Death or victory: How Iran’s Revolutionary Guard silences reform and shapes the region

In the last presidential election held in Iran, Masoud Pezeshkian won the presidency after having been repeatedly barred from candidacy. Much was said about allowing this "reformist" to assume the presidency following the death of hardliner Ebrahim Raisi in a helicopter crash. At the time, it was believed that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei saw it as beneficial for the regime to present a reformist front capable of engaging with the West, after hardliners had come to control most state institutions. However, skeptics viewed it as a ploy to undermine the "pragmatists" and disillusion Iranians with them.

Over time, it became evident that the skeptics’ predictions were accurate, as the hardliners controlling the levers of the regime blocked the realization of reformist aspirations both domestically and in foreign relations.

When Iranian-American negotiations failed and the war, still seeking resolution, erupted, Pezeshkian was completely sidelined. This became evident on the night the Iranian president was forced to retract an apology he had made to Gulf states, which had begun facing Iranian attacks despite not participating in the war. At that moment, it became clear that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps had firmly seized control over decision-making.

The faction to which Pezeshkian belongs includes prominent figures, foremost among them Mohammad Javad Zarif, the former Foreign Minister, and Hassan Rouhani, the former President.

Both Rouhani and Zarif, after Iran received an invitation from the United States to negotiate, advocated approaching these talks from a position of strength—leveraging existing influence factors, from control over the Strait of Hormuz to missile capabilities—in exchange for calculated concessions that would preserve the regime and its infrastructure, ultimately leading to the lifting of sanctions and the release of frozen funds.

How are ideas killed in Tehran?

These proposals stemmed from clear concerns over US President Donald Trump’s threats to reduce Iran to scorched earth, which would prevent the country, even if the regime survived, from reviving and reconstructing, forcing it to make larger and gradual concessions later in order to emerge from isolation.

But instead of sparking an internal debate about the best course of action, these proposals prompted the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps to launch a campaign of treason against Rouhani and Zarif, going so far as to call for their arrest and execution, intended as a "lesson for those who take heed" from what they described as "enemies within."

This scene demonstrates that the principle of leveraging current strength to minimize future losses—a principle that typically guides states in managing their interests—has no place within the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. The ideology guiding this faction is based on a stark equation: "death or victory," leaving no room for compromise.

This faction believes that accumulating power, regardless of the cost, will eventually enable the declaration of "victory," which can be used internally to cement the regime’s continuity and prevent any popular accountability, despite the Iranian public’s capacity to raise critical questions about the worth of continued sacrifices.

The Lebanese version of the Iranian equation

To further illustrate the situation, one can look at the Lebanese case, where Hezbollah, the prominent arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, shows little regard for human and material losses and does not hesitate to engage in wars without a clear end in sight, aiming to retain weapons that have failed to provide protection, either internally or externally.

Hezbollah imposes hefty costs on Lebanon from one perspective: advancing the Iranian ideology and maintaining weapons that ensure its continued influence over Lebanese decision-making.

Thus, as in Iran, so in Lebanon, anyone advocating for the principle of “damage limitation” is subject to accusation and labeled as committing “treason.”