Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Takes Wartime Control, Raising New Security Concerns

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has stepped out from the shadows of Iran’s political system and into open wartime command, tightening its grip on military and strategic decisions at a moment of regional conflict and internal uncertainty. With Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei killed in an Israeli airstrike backed by the United States and succession still unsettled, the Guards are moving to secure both the front lines and the home front, raising fresh questions about regional stability and global energy security.

The shift is visible from Tehran’s bombed military compounds to the Strait of Hormuz, where the Guards now claim “complete control” over one of the world’s most sensitive shipping chokepoints. This has produced a more hardline security posture that blends battlefield command, political maneuvering and economic leverage in ways that could reshape the Middle East conflict and the international response.

From power broker to wartime command

For years, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards operated as a state within a state, wielding influence across the military, intelligence, economy and politics. The current war has pushed that influence into overt command. Sources describe the Guards taking the wartime lead in Tehran, with senior commanders shaping strategy, missile operations and decisions about escalation across the region, as detailed in reporting on Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.

The Guards’ ascent comes as Iran absorbs a direct blow to its leadership. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in Israeli airstrikes with U.S. support, according to an account that describes the attack and quotes a warning from President Trump that retaliation would be “massive and ongoing.” His death removed the central arbiter of Iran’s factional politics and left a vacuum that security actors were best positioned to fill.

At present, according to analysis of the succession process, there is no clearly defined “new leadership” in Tehran. While the formal constitutional mechanism is in motion, real power is described as fragmented among senior clerics, political figures and actors with Revolutionary Guard backgrounds. That fragmentation has created an opening for the Guards to consolidate wartime decision making while other centers of authority remain in flux.

Mojtaba Khamenei and the Guards’ political project

The succession struggle is not only about clerical legitimacy. It is also about the future political role of the Guards. Reporting on internal maneuvering describes Khamenei’s son Mojtaba as widely seen as a likely candidate for the country’s top post, with very close ties to the Guards and significant influence over them. Sources quoted in that account say Mojtaba exercises “significant control” over the force and suggest that any new system will give the Guards an “even more important role.” These dynamics are highlighted in coverage of Mojtaba Khamenei and his relationship with the Guards.

Parallel reporting from inside Iran describes the Guards pressing for a fast announcement on Mojtaba Khamenei’s future, including political activity in the city of Qom, the country’s religious center. That account also refers to Iran’s invisible “First Lady” and revisits who Khamenei’s wife was, underlining how opaque the personal networks around the former Supreme Leader have been. The Guards’ involvement in these succession moves suggests they are not simply a military actor, but a kingmaker shaping the next phase of the Islamic Republic.

Analysts at one security-focused research center describe a leadership transition “in the shadow of war” in which actors with Revolutionary Guard backgrounds are central to the emerging power structure. In that view, the Guards are both a guarantor of regime continuity and a driver of a harder line, with their battlefield role reinforcing their political leverage in Tehran.

Airstrikes on Tehran and the logic of retaliation

The Guards’ wartime prominence is tied directly to the intensity of the conflict. The Israel Defense Forces have conducted multiple strikes at several military compounds in southeastern Tehran, according to the Iran Update Evening Special Report that lists these operations under its Toplines section. These strikes targeted facilities associated with missile and drone programs and were described as aimed at degrading Iranian retaliatory capabilities in and around Tehran.

A follow-up report states that a combined force continues to conduct airstrikes targeting key internal security sites in Tehran City as well as areas in Kurd regions. This campaign has hit bases linked to the internal security apparatus and to the Iranian navy, underlining that the conflict now directly affects the capital and the core of the regime’s security institutions. The same research stream describes the attacks as part of an effort to limit Iran’s ability to respond across multiple fronts.

Iran’s response has been framed in maximalist terms by the Guards. In a widely circulated video, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps issues a sweeping revenge threat after Iranian state television confirms the death of senior figures. The clip refers to Iran’s armed forces and the Basij and asks whether, with “Kimemene” gone, Iran is readying itself for its most ferocious attack ever against adversaries. Another video segment on the war states that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has assumed a dominant leadership role in wartime decision making and in political decisions, reinforcing a harder line in dealings with the United States and Israel.

