Sanctioning State: A Pot Calling the Kettle Black
CASE A: The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as 'Terrorists' The European Parliament's resolution, passed in January 2023, calls for the IRGC to be designated a terrorist organization. The stated rationale? Its involvement in suppressing protests, alleged plots to attack European targets, and regional destabilization. The ABC News report notes Iran's foreign minister described the move as
'unconstructive' and a 'mistake out of desperation.' Apparently, sovereign nations don't appreciate having components of their official military designated as 'terrorists' by foreign powers, even if those components have a rather extensive, well-documented history of engaging in activities that would indeed meet many definitions of terrorism. CASE B: The 'Legitimate' Counterparts Curiously, the
same Western powers rarely apply identical scrutiny to their own state-sponsored forces or allies that engage in decidedly unsavory, and often illegal, activities. One might wonder why there isn't a similar push to designate, say, the IDF units responsible for operations like 'Cast Lead' in 2008-2009 (which resulted in 1,387 Palestinian deaths, 773 of them civilians, according to a 2009 UN Fact
Finding Mission), or the US special operations forces caught indiscriminately bombing wedding parties in Afghanistan (such as the 2008 Nangarhar strike that killed 47 civilians). Both are state military arms, both have engaged in acts causing immense civilian suffering, yet one is a 'terrorist organization' and the other is… a 'strategic partner.' The distinction, it seems, hinges on whose team