Argentine President Javier Milei on Saturday signed a decree proscribing the Quds Force of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and thirteen individuals linked to the IRGC's overseas arm as terrorist.
"The Quds Force is a division of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, specializing in training for carrying out terrorist attacks in other countries," the decree signed by the Argentine president said.
"The Argentine Republic was a victim of its operations in the 1990s through the attacks on the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires in 1992 and the AMIA Jewish community center in 1994. As of today, this group has been included in the Public Registry of Persons and Entities Linked to Acts of Terrorism and Its Financing," it added.
In 1992, a bomb attack on the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires left 29 dead. Two years later, a truck loaded with explosives drove into the AMIA Jewish center and detonated, leaving 85 dead and 300 injured – the deadliest terror act in Argentina’s history.
"This decision means that members of the Quds Force and their allies are now subject to financial sanctions and operational restrictions aimed at limiting their capacity to act, as well as protecting Argentina’s financial system from being used to economically support their activities."
The decree said Ahmad Vahidi, commander of the Quds Force between 1989 and 1998, is implicated in the AMIA bombing and is the subject of an INTERPOL red notice.
"Despite this, the Iranian regime has not only failed to cooperate with his prosecution, but has promoted him, currently appointing him as deputy commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. This individual is already included in the RePET."
The designation of the Quds Force comes shortly after Iran International reported the unit's involvement in the massacre of at least 12,000 Iranian protesters.
The Revolutionary Guard’s Quds Force and its allied proxy forces in the region played a central role in the killing of protesters on January 8 and 9, Iran International has learned.
According to the information, the Quds Force's Fatemiyoun Brigade of Afghan fighters, Zainebiyoun Brigade of Pakistani fighters, and Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces carried out a significant part of the killings.
The United States, Canada, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Ecuador have blacklisted the IRGC. Australia has also proscribed the IRGC as a state sponsor of terrorism.
The United States has long urged other countries to blacklist the group.
Among Iranians inside the country and across the diaspora, the pause is increasingly interpreted not as restraint but as a dangerous limbo.
Calls for decisive military action are now openly framed as a necessary step to halt executions and mass violence, while hesitation is seen as compounding an already unbearable strain.
In Persian-language commentary circulating widely online, Trump’s posture is described as calculated ambiguity rather than caution.
Trump’s public gestures, including a post thanking Iran’s leadership and authorities for not executing detained protesters, are dismissed by critics as deliberate misdirection. They say the aim is to buy time while the United States strengthens its offensive and defensive military position in the Persian Gulf.
“The shadow of a Trump attack on Iran has not disappeared. He uses his intelligence for deception more than for anything else. His post thanking Khamenei and the authorities is also deceptive. He is buying time to reach a strong offensive and defensive military position in the Persian Gulf and to decide on a surprise strike at the optimal moment,” wrote a user.
For many, the conclusion is blunt: military confrontation is inevitable.
“A military attack on the clerics is inevitable. You shouldn’t get too caught up in daily noise. The same fluctuations existed before the 12-day war. The only course is to keep documenting the clerics’ crimes and to keep demanding and applying pressure on the United States and Israel for a maximal attack,” wrote another one.
Trump remarks fuel disbelief and anger
Trump’s own comments have inflamed skepticism. "We have been told that the killing in Iran is stopping, it has stopped, it's stopping," he told reporters in the Oval Office Wednesday afternoon. "And there's no plan for executions or an execution or executions. So, I've been told that on good authority. We'll find out about it."
He also said on Friday: "Nobody convinced me, I convinced myself. You had yesterday scheduled over 800 hangings. They didn't hang anyone. They cancelled the hangings. That had a big impact."
Public reaction to Trump’s remarks was colored by memories of past crises and government narratives that later unraveled.
“Sure, Mr. Trump,” one user wrote, “they also told us they didn’t shoot down the Ukrainian plane.”
