The Intelligence Unit of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) says Iran’s military initiatives have changed the battlefield equation and forced the US to disperse its forces, withdraw equipment to more distant locations and increasingly rely on concealed and underground deployments.

In a statement issued on Thursday, the IRGC said the “resistance and courage of the Iranian people” and Iran’s “intelligent use of geography” have pushed US military planning into a strategic deadlock, making Washington’s traditional patterns of deployment increasingly costly and ineffective.

“The evacuation and deactivation of CENTCOM bases, the transfer of forces to Jordan with the assumption of a ‘secure rear,’ the imposition of casualties, the withdrawal of intelligence and military equipment to more distant locations, and the move toward1 concealed and underground deployments” have imposed a heavy cost on the United States, the statement said.

The IRGC said these developments demonstrated the growing difficulty of maintaining a conventional and exposed US military presence around Iran.

The IRGC said the initiatives of Iran’s Armed Forces have placed a wide range of American military assets within reach of sustained attacks.

“The initiatives of the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran have changed the battlefield equation,” it said. “Bases, runways, hangars, aircraft and everything on land and water, including US warships, have been placed under the threat of continuous and sustained strikes.”

The statement said Iran’s sustained firepower and strategy of launching successive strikes have created a fundamental contradiction for Washington where reinforcing its regional military presence could actually increase the number of vulnerable targets.

“Its continuation of firepower and the strategy of launching successive strikes has confronted America’s logic of increasing forces and equipment with a contradiction: increasing its presence creates more targets and higher casualties,” the IRGC said.

The statement added that Washington also faces a political dilemma. While reducing its military presence could limit its ability to project power, continuing a policy of coercion and “bullying” could further mobilize people against the United States.

IRGC chief: Pezeshkian’s ‘we do not fear war’ message echoes Iranian nation’s resolute voice

The IRGC chief praises the Iranian president’s UN declaration that Iran does not ‘fear war’, calling it the loud and resolute voice of the Iranian nation in the face of threats.

IRGC: The real measure is US freedom of action

The IRGC said the central measure of the changing military balance should not simply be the physical damage inflicted on US forces.

It said that the more important question is how much freedom of action Washington retains in the region.

“The strategic achievement should be measured by the reduction in America’s freedom of action,” the statement said.

“The main criterion for a change in the balance is not merely the amount of damage; it is the amount of freedom of action that has been taken away from the enemy.”

The IRGC cited attacks on US naval forces, casualties among American personnel in Jordan, disruption and damage to vessels following Iranian responses, and the vulnerability, destruction and capture of unmanned equipment as examples of the pressures it says have constrained Washington’s military options.

“These developments have increased the targets accessible to Iran and pushed America toward dispersal, concealment and ‘minimal presence’,” the statement said.

The IRGC's argument is that the battlefield equation should therefore be judged not simply by counting destroyed or damaged military assets, but by examining how the threat of further attacks affects US deployment patterns and operational choices.

In this assessment, the growing vulnerability of bases, aircraft, ships and other military infrastructure has forced Washington to reconsider concentration of forces and move toward greater dispersion and concealment.

The IRGC said this represented a strategic shift in the regional military environment: the United States could deploy more forces, but doing so would expose more assets to attack, while reducing its footprint would diminish its freedom of action.

“The criterion for the change in the balance is not simply the amount of damage,” the statement reiterated. “It is the amount of freedom of action that has been taken away from the enemy.”