesh, which boasts about 350,000 soldiers. Their primary focus is to safeguard the nation’s borders and maintain security on Iranian soil. Interestingly, if hostilities were to cease, they might even align with U.S. interests as a potential force for change.

Now, the pressing question is whether they can withstand the ongoing turmoil.

Recent comments from President Trump have highlighted the divide between these two factions, and it’s becoming increasingly clear how these differences are influencing military targeting strategies.

Mark Cancian, a retired Marine colonel now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, has expressed concerns. He mentioned that attacking the Iranian military could lead some to anticipate a coup against the Revolutionary Guards, which might pave the way for a new government. If the regular army remains intact, it could, perhaps, serve as a counterbalance to the Revolutionary Guards.

Cancian also pointed out, somewhat provocatively, that many civilian targets remain untouched. “The lights are still on in Tehran,” he remarked. He cautioned that exacerbating the hardships faced by the public is a risky strategy.

Some Congressional members receiving updates on the situation are echoing these sentiments. Senator James Lankford (R-Okla.) warned against overly aggressive strikes, suggesting that if the nation is hit too hard, it may render itself dysfunctional.

He cited Libya as a cautionary tale, where chaos ensued following the 2011 overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi. Lankford emphasized that while it’s crucial to challenge the Revolutionary Guards, it’s vital to avoid causing a total collapse of the Iranian state.

The insights from the War Department suggest a shifting approach to targeting in Iran, with a particular focus on its missile and rocket capabilities.

On March 8, U.S. Central Command raised alarms about the safety of civilians amidst military operations, particularly those executed from densely populated regions. They also issued warnings regarding Iranian ports following attacks on naval components managed by the Revolutionary Guards. Meanwhile, Trump’s administration seems to be assessing the potential existence of “sleeper cells” within the U.S.

Indicators of Iran’s fragmented power structure are evident, as Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian offered apologies for attacks on a neighboring Gulf state earlier this month, only for missile and drone assaults to resume shortly after.

Retired General David Petraeus pointed to the emergence of potential rebel factions among the remaining forces as a key factor in resolving the conflict. He asked whether any credible opposition might arise, indicating it’s too soon to tell, but it’s definitely something to monitor.

President Trump has reiterated that the U.S. has refrained from targeting specific locations in Iran, even with significant military deployments underway. He described the damage inflicted on Iran, notably not mentioning the military, while referencing their losses in various sectors.

He stated, “They’ve lost their navy, their air force. They lack anti-aircraft systems. Their leaders are gone. We could do worse, and while we could strike them harder, that decision is yet to be made.”

The most recent list of target types shared by Central Command primarily includes Revolutionary Guard installations and assets, notably leaving out any mention of the army itself.

Trump briefly entertained the idea of more direct strikes against the military, saying, “We could hit their forces hard. But maybe we will, maybe we won’t. We haven’t made that decision yet.”