The post referenced Flight PS752, which Iranian authorities denied downing in 2020 for several days before acknowledging it was downed by Iranian missiles, hardening skepticism.
Ambiguity seen as tactic to preserve leverage
A recurring theme was Trump’s communication style. “This is Trump’s usual way,” one post read. “Maybe they called me, maybe I’ll negotiate, maybe I’ll attack, maybe I’ll attack first then negotiate. He uses this tactic to confuse his audience.”
Others argued the statements were designed to establish a record. “Politics is complex,” one user wrote. “He said that so if an attack happens tomorrow, the world won’t grab him asking why you struck. He can say, ‘I warned them and they didn’t listen.’”
Debate over patience, pressure and timing
Social media has also become a forum for strategic debate among Iranians about the role of time, restraint and foreign intervention. “This movement didn’t begin with hope for an American attack,” one wrote. “It shouldn’t end with despair over not getting one.”
Others emphasized endurance. “As long as people remain in the streets, we won’t lose hope,” another post said, arguing that internal pressure, not foreign strikes, would determine outcomes – even if outside action could shorten the path.
A more tactical strand of discussion focused on military logistics. Users pointed to reports of aircraft carrier movements, troop redeployments and regional preparations as signs that delay does not equal abandonment. “All these movements mean money, cost,” one post read. “Even if Trump orders it today, it takes weeks – equipment, transport, doctors, food.”
One argued that an immediate strike could trigger indiscriminate retaliation across the region – from Iraq and the Persian Gulf to Israel – and even false-flag attacks blamed on outside powers, invoking the PS752 precedent. In that view, delay allows for planning aimed at minimizing civilian casualties.
Some took a more psychological angle. “The fact that Trump hasn’t attacked yet has frayed your nerves,” one user wrote, “imagine what it’s doing to the nerves of the security forces.” The argument suggests waiting itself can function as pressure, exhausting those tasked with maintaining control.
Some also expressed relief that no strike had occurred, arguing that a rushed or limited attack could be politically symbolic rather than decisive, allowing leaders to disengage without addressing deeper risks. “Trump isn’t looking for a battle he can’t win,” one post said, suggesting preparation signals calculation rather than retreat.
For a society already accustomed to crisis, the waiting has become its own ordeal. Each day without action brings more frustration. As one user put it, half-joking and half-resigned, “Until news of an attack on Iran comes directly from Trump’s account, I won’t believe anything anymore.”
In the absence of certainty, Iranians continue to debate, wait and endure at one of the most sensitive moments in the country’s modern history where thousands have been killed.
US President Donald Trump signaled on Tuesday that he was leaning toward a military strike on Iran when he said Iranian protesters should keep up the demonstrations and that “HELP IS ON ITS WAY.”
At least 12,000 people have been killed in Iran in the largest killing in the country's contemporary history, much of it carried out on January 8-9 during an ongoing internet shutdown, senior government and security sources told Iran International.
Joel Rayburn, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, and Robert Satloff, the Executive Director of the Washington Institute, believe that limited military action by the United States may briefly punish Tehran's abuses but is unlikely to stop violence unless it is followed by a broader campaign.
“In April 2017, the president responded to Bashar al Assad's use of chemical weapons by doing airstrikes. We did not follow that up with a maximum pressure campaign or a political campaign,” Rayburn said. “One year later, he used them again.”
Rayburn argued that the lesson from Syria was clear: “We can’t do this just by one-off military strikes. They have the impact, but we have to have a campaign and we have to use all the tools at our disposal.”
“We can’t just do something and move on,” he said. “If the objective is to stop the killing, then the tools have to stay in place until that objective is met.”
Satloff said he does not like the notion of a strike. "A strike sounds like something that you do and then you’re done and that you can then turn to whatever next international problem is on your agenda.”
He said the current moment presents a more direct test for the Trump administration. “Will the president’s actions bring an end to the carnage? That’s the key right now.”
