Absolutely. My point was that such people who would be drawn into the IRGC because of necessity or against their own choice would soon drop out of the IRGC. They would serve their time in the IRGC, one or two years, and then they would leave. But the IRGC, as an organization, prizes loyalty and keeps its members close even after their military service has long passed its duration. People remain on the payroll of the IRGC, if they are loyal, long after they have abandoned the uniform. People who are loyal to the IRGC as conscripts will continue on to universities that are run by the IRGC and will then enter professions through companies controlled or owned by the IRGC, so it is against these people and this infrastructure that sanctions should be adopted and designation should be adopted.
The people who spend their two years of army service in the IRGC and then eventually move on and leave the IRGC would not suffer from these kinds of measures unless they were being sent abroad to engage in activities during their military service, but again, those people who do tend to be loyalists tend to be ideologically committed and are not usually sent abroad for benign purposes.
With that in mind, although in theory the distinction is very understandable, in practice it is much less relevant.