By John Q. Hosedrinker In a series of targeted strikes, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) struck key locations in Tehran, Iran, on Monday, June 23, 2025. The attacks focused on the headquarters of the Basij paramilitary forces and the internal security forces known as Alborz. Hundreds of members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) were reportedly killed in the strikes. The exact details regarding the extent of the damage and casualties remain under investigation.
Read the original article here
Israel hits Basij HQ in Tehran, kills hundreds of IRGC fighters in Iran, and it immediately raises a lot of questions, doesn’t it? The initial headline suggests a specific targeting, but the situation appears much more complex. It seems that the strike on the Basij headquarters was part of a broader operation, one that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) fighters. This instantly sparks a debate about military strategy and common sense.
The vastness of Iran, roughly 636,000 square miles, coupled with an estimated 125,000 IRGC soldiers, presents a significant logistical challenge for any military force. Considering this, the idea of concentrating large groups of soldiers in known, vulnerable locations, especially in an active conflict zone without air superiority, seems strategically questionable. Some might even say it’s baffling, and leads to the question: Why were so many fighters gathered in a single location, essentially becoming sitting ducks?
Considering the history of repeated bombings and attacks, gathering in a known HQ seems incredibly risky. The expectation of safety in such a context is unrealistic. The article humorously brings in the idea of an “energy shield” protecting the area, but the reality of modern warfare demands a more robust defense strategy. The fact that this attack targeted the Basij, a group known for its violent suppression of protestors, adds another layer of complexity and a strong emotional response.
This operation highlights the multifaceted nature of the strikes, which apparently extended to multiple targets across Iran. These targets included bases, airports, storage facilities, and sites related to missile production and storage. This broader approach appears to be aimed at crippling Iran’s ability to project power and maintain a cohesive defense structure. It naturally leads one to wonder about the current state of Iran’s missile stockpile and its overall military readiness.
The article acknowledges that the IRGC, along with the Iranian leadership, is a group that many people have strong negative feelings towards. This attack is seen by some as a way of destabilizing the regime, and potentially creating an opening for the Iranian people to rise up and overthrow their government. The overall view seems to be that Israel is acting to protect its own people and democracy against external threats.
Focusing specifically on the military strategy, the comment that Iranian forces “clumping up” is not smart. The first rule of missile/drone warfare is to NOT have all of your troops in the same place they’ve been for years. If you are going to operate in an active warzone, you need to be spaced out, dispersed, and difficult to hit with a single strike.
Analyzing the overall narrative, Iran’s military performance has not lived up to the “super villain” persona it has cultivated over the years. This lack of strategic foresight might be the result of the fact that the operation was being coordinated by less-than-competent people. In a world of advanced military tactics, the Iranian military appears to be severely lacking in that department.
The fact that the Basij is a volunteer militia adds another layer to the situation. This militia, widely known for brutally repressing protestors, is viewed by some as a tool of the regime, and its members are viewed as legitimate military targets. This is particularly true given their documented history of violence and human rights violations.
It is important to consider the personal perspective of Iranian Americans, who often view the Basij with disdain. For them, the Basij represents the regime’s extremists and the violence they inflict upon the Iranian people. This is compounded by the fact that mandatory military service in Iran sometimes forces young people into this type of role.
The fact that the target was a military site, and specifically a military group, is important. This attack highlights a potential for exploiting the chaos left in the wake of such strikes. The article’s comments highlight the importance of targeting senior leadership in order to make it difficult for the enemy to recover.
The unexpected nature of the attack raises some important questions. Why has there been such a shift in tactics? Where are the drones and advanced defense systems? The comment that a gamer could have probably done a better job in commanding the army is interesting. The attack shows that Iran is lacking in strategic planning and is likely facing a significant military crisis.