Strait of Hormuz: from deterrent to active leverage

Nowhere is the Guards’ expanded authority more visible than at sea. Iran’s IRGC has publicly declared that it has “complete control” over the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway that connects the Gulf’s energy exporters to global markets. A live update from a regional outlet records the claim that the Guards control the crucial Gulf shipping route and can influence traffic through it. This assertion of dominance is reflected in coverage of Iran’s IRGC and its posture in the Strait of Hormuz.

The Guards have gone further than rhetorical control. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has officially declared that the Strait of Hormuz is now closed to certain adversaries. One account of that declaration states that on a Thursday in early March, the IRGC announced the Strait was closed to the United States, Israel and some European states, turning a long standing deterrent threat into a concrete policy instrument. A televised segment from an Indian broadcaster describes this as a U-turn on the Strait of Hormuz, explaining that the waterway is “shut only for US, Israel, Europe” and that the IRGC has announced restrictions on ships passing through, warning that vessels from those countries would not be allowed to cross in the Middle East conflict.

The Guards’ messaging on the Strait taps into decades of Iranian strategy that treats energy chokepoints as leverage against sanctions and military pressure. What is different now is that the same institution that controls the missiles and drones is also setting maritime red lines, which raises the risk that any incident at sea could be quickly linked to broader escalation plans in Tehran.

Harder line at home and abroad

The Guards’ wartime leadership is paired with what multiple accounts describe as a more hardline approach to both external enemies and internal dissent. Reporting that draws on six Iranian insiders describes the Guards’ decentralisation strategy, which spreads command functions across multiple units to make the force more resilient to decapitation strikes. Those sources say the Guards are tightening their grip on wartime decision making and pushing for a tougher response to Israel and the United States while also preparing to contain unrest inside Iran.

Another report on the Revolutionary Guard in command during war describes how, despite the loss of senior commanders, Iran’s Revolutionary Gu remains focused on the fulfillment of its ambitions. The same account links the Guards’ wartime role to broader ideological goals that include regional influence and resistance to Western pressure. In this reading, the war is not only a defensive response to airstrikes but also an opportunity for the Guards to entrench a more confrontational doctrine.

Analysts at a threat monitoring project describe Iran’s current strategy as a combination of missile and drone attacks, proxy activity and information operations. Their Iran Update Evening Special Report for March 5 states that the combined force continues to conduct airstrikes targeting key internal security sites and that Iran is adjusting its posture in response. This research, accessed via critical threats analysis, frames the Guards as central to Iran’s ability to absorb strikes and still threaten retaliation.

Succession, Qom and the Guards’ clerical alliances

The political front is no less active than the military one. A detailed report from an Iranian outlet describes how the Guards push for a fast Mojtaba Khamenei announcement amid the uncertainty. It notes that Guards affiliated figures are active in the city of Qom, working to shape clerical opinion and manage potential resistance to a dynastic succession. The same piece recounts that for decades, the wife of Iran’s former Supreme Leader was almost entirely absent from public view, which is why she has been described as Iran’s invisible “First Lady.”

That secrecy has long given the Guards space to build quiet alliances with clerics and family members who rarely appear in public. The current crisis brings those relationships into the open. Mojtaba Khamenei’s close ties to the Guards, highlighted in the report on the Guards’ wartime lead, sit at the intersection of religious authority and military power. If he emerges as the next Supreme Leader, the Guards would have a trusted ally at the apex of the system, one whose own legitimacy would depend heavily on their support.

At the same time, analysis from an independent security center stresses that there is still no clearly defined new leadership in Tehran and that the formal transition mechanism is only one part of the story. Behind that process, actors with Revolutionary Guard backgrounds are already influencing decisions that range from how to respond to Israeli airstrikes to how to manage protests and economic pressure at home.

Economic and global security implications

The Guards’ claim of control over the Strait of Hormuz and their readiness to restrict passage for specific countries have immediate implications for global markets. The Strait is a transit route for a large share of the world’s seaborne oil and liquefied natural gas exports, including shipments from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. Any perception that the IRGC might interfere with tankers or impose selective closures can drive up insurance costs, redirect shipping routes and inject volatility into energy prices.

Reports that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has officially declared the Strait closed to the United States, Israel and Europe sharpen those concerns. Even if enforcement remains limited, the precedent of targeting specific nationalities of ships introduces a new layer of risk for companies that trade with or flag their vessels in those countries. The Guards’ ability to calibrate this pressure, for example by harassing some vessels while allowing others to pass, gives Tehran a flexible tool for signaling displeasure or testing red lines without immediately triggering a full scale naval confrontation.