By John Q. Hosedrinker 
As part of a wave of suppression, 19-year-old champion wrestler Saleh Mohammadi was publicly executed on Thursday in Iran. He, along with Saeed Davodi and Mehdi Ghasemi, were hanged in Qom, accused of involvement in the murders of two police officers during recent protests. Human rights organizations and activists condemn the executions as politically motivated, citing unfair trials, torture, and coercion into confessions, and warn of further mass executions as the regime targets dissent.
Read the original article here
The news that Iran has publicly executed a teen champion wrestler for protesting the regime is nothing short of horrific. It’s a grim reminder of the lengths to which oppressive governments will go to silence dissent, especially from those who have captured the public’s heart. This tragic event highlights the long-standing pattern of the Iranian regime suppressing its own people who dare to speak out or demand change. The image of a young athlete, celebrated for their achievements, being executed for expressing what many consider a simple, yet profound, sentiment – that the regime is “bullshit” – is a stark indictment of the current leadership.
It’s understandable that the immediate reaction is one of outrage and a fervent hope that the Iranian people can finally overthrow this deeply entrenched regime. When a government resorts to such extreme measures against a popular figure, it only serves to prove the protester’s point in the eyes of many. This act is not just about the death of one individual; it’s a powerful, albeit terrible, demonstration of the regime’s desperation and its willingness to commit monstrous acts. The Islamic regime of Iran is indeed viewed by many as a curse on humanity, and the question of how to address this looms large.
There’s a palpable frustration that interventions or reactions from external powers, like the US and Israel, have often been poorly conceived, potentially diluting the impact of the regime’s atrocities, like those of the IRGC, especially amongst those who might be easily swayed. The sentiment is clear: a strong opposition to the Iranian regime is warranted, but the *way* such opposition is expressed matters significantly. The effectiveness of past actions is questioned, with the worry that instead of weakening the regime, they may have inadvertently set back the cause of freedom in Iran by decades.
The sheer barbarity of executing a young person, a champion no less, for what amounts to expressing an opinion, is deeply unsettling. It makes one incredibly grateful for the freedoms enjoyed in other parts of the world. To imagine being murdered by your own state simply for being “sassy,” as one sentiment puts it, is a chilling thought. This event underscores the need for religions, much like Christianity and Judaism have evolved over centuries, to adapt to modern times and shed reactionary ideologies that lead to such brutal outcomes.
The loss of this young athlete is a profound tragedy, a moment that fills many with a sense of despair and anger. The call for the toppling of this regime is loud and clear. However, the concern persists that the clumsy execution of any external strategy to achieve this goal might be counterproductive. The belief is that with better planning and genuine international cooperation, more constructive progress could have been made. Instead, actions that are perceived as poorly managed can inadvertently alienate potential allies and fuel narratives that are unhelpful.
The Iranian regime’s actions are often seen as self-defeating, winning no hearts and minds, and instead sowing further discord. The idea that such a regime could be supported by anyone is difficult to comprehend for those who witness these acts of brutality. The comparison to other global conflicts and the suffering they entail is often drawn, but the specific act of hanging teenagers is highlighted as particularly insane and indicative of the regime’s monstrous nature.
It’s also observed that such actions make it difficult for other nations to maintain a united front against the regime, as the focus can become muddled. While many might oppose certain military actions or interventions for valid reasons, the inherent evil of the Iranian regime is not in question for them. The contrast is drawn between the US being criticized for its actions and the Iranian regime’s actions, which are seen as unequivocally reprehensible. The question of whether the executed wrestler was truly involved in the deaths of officers or coerced into a false confession is a point of contention, but the regime’s willingness to resort to public execution is the primary focus of condemnation.
There’s a sense of frustration that international bodies like those in Europe remain silent on such egregious human rights violations. This silence is seen as a failure to recognize that these actions are not only detrimental to the Iranian people but also counterproductive for the regime’s own long-term stability by fueling further resentment. The thought of how many Iranians might have been encouraged to rise up based on perceived promises of support, only to be met with such brutal repression, is a somber reflection.
The notion that some might see the Iranian government as anything other than a terrorist state is met with disbelief, especially when contrasted with accusations leveled against countries like the United States. The argument that the US is not yet at the point of committing such atrocities against its own citizens is made, but with a grim undertone that this is a possibility to be guarded against. This event is seen as a stark illustration of the Iranian regime’s awfulness, even if it doesn’t justify external aggression against civilians.
There’s a desire to understand the facts behind the accusations, but also a recognition that headlines can be misleading. Regardless of the specifics of the charges, the act of executing a young protester is presented as a deeply problematic and revealing move by the regime, especially at a time when international attention is fractured. The regime’s attempt to project strength through such a brutal act is interpreted as a sign of weakness and desperation.
The feeling of powerlessness in the face of such global atrocities is significant, especially when juxtaposed with other ongoing conflicts and potential future aggressions. The worry is that if democratic nations do not strengthen themselves, authoritarian regimes, with their methods of censorship and public execution, could eventually overwhelm the world. The current conflict is characterized by some as a race between competing evils, and the hope is for a swifter, more decisive end to the Iranian regime.
For Iranians themselves, the act is described as deliberate and calculated. They claim the regime specifically chooses public executions and high-profile individuals like athletes to maximize fear and serve as a deterrent. This insight from someone who lived in Iran paints a picture of a regime that actively cultivates hatred through its brutality, which ironically fuels further resistance. The disconnect between such actions and any perceived defense of the Iranian regime is baffling to many.
The overwhelming agreement amongst observers underscores the universality of the shock and condemnation. The UN is mentioned as an institution meant to prevent such crimes, but its perceived impotence is lamented. The call is for humanity to come together, organize, and not only punish but also prevent such atrocities, extending compassion not just to this young athlete but to the countless others who have suffered under the regime. The possibility of a military coup is considered, but the hope remains that the people of Iran will ultimately achieve their freedom.
The idea of solidarity between the people of Israel and America with Iranians fighting against a corrupt and violent religious regime is voiced. The very existence of people who might support such a regime is seen as astonishing. Ultimately, the hope is for a future where such barbarity is relegated to the past, and the Iranian people can finally live under a government that respects their rights and dignity.