The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps: An Overview

With the President’s decision to start a war with Iran, I thought it would be a good idea to get a book on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the military that seems to be running the Iranian Government.  Fortunately, Amazon didn’t disappoint as they had a book readily available.  That 2023 book was “The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps: Defining Iran’s Military Doctrine.”  The book gave me an overview on the Corps’ history, military tactics, purpose, and overall impact on the region.

Now, the book itself isn’t a thorough history book or overview of the IRGC itself.  Rather, it serves mostly as a literature review of other writings on the military force and a general background on them.  It wasn’t super in-depth, but I enjoyed it as someone unfamiliar with the IRGC because it served as a primer for understanding them and their relation to US policy.  So, I’ll be giving an overview of its contents as I’m hoping that may help others understand it and the current war as well.

To start off on its history, the IRGC was created by Iran’s former Supreme Leader, Ruhollah Khomeini, as a paramilitary organization to defend the revolution that brought him to power and ousted the Shah.  Its primary focus was purging institutions, especially the military, of elements disloyal to the 1979 Iranian Revolution and enforcing edicts passed by the country's leaders.  Over time though, its role greatly expanded as it ended up supplanting the country’s military, the Artesh, and controlling the country itself.

During the Iran-Iraq War, the IRGC saw its role greatly expand in defending the country against the invading forces of Saddam Hussein.  Shortly after that, the death of Supreme Leader Khomeini resulted in his replacement by Ali Khamenei.  According to the book, the IRGC helped with his rise to power and he, in turn, greatly expanded their power in the country.

With the IRGC serving as the institution defending Khamenei’s reign, it played a key role in keeping the government in check.  Almost every President elected in the 90s up until the mid 2000s was a reformer, and the IRGC opposed every attempt at reform.  It sent orders to the President, put down protests, and worked to make sure its own people were constantly in control or running the government.

Then, in 2005, it helped get hardliner and Mayor of Tehran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad elected President.  Despite not being seen as an intellectual heavyweight, Ahmadinejad did continue on his predecessor’s push to privatize the country’s economy.  Unfortunately, Ahmadinejad had a bunch of the government’s companies sold to people with ties to the IRGC, which was not the point of privatization.  So after that, the IRGC started to control the economy and thus the country at large.  The only thing worth consideration is that Ahmadinejad’s successor also attempted reform, and failed, so the history of Iran’s civilian government is to try and fail to reform what is now a military dictatorship.

Now, going back to the Iranian Revolution, the book also chronicles failures in the US to actually address Iran throughout its history.  Specifically, back during the Shah’s reign, Jimmy Carter wavered in his support for the Shah which Khomeini used as justification to return to Iran and that lack of confidence led to the Shah’s overthrow.  The Reagan Administration was equally inconsistent as it on one hand supported Saddam’s war with Iran, and then sold weapons to Iran to fund a war in Nicaragua.

After that, the next three US Presidents, H.W. Bush, Clinton, and W. Bush didn’t really have much of an Iran policy as they all became focused on Iraq.  In the vacuum that was created by Saddam’s removal though, Iran started greatly expanding its military network into Iraq and improving economic ties with them.  So the US didn’t have a consistent policy on Iran until the 2010s, and its actions greatly helped Iran expand its influence in the region.

The book then discussed Obama’s policy of negotiation with the Iranian government and the 2015 deal that was struck and Trump’s decision to withdraw.  The book tended to lean more in favor of Obama’s approach, which is why it notes more flaws in Trump’s proposal like how they started building more centrifuges after the US withdrew from the deal.  The withdrawal was also used by the IRGC to portray weakness by President Rouhani and justify curtailing his attempts at reform.  In short, the US hasn’t had a serious approach towards Iran until 2015 and now we are in the midst of a war with them.

Of note, the book also discussed the IRGC’s approach towards war.  Specifically, they support an emerging tactic known as “Hybrid War” which is still being defined.  The idea is that the IRGC uses a combination of military tactics including conventional war, guerilla war, terrorism, and cyberwarfare to complete its military objectives.  It also supports militias and paramilitary organizations in other countries such as Iraq and the Houthis accomplish its goals internationally.  So it’s not fighting a traditional enemy as they’ll support whoever or whatever to accomplish their military objectives.  As a result, a conventional war is not what’s going to take them down.

Finally, the book discusses what that means for future negotiations and handling Iran BEFORE the US’s invasion which took out Khamenei.  It did have some key points such as that Iran would never abandon its missile program so the focus should instead be on addressing its nuclear program.  It also notes that Islam is, ironically, becoming less of a focus for the IRGC as they become increasingly focused on controlling and maintaining the government.  Similarly, they would prevent the government from doing anything without their approval which meant any actual negotiations would not be possible without their approval so they would be a key roadblock to any meaningful negotiations.  A lot of this is irrelevant now that we are at war and Khamenei is dead, but there is one point that remains clear: the IRGC is the main power in the country, they have no intention of doing anything the reduces their power, and a lot of what they want is at odds with the US’s objectives in the region and the country.

