The Ideological Parallels Between ISIS and the IRGC

At first glance, the militant movement Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and Iran’s powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) appear to represent opposite poles of the Islamic world. ISIS is rooted in radical Sunni jihadism, while the IRGC defends a Shiite revolutionary state born from the Iranian Revolution of 1979. The two forces have even confronted each other indirectly in conflicts across the Middle East.

Both ISIS and the IRGC reject the modern secular state and instead promote systems in which political authority derives directly from religious doctrine.

ISIS pursued this goal by declaring a global caliphate under the leadership of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, claiming religious and political authority over Muslims worldwide. Its ideology was grounded in extreme Salafi-jihadism and insisted that Islamic law should govern every aspect of society.

The IRGC, by contrast, is the guardian of a state built on the doctrine of Velayat-e Faqih—the “Guardianship of the Jurist”—developed by Ruhollah Khomeini. Under this system, ultimate political authority rests with a religious leader rather than elected institutions.

Revolutionary Mission and Expansion

Both ISIS and the IRGC see themselves as revolutionary movements with missions that extend beyond national borders.

ISIS sought to erase existing borders in the Middle East and replace them with a transnational caliphate spanning Muslim lands. Its propaganda portrayed the struggle as a historic mission to restore an idealized Islamic order.

Similarly, the IRGC was created not merely as a military force but as the protector and exporter of Iran’s Islamic revolution. Through networks of allied militias and political movements—most notably Hezbollah—the IRGC has expanded its influence across the region, including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen.

In both cases, ideological expansion is central to the project. Each movement portrays its struggle as part of a broader historical transformation of the Muslim world. Notably, the IRGC’s very name omits the word “Iran,” reflecting Khomeini’s rejection of nationalism in favor of revolutionary Islamic universalism.

Militarization of Ideology

Another shared feature is the fusion of ideological belief with military organization.

ISIS operated not only as a terrorist network but also as a quasi-state military organization controlling territory and governing populations during its peak between 2014 and 2017. Its fighters were motivated by a combination of ideological conviction and apocalyptic vision.

The IRGC similarly functions as both a military institution and an ideological guardian of the Islamic Republic. Beyond conventional military operations, it oversees intelligence networks, paramilitary organizations, and ideological enforcement inside Iran.

In both systems, armed force is not merely a defensive tool; it serves as a mechanism for enforcing ideological conformity and sustaining revolutionary power.

Suppression of Dissent

Both movements justify harsh repression against those they consider enemies of the ideological state.

ISIS became notorious for brutal punishments, mass executions, and persecution of minorities. Entire communities—including the Yazidis—were targeted in campaigns that the United Nations has described as genocide.

The IRGC’s repression operates through state institutions but reflects a similar logic: dissent against the ideological system is treated as a threat to regime survival. Security forces have repeatedly suppressed protest movements, including the nationwide demonstrations that erupted during the Mahsa Amini protests in 2022.

More recently, during nationwide unrest in January 2026, security forces—including the IRGC and its Basij militia—reportedly carried out a violent crackdown on protesters across multiple cities. Activists and human rights groups reported ten thousands of casualties and arrests, including among minors, underscoring the regime’s willingness to deploy overwhelming force against its own population.

In both cases, ideological absolutism leaves little room for pluralism or democratic dissent.

Why the IRGC Poses a Greater Strategic Threat

Despite these parallels, a crucial difference separates the two: ISIS was a non-state insurgent movement, while the IRGC is deeply embedded within a sovereign state.

While ISIS captured global attention with its brutality and territorial ambitions, its power ultimately proved fragile. A multinational coalition dismantled its territorial control, and the organization now survives primarily as a decentralized network of insurgent affiliates.

The IRGC, by contrast, is a central pillar of the Iranian political system. Established to protect the Islamic Republic, it has evolved into a powerful military, political, and economic institution shaping Iran’s domestic security and regional strategy.

The IRGC commands elite forces—including the Quds Force—controls major sectors of the Iranian economy and directs a network of proxy militias across the Middle East. Its integration into state institutions and direct backing from Iran’s Supreme Leader give it continuity and resilience that ISIS never possessed.

There are also troubling reports that IRGC-aligned authorities have mobilized children at the age of 12 years into internal security roles, including participation in Basij patrols and checkpoints. Such practices raise serious concerns about the militarization of society and the regime’s increasing reliance on ideological mobilization to sustain its authority.

The war with Iran should not be understood as a war against the Iranian people. Rather, it is a war with the ideology and power structure represented by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

The IRGC, which today exercises the political, military, and economic control over Iran, operates according to an ideological logic rather than the traditional calculations of a nation-state. The leadership of this institution is driven by the preservation of revolutionary power and the defense of its ideological mission above all else.

For that reason, the human and material costs of conflict are not necessarily a deterrent. The destruction of national infrastructure, the suffering of the civilian population, or even the loss of thousands—potentially millions—of lives does not fundamentally alter the regime’s calculus. The leadership has repeatedly demonstrated that maintaining power and preserving the revolutionary system take precedence over the welfare of the population.

Even the lives of their own members and followers are ultimately subordinated to this ideological struggle. Within the worldview of the IRGC and the broader revolutionary system, sacrifice is not merely accepted, it is glorified.

If the leadership concludes that it cannot prevail militarily, it may still seek to preserve a different form of victory: the symbolic legacy of having fought to the end in defense of its ideology. In this narrative, martyrdom and resistance become tools for sustaining the revolutionary myth and ensuring that the ideology continues beyond the battlefield.

For this reason, this war with the IRGC cannot be viewed as a conventional war between states. It is, at its core, a conflict with an ideological system that places revolutionary survival and doctrinal legacy above national interests, economic stability, or the lives of its citizens.

Understanding this distinction is essential for policymakers and analysts seeking to mobilize the international community to stand with the Iranian people in ending the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps's grip on power in Iran. The challenge is not simply military but ideological. Allowing fear of the IRGC’s revolutionary ideology to dictate policy only strengthens the very forces that destabilize the region. If this system continues the scale of destruction and instability it generates across the Middle East, Europe, and beyond will far exceed the costs the world is already paying today. Supporting the aspirations of ordinary Iranians for accountable governance and national sovereignty is therefore not only a moral imperative but also a strategic necessity for long-term regional and global security.

Dr. Fariba Parsa holds a Ph.D. in social science, specializing in Iranian politics with a focus on political Islam, democracy, and human rights. She is the author of Fighting for Change in Iran: The Women, Life, Freedom Philosophy against Political Islam. Dr. Parsa is also the founder and president of Women's E-Learning in Leadership (WELL), a nonprofit organization dedicated to empowering women in Iran and Afghanistan through online leadership education and training.