Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps: Not Separate From State and Government

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Under the headline “Tougher on Iran: The Revolutionary Guard is at war with the United States. Why not fight back?” today’s lead editorial in the Washington Post supports the administration’s plan to declare the Revolutionary Guard Corps a global terrorist organization. As I wrote the other day in a post here, there is no doubt that the Guard Corps was in the past and is today Iran’s potent terrorist weapon in that Guard members themselves carry out terrorist acts and supply terrorist groups outside with training, logistics, finances, and arms. But unlike other groups on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist groups, the Revolutionary Guard is not a non-state entity but a huge military elite force that is an important part of the Iranian state which is for many years on the U.S.government’s list of state sponsors of terrorism. Indeed, it is the Guard that has been engaged in all the activities that justify the designation of Iran as a sponsor state of terrorism.

If the Bush administration and the Washington Post’s editorial page want to be “tougher on Iran,” declaring the Guard Corps a global terrorist organization achieves nothing besides sharpening the rhetorical exchanges between Washington and Tehran. Unlike Hezbollah and Hamas, both designated as terrorist organizations, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard does not depend on donations from abroad but is generously funded by the Iranian government it serves and will not be affected by a move “aimed at blocking terrorists' access to their assets.” As the Post’s editorial rightly points out, economic sanctions against Iran have been too weak (also on the part of U.S. allies) and have not changed Tehran’s positions on Iran’s nuclear program or anything else. But since there is no real distinction between the Iranian state and government on the one hand and the Revolutionary Guard on the other, any distinct business transactions between the Revolutionary Guard and banks and exporters abroad could have been treated for many years as if they involved the Iranian public or private sector.   

Therefore, it is unrealistic to expect that “[i]ncreased economic pressure could be the main byproduct of designating the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization” and that the terrorist “designation could cause banks and exporters in Europe and Asia that do business with Guard affiliates to pull back.” If there was no pull back as result of Iran’s designation as “state sponsor of terrorism,” it will not happen because of the Revolutionary Guard’s new terrorist label.   And if the Revolutionary Guard Corps “is at war with the United States” as the Post writes and the administration charges with respect to the Guard’s activities in Iraq, it is Iran that is at war with the U.S.--not just the Guard.

I am all for sanctions as “the alternative to war” and the preferable way to “fight back.” But targeting the Revolutionary Guard will not do—the real target of sanctions with teeth by many more countries should be the state sponsor Iran with all its public and private interests. 

Comments

[Brigitte]

Zal: Oh, yes--I do measure all kinds of U.S. forces and agents with the same yard stick--for example,when it comes to torturing "enemy combatants." If you take the time to read some of my posts over the last months, you will see this.

[zal]

I wonder if you are willing to judge the American Imperial Army and all of it's secret and not so secret elite forces with the same yard stick. Just add up the number of people killed in the hands of US special forces and all the dictators and secret shadowy government forces they have trained, and the numbers will blow your mind. This is not to include all the bombing of civilians across the globe from Central and South America all the way to Africa. Middle East and Asia. They hypocrisy of the US government in contagious because many people in America have caught it as well. I guess America wouldn't be so bold in their foreign policy if they didn't have the support in the US.