By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In response to US President Donald Trump’s assertion that the conflict in Iran would conclude “soon,” Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) stated that it is they who will “determine the end of the war.” The IRGC declared that the future of the region is now in the hands of their armed forces, not American troops. This exchange comes as President Trump characterized the war as “very complete” and “pretty much” over, claiming Iran’s military capabilities were significantly degraded.
Read the original article here
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has issued a strong response to former U.S. President Donald Trump, asserting that it will be the entity to ultimately “determine the end of the war.” This declaration signals a significant escalation in the verbal sparring between the two entities, highlighting a fundamental disagreement on who holds the power to de-escalate or conclude the current hostilities.
The IRGC’s statement suggests a belief that starting a conflict is far simpler than ending it. It’s often the case that a single party can initiate a war, but bringing it to a close typically requires the agreement and cooperation of all those involved. The hope for a peaceful resolution hinges on common sense prevailing, moving towards a path of de-escalation rather than further confrontation.
There’s a noticeable element of confusion or perhaps strategic ambiguity surrounding the exact state of affairs, with some questioning whether a full-blown war has truly commenced. The fate of a key Iranian figure, reportedly injured and having lost family, becomes a focal point. If this individual is alive, the immense personal grief and potential for retribution could significantly shape the conflict’s trajectory, suggesting that their actions might ultimately dictate its conclusion.
From an Iranian perspective, their strategy for victory is presented as far more plausible than that attributed to the Trump administration. The U.S. has been contemplating an invasion of Iran for over two decades, and Iran has been preparing for such a scenario throughout that period. This preparedness has been a consistent element of their defense strategy, and according to U.S. military planners, attempts to assess the feasibility of such an invasion have repeatedly concluded that victory for the U.S. is not achievable.
The U.S. approach, as perceived, seems to rely on achieving regime change without direct military intervention, banking on internal dissent or proxy forces to topple a heavily armed state that has demonstrated a willingness to suppress its own population. This theory of victory is viewed as unrealistic, as bombing a nation into submission without ground forces is deemed an unlikely outcome, and increased aerial bombardment could alienate the very civilian population on which this strategy depends. The narrative that the U.S. and Israel seek Iran’s destruction has been consistently propagated domestically, making any proposed U.S. intervention inherently suspect. The timing of past military actions, particularly during sensitive negotiations and religious holidays, has further fueled this distrust.
In contrast, Iran’s perceived strategy is to create widespread regional instability, prompting international pressure on the U.S. by making the current situation untenable for key allies and the global economy. While Iran may be directly responsible for actions like refinery attacks, the broader consequence is placing immense pressure on the U.S. administration. Iran, being functionally immune to diplomatic pressure and not easily deterred by further military action, can leverage its regional influence to its advantage.
The geographical realities of the Strait of Hormuz present a significant challenge. The narrow passage makes it vulnerable to attacks on oil tankers, even with relatively unsophisticated methods. Iran can launch attacks from mobile platforms and disappear quickly, creating an environment where any disruption is blamed on the U.S. for upending a long-standing regional stability. This destabilization is seen as a critical U.S. geopolitical interest, and Iran’s objective is to disrupt it, particularly in a region vital for global oil supply.
The scenario is framed as a race against time. If Iran continues its disruptive actions and exacerbates a global oil shortage while the U.S. continues its military operations, the pressure will mount on the U.S. to negotiate. Donald Trump, in particular, is portrayed as susceptible to market fluctuations and international influence, making him a potentially easier target for pressure than the more committed Iranian leadership. The argument is that Iran doesn’t need to outlast the U.S. military, but rather outlast Trump’s political tenure and willingness to remain engaged.
This perspective suggests that the U.S. Department of Defense has consistently warned against direct intervention in Iran, outlining the significant casualties that would result from any ground invasion. Despite these warnings, there’s a concern that the current administration is disregarding these expert assessments, inadvertently leading the U.S. into a conflict from which it cannot easily extricate itself. Iran’s ability to control the Strait of Hormuz and launch retaliatory strikes indefinitely means that the U.S. cannot simply declare victory and withdraw.
There’s also an indication that the U.S. and Israel have differing objectives regarding Iran. While the U.S. might prefer a manageable, controlled regime, Israel’s stated goal is the complete annihilation of Iran. This divergence in interests could complicate any unified strategy. The analogy of “fucking the gorilla” and the gorilla deciding when it’s over powerfully illustrates the perceived power dynamic, suggesting that ultimate control rests with the more entrenched party.
The situation is further compounded by the fact that any pause in hostilities could be exploited by Iran to rearm and prepare for future engagements. The notion of a quick resolution is challenged, with the understanding that past de-escalations have often been temporary. Iran, facing international isolation, may struggle to sustain a prolonged asymmetrical conflict without crucial support from major powers.
The IRGC’s assertion of control over the war’s conclusion is seen by some as a political maneuver, akin to a coup. There’s a counter-narrative expressing astonishment at any sympathy for Iran’s leadership, with fears that Trump might resort to extreme measures like nuclear escalation due to a perceived lack of consequences for his actions. The exchange of declarations about who will end the war is characterized as a childish display of one-upmanship that will prolong the conflict.
A pragmatic view suggests that Iran cannot be entirely eradicated, and any cessation of hostilities will likely be followed by continued resistance. The U.S. may claim victory, but the underlying issues and the regime’s ability to persist are acknowledged. The idea of a massive ground invasion is presented as the only way to remove the current Iranian regime, a move deemed highly improbable due to the potential consequences.
The U.S. is accused of initiating this conflict dishonorably, making Iranian willingness to negotiate less likely. The retaliatory nature of the conflict is emphasized, with the IRGC stating that the U.S. cannot simply stop the war after actions that have resulted in significant loss of life. This back-and-forth declaration about who controls the war’s end is seen as detrimental, as both sides appear driven by a desire to have the last word, potentially leading to prolonged and irrational escalation.
There’s a recognition that Iran’s ability to sustain an asymmetric war is limited without external support. The statement that “wars start when you wish it, but do not end when you will it” encapsulates the complexity of exiting conflict. The IRGC’s apparent willingness to engage in brinkmanship, mirroring what’s perceived as Trump’s own tendencies, fuels concerns about an unending war.
The argument that Iran will not be defeated unless there is a significant ground invasion is presented as a factual assessment. The statement by the IRGC is interpreted as an acknowledgment of this reality, implying that the U.S. has been drawn into a protracted conflict with no easy exit. The geopolitical motivations of Israel are also highlighted, suggesting a potential divergence of interests with the U.S. in how this conflict should be managed.
The conflict is increasingly framed as a religious one, a “jihad,” with the warning not to “poke a sleeping bear.” This perspective suggests that the actions taken by Trump have guaranteed generations of radicalized individuals seeking revenge, with little hope of reconciliation. Trump’s own statements are seen as rattled and desperate, indicative of a desire to prematurely end a conflict he may not fully grasp.
The implication of the IRGC’s statement is that they are now in a position of command regarding the war’s conclusion. This perceived shift in authority is seen as a significant development. The narrative also suggests that the U.S. might be unwilling to stop, even if Trump wishes to, potentially due to the influence of allies like Israel. The notion that this is a religious war, a “jihad,” underscores the deeply entrenched nature of the conflict and the potential for it to spiral beyond easy control.