I’m not posting this not to say I agree with every tenant of the book, but more to give a brief overview of it.  A lot of this does explain how we got to where we are, what’s going on now, and what we can expect after the war.  For that reason, I recommend giving the book a read.

The Future of the Political Parties

 

A previous blogpost dealt with the future of the Republican Party under Donald Trump.

However, that same post left off asking what that would mean for the party as a whole.  Well to steal a line from Captain Barbossa, the parties are to “be two immortals locked in an epic battle until Judgment Day and trumpets sound”.  However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the parties will be tomorrow what they are today.  In fact, I predict that, based on personal experience, the parties will actually grow to reflect each other over time while the differences become more regional than ideological.

It’s a bit of a cliche to talk about how divided American society is now.  A Gallup poll shows that the political parties are more ideologically divided now than before.  More interesting though is that the parties are also extremely divided along territorial lines with the Democrats dominating the cities and the Republicans dominating the countryside.

Another interesting trend is that many people are fleeing blue states in favor of red ones.  After all, blue states lost more congressional representatives in the last census while red states picked them up.  One could claim that’s irrelevant in the grand scheme of things as once red states like Georgia and Arizona are now purple, but, on the flip side, purple states like Ohio, Iowa, and Florida have been voting Republican more consistently these days.  So there is a growing territorial reshuffling of where the national power center is and that’s likely to continue.

So it’s likely that people are splintering into areas where people are closer to their political beliefs or, at least, not in favor of policies that hold their states’ economic growth back.  However, elections in the U.S. are run by states, not landmasses.  There are still decent sized enclaves of Republicans in blue states and Democrats in red states.  So, what happens to them as their states become more ideologically captured by either party?

Well, I was knocking doors for Michelle Davis last month during the campaign and some conversations I had may provide the answer.  There were several anti-Trump homes that told me they were voting in the primary just to stop Michelle from winning because she was endorsed by the President.  With Indiana having a Republican supermajority in the legislature and no statewide elected official that’s affiliated with the Democrats, it seems these voters believed it was better to vote in the Republican primary, which is legal since Indiana has a functionally open primary system, to get a more moderate or anti-Trump candidate since the Democratic is unlikely to win regardless of the nominee.

One could make fun of Indiana for being a one party state, but that’s true for other regions as well.  I knew people who lived in Chicago who simply didn’t vote there because Dems always won so voting there was a waste of time.  I had the same experience in Bloomington, Indiana because the conventional wisdom was that Republicans never win so it was always better to run as a Democrat.  Point is, everyone knows a region that’s essentially a one-party state and current redistricting battles are making more of them.

Which brings us back to the Greg Walker voters I was talking to that were voting just to oppose Donald Trump.  Honestly, it’s likely that may become a more likely phenomenon as the states become increasingly captured by their respective parties.  It’s possible that more voters may find themselves joining or running in parties they don’t necessarily connect with because that’s what party is in control in their area.  After all, there is no way to have influence without being involved in the community, and if you aren’t part of the local party, it’s harder to influence politicians.

With the growing regional divide, that likely may determine what the parties look like going forward.  It may no longer be conservative vs. liberal or libertarian vs progressive, but rural vs urban or south vs west coast.  Ironically, this may lead to more moderate candidates and decreased ideological polarization because it means the candidates will need to balance out the new factions in the party.  So there would be less ideological divides, but more regional divides instead.

Now I’m going to wrap this up by acknowledging that I’m not very good at making predictions.  After all, if I was then Bob Iger wouldn’t have returned as Disney’s CEO and Pete Buttigieg would have been the Dem nominee 2020.  However, I do notice trends so discussing possible consequences of those trends is still worth considering.  After all, one of my predictions may not come true, but that doesn’t mean a different possibility I haven’t thought of may address the reasons behind it.

However, with growing pushes to make it harder to vote for political opponents to win going forward, from redistricting to making Indiana a closed primary state, joining the dominant party may be the only way to be engaged in politics locally or higher.  With Republicans enjoying a slight advantage in terms of registration, that would definitely bode well for them nationally.

So will this be the future of the party or will something else happen entirely?  Only time will tell.  However, never forget that many of the state senators that got primaried last week had been in the state senate for decades.  It will be interesting to see who’s still in office in 20 years.

