Hacker News Reader

Comment by cogman10 | Hacker News Reader

This war has been one of the best things to happen to the IRGC.

Oil prices went up, sanctions got lifted, citizens are now united with the goals of the government, dissidents are silenced, the world hates that the US and Israel did this and blames them directly. Really, there's almost no goal of the IRGC that Trump didn't just speed run by starting a war.

And this was all for what? The US has yet to articulate an actual reason they did any of this other than "Israel was going to do it, so we went along with them". All the politicians in support of this war flounder and have to rely on "Well, they hate us" as justification for why we are killing school girls and attacking Iran's power grids and desalination plants.

I'm not a fan of the IRGC, but this really was the absolute worst way to address them.

View on HN

> war has been one of the best things to happen to the IRGC

This is hyperbole. If Iran could veto the war at the start, they would have. They're coming out of it, right now, relatively better off than the U.S. was when we started inasmuch as we have achieved zero strategic priorities and they've survived while adding a revenue source. But they've also lost massive amounts of military and industrial investment, to say nothing of decades of leadership.

> If Iran could veto the war at the start, they would have.

Sure, because nobody likes the unknown prospect of dying or knowing exactly how far this war will ultimately go. However, this has all made the IRGC a lot stronger and has given them a lot more power.

> But they've also lost massive amounts of military and industrial investment

Investment made for exactly the purpose it's being used. They are also massively depleting the US and Israel's munitions. The math is really bad. The missiles and drones are pretty cheap and quick for Iran to manufacture and they've spent decades setting that up because of this very scenario. Meanwhile, the US hasn't had to exercise it's supplies and we already see they are running low as more and more explosives appear to be making their way through the Iron Dome. But also, the massive amount of damage that's been to US bases throughout the region.

> to say nothing of decades of leadership.

Iran's leadership doesn't work like a lot of other nations. The big mistake Trump made was assuming taking out the supreme leader was all it'd take for them to crumble. The government is a lot more complex and not fully invested in one powerful man. And it's this way exactly because of the threat of attack by the US.

This is why after both the US and Israel got to the point where they couldn't figure out who was running Iran, Iran was still continuing attacks on US bases and Israel.

Much like the US government and military, there's not a single politician or general you could take out that would cause a collapse in command. Unlike the US government, they have a very large government body that can pick and choose new leaders pretty quickly. It took them, what, 2 weeks to pick the next supreme leader?

I'm sure Iran didn't want this war, but I'm also sure the IRGC has reaped massive amounts of benefits because of it.

These are all very predictable results and the reason no president has been dumb enough to directly attack Iran. It's been reported that generals were advising against this attack. But even people without US intelligence could have predicted these outcomes.

> this has all made the IRGC a lot stronger and has given them a lot more power

It's consolidated their rule over a weaker state. Whether that counts as "stronger" and "more power" depends on scoping.

> Investment made for exactly the purpose it's being used

I strongly doubt Iran built a navy so it could be potted in harbor. Same for their launchers, many of which got off a handful of shots at most.

> They are also massively depleting the US and Israel's munitions

Sort of. On the other side, we're seeing a defense-industrial renaissance in the U.S. and Israel, including around cheaper anti-drone defenses [1].

> the massive amount of damage that's been to US bases throughout the region

Massive is hyperbole. Expensive, difficult-to-make equipment has been destroyed. (In large part because we refuse to pay for base hardening.) The worst hit, however, remains more operational than the least-hit Iranian facilities.

> government is a lot more complex and not fully invested in one powerful man

Correct. But the people at the top weren't numpties. Losing talent is losing talent. It doesn't capitulate a well-built system. But it does degrade it. (These are, however, long-term costs.)

> I'm also sure the IRGC has reaped massive amounts of benefits because of it

Perhaps. We won't be able to say definitively until after the dust settles. We've been targeting IRGC heavy equipment and industry, specifically, which means their wealth may have plummeted precipitously, even if they've consolidated power.

[1] https://www.wsj.com/world/america-downs-cheap-drones-with-mi...

> Perhaps. We won't be able to say definitively until after the dust settles. We've been targeting IRGC heavy equipment and industry, specifically, which means their wealth may have plummeted precipitously, even if they've consolidated power.

Well, I do agree. But I also think that to get to the point where the IRGC doesn't ultimately benefit will mean a very large amount of bloodshed and investment. And by that, I mean the equivalent of dropping nukes on Tehran worth of damage. Ultimately anything short of that will give them a lot of opportunity to rebuild.

I don't think the US can topple them simply be continually bombing. They'd need a pretty massive amount of ground troops deployed or inhumane destruction.

I guess I still hold out hope that Trump pulls out before we get to either point.

If it does go to either point, the world will be royally screwed in terms of oil. Iran isn't going to go down without a massive amount of destruction of oil production throughout the region which is going to wreck the world.

> by that, I mean the equivalent of dropping nukes on Tehran worth of damage

As I've argued, I think we've already left the IRGC weaker–if more consolidated–than it was a few months ago. But levelling it further would just require what Trump has said he wants to do: destroy the local power and water infrastructure.

I don't think that destroys the IRGC, it destroys the civilian population.

