It's a cool article.

I mean....no, it's not. It's rather stupid.

The author tries to model the IRGC as if it was an ordinary business entity, and thus concludes that if the Administration simply seized the $100+ billion of frozen assets and then somehow managed to transfer most of it to Iranian businesses and people, they would overthrow the government. They dress it up in all kinds of game theory jargon, and process the how that would happen through game theory models - but the fundamental premise is just absolutely ludicrous. It reminds me of nothing more than the foolhardy investment money sleazeball from Die Hard who tries to treat hardened criminals like they are businessfolk and gets shot for it.

The central idiocy is this part:

The IRGC’s power over the Iranian population rests on four claims that have never been tested — not because they are true, but because the regime controls the conditions that would produce the test:

“The West stole your money.” The population cannot access $100–120 billion in frozen assets to verify. “Only we provide.” No alternative provider exists. “The resistance is winning.” State media monopoly prevents independent verification. “Loyalty is strength.” No visible alternative to regime loyalty exists, so the cost of loyalty is hidden.

...which is phenomenally dumb. Like beyond dumb. The IRGC's power over the Iranian population rests not on those four claims, but on the fact that the IRGC has the capability and demonstrated willingness to killing anyone who doesn't do what they say. That's the basis. Not because of these silly claims about money and providing services, but because they have the ability to simply kill anyone that stands up to them. All the author's "Miftan Protocol" does is send a few tens of billions of dollars to Iran for the IRGC to simply steal and use for their own purposes, rather than "test" these claims - because again the IRGC can kill people who don't agree.

Is stuff like this seriously why some conservatives think taking Kharg Island would help things?