IRGC Seeks to Engage More in Proxy Wars in the Region

Hossein Salami, the deputy commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), emphasized on Wednesday, November 6, at the 'Passive Defense Conference' in Tehran that the Islamic Republic of Iran must prepare itself to manage both proxy and direct wars. These statements come at a time when IRGC commanders and political officials acknowledge that Iran has intensified its military presence in Syria, although they refer to this presence as 'advisory.' Official and unofficial media in the Islamic Republic publish news daily regarding Iranian casualties in Syria, while regional countries protest against what they call the expansion of Iranian intervention in Yemen, Iraq, and Syria. Should the statements made by the IRGC deputy commander on Wednesday be seen as a sign of Iran becoming more involved in regional crises, or are they merely claims? Military expert Hossein Aryan believes that Salami's remarks should be seen as 'a sign of the IRGC's desire to engage more in proxy wars in the region.' Aryan states that Iran is involved to varying degrees in proxy wars in Syria, Lebanon, Bahrain, and Yemen, and Salami's statements indicate the IRGC's willingness to engage more in proxy wars in the region. Iran has incurred significant political and financial costs for such wars, with Syria being a prime example where the proxy war has escalated into a real war due to increased Iranian military presence. The Islamic Republic's military interventions in the region will undoubtedly lead to direct confrontations with regional and extra-regional countries, primarily the United States. Despite the U.S. focusing on the Asia-Pacific region in recent years, it will not abandon the Middle East and the Persian Gulf, especially given the military ambitions of the Islamic Republic. Importantly, the Islamic Republic's more prominent role in the Syrian war has been realized through cooperation and participation with Russia and its air support. In other words, IRGC units in Syria and Assad's forces serve as ground troops for Russia. Does Iran have the necessary capacity to engage more in these proxy wars? The military capacity of the Islamic Republic for engaging in proxy wars is limited. Additionally, regarding Syria, the lack of a coherent strategy from the U.S. towards the Assad regime has allowed Iran and Russia to take advantage of the situation. How costly can such interventions be for Iran's economy and regional legitimacy? Iran's military interventions in the region can seriously damage its economy. Military capability and managing war are only possible under a healthy and robust economy. Ensuring a country's military security is closely related to its economic security, and these two components essentially form the security hardware of any country. The dire state of Iran's economy in the final years of the eight-year war with Iraq forced the Islamic Republic to accept Resolution 598. Military ambitions in the region and the use of military force to exert power beyond Iran will undoubtedly strengthen hostility and align neighboring countries against Iran. Meanwhile, neighboring Arab countries benefit from U.S. military and political support. Although this U.S. support may seem weak at times due to Obama's doctrine of caution, he will leave the White House in the next 18 months, and there is no reason to believe that the foreign policy of the next president will be the same as Obama's current approach to the Middle East. Will this not ultimately lead Iran to engage in direct conflict with other regional or extra-regional powers? The Islamic Republic's military interventions in the region will undoubtedly lead to direct confrontations with regional and extra-regional countries, primarily the United States. Despite the U.S. focusing on the Asia-Pacific region in recent years, it will not abandon the Middle East and the Persian Gulf, especially given the military ambitions of the Islamic Republic.