The Crown of Thorns

My spiritual director once told me to do a daily rosary.  In addition, he told me to reflect on each mystery as I did it.  I’ve found myself doing this now for months since then and it has increasingly made me feel closer to God the father, the son, the church, and the Virgin Mary.  However, of all the mysteries that stick out to me the most, the one that I keep coming back to is the crown of thorns.

As it says in the book of Matthew, as Christ was scourged by the Romans during his trial, the Roman soldiers took Jesus and placed a crown of thorns on his head.  The intent was to mock him for his title of “King of the Jews,” a moniker they nailed above his head on his cross.  Yet ironically, since he was the “King of the Universe,” that parody crown became the symbol of Christ’s authority over his subjects: us.

In the Greek and Roman world, crowns were fashioned as wreaths and made out of different plants or flowers and had different representations.  For the Greeks, they were a sign of victory at games, association with religious ceremonies, or for performances.  The symbolism was continued by the Romans, but the wreath eventually became more associated with military accomplishment and power.  Julius Caesar himself wore a wreath made of laurels to symbolize his military victories and it was normalized for emperors to wear by his nephew, Caesar Augustus, the first Roman Emperor.  For Christ though, his crown was not made out of laurels, roses, or gold, but instead thorns.  They would have been thick enough to dig into his head and inflict great pain on him as he carried his cross for his crucifixion.

It’s also a fitting symbol for God’s love as it is an inverse of the curse that was inflicted on Adam.  As Adam was being punished for accepting the forbidden fruit “And to Adam he said, ‘Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, “You shall not eat of it,” cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you shall eat the plants of the field’.”  Many historians and theologians accept Christ’s wearing of the thorns as redemptive for this reason.  On his head, as he is sent to die, he is carrying the pain and weight of those sins, including the original one.

In many ways this is also an inverse of Roman culture and leadership.  In Rome, strength was idolized as the symbol of man’s authority and ability.  The man who committed the most conquests, asserted himself the hardest, and fought the most wars was usually the one who was awarded the highest honors.  Unsurprisingly, 75% died of unnatural and usually violent causes, proving that they were the poster children of the phrase “For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”

Christ, meanwhile, sacrificed himself for us so that all, Jew or Gentile, slave or free, would be reconciled to God and could be with him when they die.  That action is a reflection of what Christ said in his sermon on the Mount, “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven,” a promise he also makes to the poor in spirit.  So the great King of the earth conquered and redeemed not through violent conflict, assertion of power, or military strategy, but taking on the role of a servant and sacrificing his life.

We are called to imitate that willingness to sacrifice and that humility in service to God, the church, and our fellow man.  To prioritize others and to love them at great cost to ourselves.  That’s why the crown of thorns is such a powerful symbol.  Because it reminds us that our suffering and sacrifices redeem us and our neighbors the same way Christ’s sacrifice redeemed us.

I personally connect with it as well because it is also a symbol of leadership.  Many people imagine positions of power represented the same way the most do: A golden crown representing strength, wealth, pleasantry, or freeness from pain.  In reality, leadership is a sacrifice because of the requirements and responsibilities one has to take as they rise.

A good leader always has to put the wellbeing of the team and the mission above their own needs.  To constantly be deprioritizing themselves and willing to make sacrifices so that whatever project they are working on can be seen to fruition.  Those sacrifices could include longer hours, greater passion, greater financial sacrifices, or simply spending more time with a struggling teammate to help them complete a task.

In addition, the failures of the team are a reflection of the person who leads because, as former President Harry S. Truman would say, “The Buck Stops Here.”  There’s no one higher the blame can be passed to, and the leader always has to take responsibility for where the team goes because they are the one driving those following their direction.  Never forget that Adam ate of the tree and yet blamed his wife, shirking his own responsibility.  So if a project fails, even if someone else can be blamed, it always comes back as a reflection of the person who put that person in that position and let them go as far as they did.

That’s why the crown of thorns is the most appropriate symbol for leadership: because it is a sacrifice to suffer the responsibility of the team.  To actively be willing to guide people in a direction towards a hopefully good end and help them accomplish what they never could on their own.  It’s what Christ did when he sacrificed himself for us on the cross, and it’s what we do when we help others get to where they need to go.  It’s why I like to say, “If you can’t feel the thorns, you’re not wearing a real crown.”

 

The Old Republican Party is Dead

This past Tuesday, May 5th, Indiana held its primary elections.  Those who went to bed early woke up to find that Trump endorsed candidates had swept at the ballot box with five out of seven challengers beating incumbent state senators.  Outside of that, one state senator who voted against redistricting lost to a non-Trump backed candidate while a Trump backed candidate won a three way primary.  The President had a good night this week and one that will play a key role in shaping future policy in the state.