They might be weaker in the sense that they'll have less soldiers, but as far as a government goes, it will empower them like we've never seen. It will cement their power as the entire population is going to completely support them.

Much like how Hamas still exists even though Gaza has been leveled.

> don't think that destroys the IRGC, it destroys the civilian population

The IRGC controls vast swaths of Iran's economy. They absolutely hurt when e.g. their cement plants are bombed.

And the region's nuclear option, strikes on water infrastructure, looks like it's nearing the table. At which point we're potentially looking at multiple borders shifting in the long run.

> It will cement their power as the entire population is going to completely support them

Doubtful once the rally-around-the-flag effect has dissipated. But a lot can be done in a short amount of time, granted.

> Much like how Hamas still exists even though Gaza has been leveled

Well, yes. But it's a shadow of its former self. Poorer. More vulnerable. Less powerful in all material respects. More consolidated over a smaller area, though with less-tenuous grip even there. Irrelevant on the international geopolitical field.

If you're saying Hamas is today more powerful than it was before October 7, sure, IRGC will be "more powerful" in the same way.

> Doubtful once the rally-around-the-flag effect has dissipated.

That's what people said with the 79 revolution. It took up till 2026 before there was even a modicum of a risk of the government being dismantlement.

> If you're saying Hamas is today more powerful than it was before October 7, sure, IRGC will be "more powerful" in the same way.

I'm saying Hamas is more popular with the remaining Gaza citizens than it was in the past and it wasn't destroyed.

Now, it is definitely weak enough that Israel can pretty easily just take land. But it took the destruction of about 80% of the buildings to get to that point.

That's what I meant when I talked about needing to drop the equivalent of a nuke in Tehran in order to actually get the IRGC into a state where it's not so much of a threat.

Iran has 90M people living there and if half the population is killed by destroying civilian infrastructure, there are still 45M people there who are also now all completely pissed, not at the IRGC, but at Israel and the US.

The IRGC will ultimately be the force that gets priority on food, water, and shelter. That alone is going to give them a much easier time finding recruits.

A lot of the IRGCs critical military manufacturing and infrastructure is underground. Taking that out is going to be just monstrously hard. That's why the US and Israel have already started to resort to punishing civilians (war crimes, but I guess those no longer matter) rather than the military. They don't have enough intel to find and destroy Iran's manufacturing.

To contrast that with Hamas, they were a much smaller force that relied heavily on getting weapons from the outside. They didn't have weapons manufacturing capabilities and they were completely surrounded by israel which makes it extra hard for them to do anything militarily. Including getting general supplies into the country. And why I brought them up is even with all those disadvantages and the complete destruction of all infrastructure, they were not eliminated.

Iran does not have any of the limitations of Gaza. It's easy for them to smuggle in supplies. They have manufacturing capabilities. They have friendly states at most of their borders.

On the other hand, they managed their regime change from a theocracy by the Mollah to a weird monarchy by the IRGC and the Khomenei clan with no Shi'a backlash. The MEK is weaker than ever despite a resurgence in the last few years, the Baloch/Sistani rebellion is petering out (let's say the Iranian Eastern clans are _very_ wary of the US after being abandoned 3 time, and the general population have a very heavy dislike of the US after the Afghanistan war).

The only remaining dangerous uprising left are the Kurds that the IRGC managed to strike down while saying "this is a strike against the US interest", and they will probably get help from the Iraki Shi'a paramilitaries to put some pressure.

Honestly, i know it isn't the case, but if you told me an exceptionally competent cabal organized that war to prevent Iran from collapsing: thee regime killed 7-15k in january (or rather, 6-14, around ~1k was regime forces getting killed), but the real information was the number of arrest: 40k, and more than 10k jailed They can now kill their jailed political opponent in secret, because you know, war time. US fuckers couldn't just wait Khomenei's death. he was in phase 4, and his cancer seemed pretty quick ffs.

> the Khomenei clan with no Shi'a backlash. The MEK is weaker than ever despite a resurgence in the last few years

Could you expand on these? Why would there be Shi'a backlash against the Khomeneis? Who are the MEK?

All of it is history from the initial revolution. Khomenei, the original (not the one killed a month ago), was a high-ranking Shi'a priest. He drafted a theocratic constitution, that was mostly agreed upon, except a few caveats that gave the Mollah (high-rank priests) their own police forces and basically supremacy of the religious over the civil government (this was to make coups harder). Their police forces, the IRGC, slowly gained more and more power and tied themselves to the Khomenei. The original Khomenei died, but someone from his clan was also a Mollah, and was designed next leader. That created a tension: was he the leader because he was part of the clan, it because he was a Mollah? In any case, the clan and the IRGC gained more and more power, and the last transition was a soft coup. The new leader doesn't have the rank of a Mollah, and even though he was a priest, there's now way he was selected without pressure on the others. See it at the pope not being a bishop first.

The MEK were Marxists revolutionary in 79 who were shafted by the new constitution and oppose the Mollahs since then (and probably the reason why Khomenei and Shi'a priests who were exiles in Irak were 'convinced' by Saddam Hussein, a US puppet at the time, to go to Iran take control of the revolution).

> The US has yet to articulate an actual reason

Distract from Epstein?

Of course that's the main reason, but they would never admit it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com