TEHRAN - Two Iranian Army personnel were martyred in the latest Israeli strikes on Monday, amid a broader strategy pursued by US President Donald Trump to sow division within Iran’s military establishment and undermine the unity of its armed forces.

A funeral ceremony for the Army's air defense forces, Bahman Hosseini and Alireza Abiri, was held in Tehran on Tuesday.

Israel carried out strikes in several cities across Iran, including Tehran, on Monday. This followed Iran’s missile barrage against Israel in response to the regime’s persistent attacks on Lebanon. The strikes marked the first direct confrontation between Iran and Israel following a ceasefire on April 8. The truce between Tehran and Washington paused the US-Israeli war that began on February 28. Iran’s strong military response to Israel and American bases in the Persian Gulf region prompted Trump to accept the ceasefire.  

Before the April 8 truce was finalized, Iran explicitly communicated to the United States that halting Israel’s war in Lebanon was among its conditions. According to Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Trump fully agreed to the condition at the time.

Nonetheless, in violation of the deal, Israel continued to carry out deadly strikes in Lebanon and southern Beirut, which were met with Iran’s response. Iranian officials said the country’s armed forces dealt “painful” blows to Israel in the latest missile strike and warned of a “crushing” response if the Tel Aviv regime further escalates.

Trump has tried to distance himself from the latest Israeli aggression against Iran. Some experts believe it is unlikely that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu acted without US approval, while some other experts argue that Trump is at odds with Netanyahu over the war on Iran. Irrespective of this debate, there is little doubt that both Trump and Netanyahu pursue overlapping strategic objectives toward Iran.

During 39 days of war, both the US and Israel failed to defeat Iran militarily. In mid-April, the US imposed a naval blockade on Iranian ports to exert economic pressure on Iran to push the country toward surrender, but to no avail. The US and Israel have also resorted to media, psychological, and information warfare, while it remains unclear whether the April 8 truce can develop into a permanent end to the February 28 war.

Trump’s psychological warfare 

In line with such psychological and media warfare, Trump attempted to project an image of disunity between Iran’s Army and the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) in an interview with Fox News late last month.

He claimed that the US had not attacked Iran’s Army, which he referred to as the “military”.

“Their military, we’ve sort of left it alone, because we think that their military is somewhat moderate... We’ve actually left their military alone. People would be surprised to hear that,” Trump said in the interview.

Iran’s Army is tasked with protecting the country’s borders, while the IRGC, in addition to its other responsibilities, is involved in operations abroad. For example, it played a key role in helping Iraq and Syria defeat the ISIL terror group in those Arab nations.

During the recent war, and the war that the US and Israel launched on Iran in June 2025, both the Army and the IRGC defended the country against aggression. Those who lost their lives came from both branches.

Major General Seyed Abdolrahim Mousavi, the Chief of Staff of Iran's Armed Forces, who was martyred on the first day of the Israeli-American aggression on February 28, was from the regular Iranian Army. Besides, a US Navy submarine, USS Charlotte, killed more than 100 personnel of the Iranian Army when it targeted the Dena destroyer on March 4. 

At least these instances indicate that there is no distinction between IRGC and Army personnel when facing external attacks. Trump’s portrayal of the Army as “moderate” is viewed as part of a broader attempt to advance a bipolar narrative within Iran’s armed forces.

Iran’s armed forces remain united 

The US and Israel were under the illusion that the Iranian military would collapse days after the February 28 war. However, contrary to such expectations, the IRGC and the Army carried out 100 waves of missile and drone attacks against their adversaries, demonstrating coordination and unity within Iran’s armed forces. The US and Israel also expected Iranian military commanders to defect or flee, but not a single senior commander did so.

Exposing Mossad’s plot 

Following the start of the 12-day war in June last year, The Washington Post revealed that Israeli intelligence operatives placed at least 20 calls to senior Iranian military figures. These agents demanded that Iranian forces record surrender videos denouncing the Islamic Republic within 12 hours or face annihilation alongside their families.

“We will kill you, your family, your children, everyone, with the dirt,” one Mossad agent told an IRGC general, adding, “We’re closer to you than your own neck vein.”

Yet, not a single general complied. Not one fled. Not one betrayed their nation. This collective act of defiance is often cited as an example of the limits of coercive psychological warfare.

US failed strategy 

Trump is now attempting to replicate a similar strategy by driving a wedge between the Army and the IRGC.

Security and intelligence analysts generally note that psychological warfare aimed at fragmenting an adversary’s military cohesion is a common feature of modern hybrid conflicts. Such strategies rely on amplifying perceived internal divisions to weaken deterrence and morale. However, case studies of Iran’s military structure during recent regional conflicts suggest that both the IRGC and the regular Army have increasingly operated under a coordinated command structure during external threats.

Experts also argue that attempts to distinguish between military branches—portraying one as “moderate” and the other as “hardline”—tend to have limited effectiveness when confronted with institutional cohesion reinforced by shared national security perceptions. In this context, analysts view Iran’s battlefield coordination as a key factor that has so far reduced the impact of psychological and media-based pressure campaigns.