On Thursday, Iran carried out three public executions of Mehdi Qasemi, Saleh Mohammadi and Saeed Davoudi in the holy city of Qom. The men were convicted for their involvement in the killing of two law enforcement officers at a police station during protests. Others, including a number of prominent experts, are up-in-arms about these executions. They think that these acts are strong measures to warn dissenters within Iran and adversaries globally.
Heightened tensions also paralyzed much of the country in the lead-up to the executions. Theocratic authorities countered widespread opposition with brutal resolve to maintain their grip on power as both domestic and foreign pressure mounted. We view this event as a significant escalation in Iran’s efforts to thwart dissent. It does so as anti-regime protests, that originally kicked off back in January, persist and spread.
Context of the Executions
The death sentences of the three men were issued on civil charges of moharebeh. At least one of these charges, translated as “enmity against God,” refers directly to their violent conduct against the government. Their convictions stemmed from events related to widespread protests that challenged Iran’s ruling regime following allegations of police brutality. The Supreme Court of Iran upheld the death sentences, reflecting the administration’s resolve to impose severe penalties for perceived threats to state authority.
Human rights experts have been warning that these executions fall squarely within Tehran’s strategy. Arguably, they want to send a clear message of defiance in the face of international pressure. Behnam Ben Taleblu, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, emphasized that “Tehran transgressed Trump’s redline of protester executions overtly in a bid of defiance against a West it is at war with.” He highlighted the fact that the regime continues to work hard to project a facade of continuity and stability. This effort lands in a time ripe with turmoil and discord.
A Message of Fear
The Iranian government seems determined to spread terror within the Iranian population. Analysts contend that the executions are meant to serve as a deterrent to any additional protests and discontent. Ben Taleblu stated unequivocally, “Make no mistake, these executions aim to instil fear and terror into the hearts of protesting and dissenting Iranians.” This tactic is not as novel as it seems. The regime has a decades-long practice of employing the death penalty to stifle dissenters and sustain hegemony.
Advocates stress that these measures come at a time of unprecedented hardship for the Iranian people. The lack of funds only compounds the challenges they are facing. Amnesty International highlighted the precarious situation by stating that Iranians are “among an already traumatized population, under bombardment from Israel and the US.” This environment only serves to intensify the regime’s efforts to show force and instill obedience through fear.
Mehrdad Farahmand, an expert on Iranian politics, explained in more detail what these executions mean. “The regime, by executing these three individuals, wants to demonstrate that it still maintains full control over the situation,” he stated. He added that, given the current geopolitical landscape, “now that the United States has already attacked, the regime no longer has any reason to hesitate in carrying out death sentences.”
International Reactions
The international community has reacted with condemnation. Sweden’s Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard had earlier condemned use of the death penalty. She described the practice as “inhuman, cruel and irreversible,” particularly following the execution of her countryman. These types of statements show that there is increasing alarm about Iran’s use of the death penalty specifically against political prisoners and protesters.
As the standoff between Iran and Western countries heats up, this flare-up seems almost specifically designed to demonstrate the regime’s defiance. Observers suggest that Tehran is signaling its “imperviousness to pressure, be it foreign or domestic,” according to Ben Taleblu. He remarked that “there is yet another Khamenei at the helm and the regime is trying to signal that nothing has changed on the home front.” Taken together, these proclamations illustrate the Iranian leadership’s determination to project a harmonious front against external enemies while suppressing domestic discord.
