> by that, I mean the equivalent of dropping nukes on Tehran worth of damage

As I've argued, I think we've already left the IRGC weaker–if more consolidated–than it was a few months ago. But levelling it further would just require what Trump has said he wants to do: destroy the local power and water infrastructure.

▲

cogman10 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't think that destroys the IRGC, it destroys the civilian population.

They might be weaker in the sense that they'll have less soldiers, but as far as a government goes, it will empower them like we've never seen. It will cement their power as the entire population is going to completely support them.

Much like how Hamas still exists even though Gaza has been leveled.

	▲	JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> don't think that destroys the IRGC, it destroys the civilian population The IRGC controls vast swaths of Iran's economy. They absolutely hurt when e.g. their cement plants are bombed. And the region's nuclear option, strikes on water infrastructure, looks like it's nearing the table. At which point we're potentially looking at multiple borders shifting in the long run. > It will cement their power as the entire population is going to completely support them Doubtful once the rally-around-the-flag effect has dissipated. But a lot can be done in a short amount of time, granted. > Much like how Hamas still exists even though Gaza has been leveled Well, yes. But it's a shadow of its former self. Poorer. More vulnerable. Less powerful in all material respects. More consolidated over a smaller area, though with less-tenuous grip even there. Irrelevant on the international geopolitical field. If you're saying Hamas is today more powerful than it was before October 7, sure, IRGC will be "more powerful" in the same way.