The issue isn’t the amount of spending; they could spend nothing and would still get bombed because they are antagonistic to the US and its allies/vassals.
They are a theocratic regime which is not supported by 80% of its population. Being gay is punishable by death. They employ surveillance from China to ensure hijabs are worn by women at all times. They ban access to the internet. Chants of "Death to America" are their government's routine greeting for 50 years. They place military equipment in schools and hospitals deliberately, viewing US compassion as a weakness. They recruit child soldiers and have them publicly stationed at military targets.
There is definitely "antagonism," but to act as if the Iranian people would not bomb their own government if they could... it's a bit much.
> All of which is confirming my point.
No. It refutes your point "They employ surveillance from China to ensure hijabs are worn by women at all times." In addition I would contest other aspects of your statement as well, but that isn't my main point.
> The original person's implication that the "antagonism" towards the IRGC is novel to America is simply false.
You seem to not have understood what my point. What is most determinative of a countries fate in the Middle East isn't domestic policy, but obedience to the United States. Iran's problems are due to the fact that it is an enemy of the United States and hence sanctioned heavily, leading to severe economic problems. There are many other nations headed by regimes that are some combination of socially regressive, highly unpopular, and politically repressive that are counted as US allies and don't face the same set of difficulties (e.g. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain).
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locat...
The issue isn’t the amount of spending; they could spend nothing and would still get bombed because they are antagonistic to the US and its allies/vassals.