Trump says he would be willing to strike Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps if necessary, drawing comparison to 2019 ISIS campaign

President Trump said Wednesday that he would be willing to wipe out Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps if necessary, according to The Washington Times. The remarks were framed as a contingency plan for confronting a threat the administration deems urgent, with Trump drawing a parallel to the 2019 U.S. campaign against the Islamic State.

The Washington Times reported that Trump confirmed the position on Wednesday, characterizing the Revolutionary Guard Corps as an entity the United States could target in the same way it acted against ISIS in 2019. The report did not provide additional operational details, such as the circumstances that would trigger any action or what legal or diplomatic steps would precede it.

The statement lands amid ongoing international scrutiny of Iran-linked security activities and the broader debate in Washington over the scope and limits of U.S. military force. It also reflects the administration’s emphasis on decisively addressing armed groups that it says pose direct risks to U.S. interests and allies.

While Trump’s comments use language associated with broad destruction of a state-linked military organization, the reported material focuses on his stated willingness rather than an announced policy shift, a specific timetable, or a designated mission. As with similar public remarks by senior officials, implementation would typically depend on additional government determinations and interagency review beyond what was described in the report.

The comparison to 2019 against the Islamic State underscores how Trump portrayed that earlier campaign as a model for decisive action. The Washington Times account ties the Revolutionary Guard Corps comments to that historical reference point, indicating Trump sees a comparable threat framework and response logic.

In the immediate aftermath of the remarks, U.S. officials and outside observers are likely to focus on practical questions that the report itself does not answer, including what conditions would constitute “necessary” circumstances, how escalation risks would be assessed, and what alternatives such as deterrence, sanctions enforcement, or targeted strikes might be considered.

The comments could also become part of the broader policy argument about how to constrain risks from Iran and Iran-aligned forces, while maintaining international and domestic legal guardrails. For now, the only confirmed element is Trump’s public statement of willingness to take extreme action toward the IRGC if needed, as described by The Washington Times.