The execution of four political prisoners exposes Tehran’s reliance on repression as both a governing tool and a response to mounting internal and external crises
In solemn tribute, the memory of four political prisoners, members of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK)—Mohammad Taqavi Sangdehi, Akbar Daneshvar Kar, Pouya Ghobadi, and Babak Alipour—stands as a testament to endurance and unwavering commitment to freedom. Their prolonged resistance against the machinery of execution in Iran underscored a stark reality: that loyalty to the cause of liberty, and the willingness to pay its price, remains central to any path out of entrenched dictatorship.
Their executions, carried out amid an already volatile wartime atmosphere, send a calculated message. At a moment when the ruling establishment faces one of its most critical existential crises, it seeks to elevate the specter of execution as a central pillar of control. The underlying conflict, however, is not merely external—it is the enduring struggle between the Iranian people and the ruling clerical system.
By intensifying executions during wartime, the regime aims to saturate the domestic political environment with fear. Even as the country faces external military pressures, the leadership appears determined to ensure that public life remains dominated by the language of repression—prison, intimidation, and execution. In this framework, the daily reality of citizens, even under bombardment, must not be allowed to drift into psychological relief from fear.
This strategy reflects a broader objective: the total encirclement of society’s mental and emotional space. Through executions, the regime attempts to dominate not only public behavior but also private thought—seeking to control fear, imagination, and even hope itself. War, in this context, becomes an opportunity rather than a threat: a mechanism to deepen repression and extend it into every layer of society, from the streets to prison cells.
The authorities appear intent on transforming each dawn into a ritual of intimidation, where executions function as a renewal of power under the authority of the Supreme Leader. The persistence of such methods reveals that, regardless of setbacks in external conflicts, execution remains the regime’s most reliable instrument of governance—its irreplaceable source of political oxygen.
Even if the state suffers significant blows on the international stage, its reliance on executions signals a deeper vulnerability. By raising the cost of even the smallest act of dissent to terrifying levels, the regime attempts to deter opposition at its roots. Yet this approach also betrays a profound fear—fear of a society whose anger has not been extinguished, even after repeated waves of repression.
Indeed, the continuation of executions despite past crackdowns, including mass casualties during uprisings, demonstrates that the regime has failed to achieve its ultimate objective: the submission of society through fear. Instead, a countercurrent is emerging—one defined by resilience and defiance.
What stands out most powerfully is the will of political prisoners themselves. Even in the face of execution, their defiance breaks the psychological barrier that the state seeks to construct. The message carried by these four individuals transcends their deaths: it challenges the very foundation of fear upon which the system depends.
Rather than silencing dissent, such executions risk amplifying it. Both within Iran and internationally, opposition to capital punishment is gaining renewed momentum. The growing “No to Execution” movement reflects a broader rejection not only of individual acts of repression but of the system that produces them.
For many observers and activists, this moment represents a historical crossroads. Confronting the machinery of execution requires more than condemnation—it demands a deliberate and collective choice to resist, despite the costs. Breaking the cycle of fear begins with rejecting its legitimacy.
As Iranian society navigates the dual pressures of external conflict and internal authoritarianism, a critical realization is taking shape: war alone will not deliver freedom or democracy. The dismantling of repression must come from within, through organized resistance and collective will.
Ultimately, the end of executions as a governing principle—and the broader system they sustain—depends on the agency of the Iranian people themselves. Only through such a transformation can both internal repression and the broader cycles of conflict be brought to a strategic end.
