[The Viewpoint of Dongki Kim] Birth of the "IRGC State": Middle East Order Shaken by U.S. Miscalculation

Iran’s History of Territorial and Sovereignty Erosion by Great Powers
For Iran, Surrender Means a Return to Imperial Domination
Guerrilla Tactics and a Survival Strategy of Endurance

Iran’s War System Endures Despite Decapitation Strikes
With Moderates Eliminated, IRGC Hardliners Take Control
The Law of the Jungle Replaces International Law

Western societies and outside observers often tend to view Iran through the narrow lens of “theocracy.” However, such a perspective overlooks Iran’s longstanding identity as a “nation-state” and its deeply rooted national security doctrine, forged over decades. For Iranian leaders, the true significance of the 1979 Islamic Revolution lies not merely in the establishment of religious law, but in granting Iran genuine independence. Both Khomeini and Khamenei believed that only the Islamic Revolution could liberate Iran from foreign interference and restore its sovereign autonomy. In reality, the revolutionary movement in Iran included a variety of factions, such as Marxist-Leninists and liberal democrats, but the core spirit uniting them all was a powerful historical grievance: the need to erase the humiliation inflicted by foreign powers over the past two centuries. For these leaders, the United States is not simply a diplomatic rival, but the embodiment of imperialism threatening Iran’s independence; the Islamic Republic stands as a vast fortress organized to defend that independence.

To understand Iran’s national security logic, one must recognize that Iranians perceive themselves as a wounded nation and as a geopolitically isolated island. Since the Safavid dynasty in the 1500s, Iran strategically adopted Shi’ism to survive the expansion of the Ottoman Empire. Yet throughout the 19th century, it suffered territorial losses and violations of sovereignty at the hands of great powers such as Russia and Britain. The painful memory of occupation and even the seizure of food supplies by Allied forces during World War II remains deeply ingrained. Against this historical backdrop, Iranians have come to the harsh realization that they are a cultural and religious minority in the Middle East and that there are no permanent allies. For Iran’s leadership, therefore, national security is not a matter for compromise, but an existential struggle. They are convinced that only the Islamic Republic, in the past 200 years of history, has given Iran true sovereignty—and they view the economic costs and international isolation required to defend it as an inevitable fate. Understanding their persistent obsession with sovereignty and independence—hidden beneath the religious veneer—is the first step in unraveling this tangled web. To the West, Iran’s refusal to yield to pressure from the United States and Israel may seem irrational. However, from Iran’s perspective, surrender would mean a return to imperialist domination, making resistance the most rational survival strategy. Fully aware that they cannot prevail in conventional warfare, Iran employs asymmetric tactics using missiles and drones, as well as guerrilla strategies such as holding the Strait of Hormuz hostage, waging a war of patience until the adversary is worn out.

Through the course of this war, Iran has transformed from a country with a powerful military into an “IRGC state,” where the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has become the state itself. This signifies that the original regime, once cloaked in religious language, has now been entirely overtaken by harsh military logic and security-first priorities. At the apex of this transformation stands Iran’s new leader, Mojtaba Khamenei. Unlike his father, Ali Khamenei—who built his ideological foundation while enduring imprisonment under the Pahlavi monarchy—Mojtaba Khamenei has an entirely different background. As a young man, he volunteered for the Iran-Iraq War, fighting on the front lines as a war veteran. For nearly 30 years since, he has been deeply embedded in the IRGC, wielding influence behind the scenes over intelligence and personnel matters. While Ali Khamenei once maintained a measure of strategic restraint—such as issuing a “Fatwa” prohibiting nuclear weapons or responding to U.S. attacks in a largely symbolic manner—Mojtaba and the new generation supporting him regard such restraint as a weak error that only invites enemy aggression. The Iranian leadership is now embracing a far more aggressive military doctrine, openly pursuing nuclear armament and offensive responses to Western pressure.

The greatest miscalculation by the United States and Israel has been in viewing Iran’s power structure as identical to the Pahlavi monarchy era. In the 1979 revolution, the Pahlavi regime was a classic pyramid of one-man dictatorship. When the Shah became paralyzed and could not make decisions, the entire state system—including the military—collapsed simultaneously. By contrast, today’s Islamic Republic is designed not for popular appeal, but for survival itself. Although authority appears to be concentrated in the Supreme Leader, real decision-making and operational power are distributed among numerous nodes. The system is not a chain-of-command pyramid but a mosaic decision-making system. In this structure, each organization operates independently, such that even if the Supreme Leader or a missile unit commander is assassinated, the entire system continues to function without interruption. In fact, during the current war, multiple military commanders were killed at once, yet Iran’s warfighting capability remained unaffected. As decapitation strikes failed to achieve results, the United States and Israel shifted to targeting Iran’s national infrastructure. Their intention was to paralyze Iran’s ability to govern and force its surrender, but Iran anticipated this as well and increased resilience by decentralizing key infrastructure such as power grids across the country. Today, Iran has evolved into a “guerrilla state,” with the entire nation operating like a vast insurgent force rather than a typical state defended by a conventional army. They avoid overwhelming aerial firepower and fight an asymmetric war, forcing a brutal war of attrition that cannot be ended without ground force intervention.

Mojtaba Khamenei. Photo by AFP Yonhap News

Another fatal side effect of decapitation operations has been the complete elimination of moderate and pragmatic factions within Iran who were open to negotiation. The United States and Israel either removed or neutralized internationally-minded figures like Ali Larijani. Their absence has been filled by hardliners from the IRGC, hardened by years on the battlefield. Iran’s decision-making table is now dominated by hawks who believe in “an eye for an eye” retaliation rather than dialogue or compromise. The “compliant leader” hoped for by former U.S. President Donald Trump never materialized; instead, the most radical and dangerous group—one the United States can no longer control—has seized the reins of power in Iran. Ultimately, “decapitation operations” failed to achieve their goal of regime collapse, but instead strengthened the enemy’s resilience and completely closed the door to dialogue, resulting in the worst possible outcome.

This war has also reinforced the reality that the status quo in the Middle East economy is unsustainable. Countries around the world will now seek to reduce their dependence on the Strait of Hormuz for essential resources such as oil and natural gas, which will challenge the region’s status as a global trade hub. The war has also raised fundamental doubts about the effectiveness of the U.S. security umbrella in the Middle East. As 17 U.S. military bases suffered severe damage from Iranian attacks, it became clear that the very presence of American bases may serve as targets rather than deterrents. Regional security in the Middle East is rapidly shifting toward a multipolar system. Moves such as Saudi Arabia signing a defense treaty with Pakistan or Qatar seeking to host Pakistani troops reflect an active search for alternative security partners beyond the United States. While the U.S. position is weakening, some analysts argue that China, which has acted as a mediator between Iran and Gulf states and expanded its influence in renewable energy, will emerge as the biggest beneficiary of this war.

Ultimately, the birth of the “IRGC state” in Iran demonstrates that the Middle Eastern order as we knew it has come to an end. Where even the rational controls of theocracy have disappeared, uniformed leaders have adopted the law of the jungle as the new security paradigm, rejecting international law. The survival system forged by 47 years of isolation and war now threatens to push not only the Middle East but the entire world into unpredictable danger. The United States and Israel cannot escape responsibility for having brought about this situation.

Donggi Kim, Attorney and Author of “The Power of the Dollar”

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.