Trump said on Wednesday he had been informed that the killing in Iran has stopped and Tehran would not execute any of the protesters.
Satloff cautioned against reading too much into claims that violence inside Iran may have eased.
“If indeed the killing has stopped… terrific,” Satloff said during the town hall moderated by Behnam Ben Taleblu, the senior director of the Iran Program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD).
“But if the killing continues tomorrow, the day after, then that tweet will mean nothing and the president will know it.”
He said the 2017 strikes on Syria imposed a cost but did not fundamentally change the regime’s behavior until they were paired later with broader sanctions and diplomatic isolation.
“It was only after the second time that the US government and our allies finally said… we have to have a campaign,” Rayburn said.
Satloff argued that Iran presents a different but related challenge, because Trump has explicitly framed his objective as stopping the killing of civilians.
“This is somewhat different than partial punishment and partial deterrence,” he said, adding that Iran now represents “a much more visible, tangible test.”
Beyond strikes: cyber, communications
Both speakers stressed that military force is only one option, and not necessarily the first one Washington should use.
Satloff argued the US should focus on “leveling the playing field” between protesters and the Iranian security apparatus.
“Let’s find some way to shut down their communications so that they can’t talk to themselves and orchestrate this nationwide crackdown,” he said. “We have ways of shutting down the communication system employed by the regime.”
Rayburn said the administration could immediately escalate non-military pressure by fully restoring what he described as the president’s early-term directive to reimpose maximum pressure on Iran.
“There is no reason not to be fully implementing the maximum pressure campaign,” he said. “That hasn’t been fully implemented yet. It can be.”
Rayburn added that Iran is now “in an even more brittle state” than during Trump’s first term.
“They are not resilient to that kind of pressure,” he said. “I think the Iranian regime wouldn’t survive that.”
'Narrow targets, civilian risks, and credibility'
While emphasizing non-kinetic options, Satloff outlined what he would recommend if military action became unavoidable.
If violence continued, he said, US action should be tightly focused on security forces responsible for repression.
“I would target very specifically the barracks and the facilities of the IRGC and the Basij,” Satloff said, while warning that civilian casualties could quickly undermine US credibility.
“I think we have to be very careful to avoid civilians,” he said, noting that past strikes in the region showed how quickly public perception can turn when non-combatants are killed.
The United States launched airstrikes against three Iranian nuclear facilities in June in the middle of a 12-day war between Iran and Israel.
The Israeli strikes began after Tehran ignored a 60-day deadline set by President Trump to reach a deal over its disputed nuclear program.
In a statement carried by state media, the council said allegations and interventionist remarks directed at Iran could be treated as hostile acts if they went beyond rhetoric.
It said Iran’s security, independence and territorial integrity constituted a red line that cannot be crossed, and warned that continued hostile behavior would prompt a response, with full responsibility for the consequences resting with those behind it.
The statement said that, within the framework of legitimate defense, Iran did not consider itself restricted to responding only after an action had taken place and would treat tangible signs of a threat as part of its security assessment.
“Any infringement on national interests, interference in internal affairs or action against Iran’s stability will be met with a proportionate, targeted and decisive response... An escalation in threatening language and interventionist conduct that goes beyond verbal posturing may be interpreted as hostile behavior.”
The Defense Council was formed following the 12-day war in June on the order of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
The warning comes as protests have continued across Iran in recent days, with senior officials accusing Washington and Israel of interference in the country’s internal affairs.
On Monday, Iran’s foreign ministry said statements by some US and Israeli officials amounted to interference and incitement to violence under international norms.
US President Donald Trump said on Sunday night aboard Air Force One that the United States was monitoring developments in Iran closely and warned that if Iranian authorities resumed killing protesters, the country would face a strong response from Washington.
At least 29 people have been killed and more than 1,200 arrested in nine days of nationwide protests in Iran, according to rights group HRANA, as demonstrations and strikes continue despite a heavier security presence.