This marks a continued trend, though, of Trump backed candidates winning across the country as he has had a high success rate with his endorsement over the past decade.  After all, his candidates have won 90% of primaries and more than a majority in the general elections of both midterms and Presidential election years.  Sure, one could say this doesn’t matter as much since much of his domestic agenda has stalled in Congress and many of his backed candidates could have won anyway.  However, those points are irrelevant as Trump is reshaping the Republican party with his endorsed candidates getting elected, which means the party will be the vehicle for his platform going forward long after he’s out of the White House while the old party fades away.

Now Trump’s not purely the reason that a lot of incumbents are finding themselves facing early retirement.  The truth is that most of them are just old and out of touch with where the times are.  Several of them were in politics for decades and times have changed.  Finding themselves out of touch, it was only a matter of time before they found themselves either leaving gracefully or being pulled out of their offices.

Indiana is a reflection of that better than any state as most of the redistricting opponents have been there for decades.  Both Sens. Jim Buck and Greg Walker originally intended to retire this year, which probably made sense since the latter was in the state senate for about two decades and the former was in the state legislature for three.  Sen. Travis Holdman, who claimed his district opposed redistricting efforts, has been a state senator since 2008 and was also removed.  Meanwhile, the only two non-redistricting senators that survived the primary, Sens. Greg Goode and Spencer Deery, only became senators within the last five years.  So a lot of the election was a replacement of the old guard.

That’s generally happening across the U.S. political spectrum as a whole.  Various Trump critics/opponents that had positions in the GOP like Robert Mueller, Dick Cheney, and John McCain have all passed away.  Others, like Mitt Romney, John Boehner, and John Kasich have all retired.  In reality, a lot of Trump critics were the ones from the yesteryears of either the Bush or Clinton administrations, and they’re finding themselves removed because they’re simply too old.  So a lot of what’s happening under Trump is just the natural transition of the old guard leaving.

Unfortunately for NeverTrumpers, the fact that incumbents are leaving or being aged out doesn’t mean that this isn’t beneficial to the President.  Far from it as he is the one replacing them.  As mentioned earlier, many of his candidates are winning primaries, and, even if they don’t win the general election, having so many successful candidates win nominations means that the party will be taken over by people open to the President’s agenda.

After all, elections have consequences and they can cause ripple effects.  In Indiana, there’s already calls to replace the Senate Pro Tempore from his position.  Also, new discussions on redistricting once he’s gone are coming up, which means Trump could get his new districts in the state of Indiana.  Unsurprisingly, the states of Florida, Tennessee, and more seem to have gotten the message and are now approving new districts.  We’ll see if they survive potential court challenges, but this will set precedents for redistricting that will outlast the President.  So his influence will be far reaching because it will set a precedent for future politicians or legal precedent for rejecting such legislation.

That is reflected in the makeup of the national party as well.  Already, the future candidates for President and thus leadership of the party include members of his administration like Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance so the 2028 nominee will likely be a continuation of the Trump era.  Their candidacies are also worth noting because many former critics of his administration like them and Lindsey Graham are now strong supporters of his Presidency.  Meanwhile, former supporters like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Joe Kent that have turned hardcore critics are no longer in office anymore and can only complain about him to the media and on podcasts.  Also, certain politicians like Sen. Rand Paul and Congressman Thomas Massie are still in office (at the time of writing this post), but they’re simply individuals that don’t seem to be influencing future nominees for office (yet).  So in the long run, it looks like Trump is going to influence the party for a while as his candidates win.

So, now that Donald Trump is taking over the Republican party, what does that mean for the future of the average voter?  Will the Republican become the shining example of patriotic nationalism dedicated to bringing about an almost religious love of the United States?  Will many NeverTrumpers make peace with the Democrats and mount a counter offensive, relegating the Republican party to a junior party nationally?

Well, that’s a question for another day, but some of the implications might be discussed in a future blogpost.

Michelle Davis for State Senate

Today I’m writing to endorse Michelle Davis for State Senate.  She’s a proud Hoosier with a passion for public service and a dedication for the wellbeing of the general public.  From serving as the Director of Adult Education at the Central Nine Career Center to her position as State Representative in the Indiana General Assembly, she will take that experience and continue to work for her constituents in the state senate.

As a legislator, she’s also backed policies to protect Hoosiers and their heritage.  She’s a proud supporter of the second amendment, authored the bill to keep men out of women’s sports, pushed legislation to allow the display of the Ten Commandments in schools, and promises to defend life from conception to natural death.  That’s why she’s received the endorsement of Senator Jim Banks, Governor Mike Braun, Congresswoman Erin Houchin, Right to Life Indiana, and State Treasurer Daniel Elliott.  There is no person better suited to support a conservative agenda, promoting public safety, and improving education in the state.  For that reason, remember to vote Michelle Davis for State Senate on Tuesday, May 5th.