By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In 2025, Iran saw a dramatic surge in executions, with at least 1,639 individuals put to death, the highest figure since 1989. This alarming increase of 68 percent, which included 48 women, has raised fears that capital punishment could be used even more extensively as a tool of repression, particularly following recent protests and ongoing conflicts. The report highlights that this rate averages over four executions daily and disproportionately affects ethnic minorities and those in abusive situations. Authorities are reportedly employing these executions to instill fear and maintain control, while hundreds of detained protesters remain at risk of facing similar fates.
Read the original article here
It’s truly unsettling to confront the sheer scale of executions in Iran, with reports indicating at least 1,639 people were put to death in 2025. This figure marks the highest number since 1989, painting a grim picture of the country’s justice system and its approach to human rights. The average of around 4.5 executions per day throughout the year is a statistic that’s difficult to process, and it underscores the pervasive nature of state-sanctioned killings.
The methods themselves are particularly harrowing. We’re talking about public hangings, often involving cranes and ropes designed not for a swift end, but for a prolonged strangulation that can last anywhere from ten minutes to a full forty-five. This agonizing process, witnessed by crowds, suggests a deliberate intent to inflict suffering rather than simply carry out a sentence. It raises profound questions about the nature of justice when it appears to be intertwined with public spectacle and extreme cruelty.
Compounding the horror is the inclusion of minors among those executed. Iran stands out as the world’s leading executor of minors, a practice that involves imprisoning children until they reach the age where they can be legally killed. The example of a sixteen-year-old girl, hanged for “crimes against chastity” – a euphemism that reportedly included running away from home – and whose death spanned the agonizing forty-five-minute mark, is a stark testament to this disturbing reality. This age-based loophole for execution is a particularly chilling aspect of the situation.
The government’s decision to cut off internet access across the country during periods of heightened executions is also a telling detail. This action strongly suggests an attempt to control narratives, prevent information from reaching the outside world, and suppress any internal dissent or documentation of these events. It points to a regime that is highly sensitive to public scrutiny and actively works to maintain an information blackout.
It’s also worth noting the stark contrast in how certain actions are perceived. While there’s a clear condemnation of Iran’s execution policies, the conversation often gets sidetracked by comparisons to other nations and their own human rights records. The complexities of international relations and the tendency to focus on perceived adversaries can sometimes overshadow the immediate suffering of individuals within a given country. The argument that one might be against the actions of Israel or the USA, yet still find a grim sense of justice when those who ordered executions meet their end, highlights the deeply emotional and often polarized nature of these discussions.
The sheer scale of these executions also prompts a broader examination of state power and its limits. When a government engages in such widespread use of the death penalty, it raises serious questions about the foundational principles of human rights and the role of international bodies like the UN. Nominating a country with such a record for a human rights council, even sarcastically, underscores the perceived hypocrisy and the challenges in holding nations accountable for their actions.
Comparisons to fictional dystopias like “The Handmaid’s Tale” are not entirely out of place when considering the severe restrictions and the brutal enforcement of social norms reported in Iran. The idea that some on the left might appear to support such a regime, perhaps due to opposition to specific Western policies or leaders, further complicates the discourse, suggesting that political alignments can sometimes lead to the overlooking of grave human rights violations.
The funding and support of groups like Hamas by Iran also adds another layer of complexity to the international response. It suggests that the regime’s actions extend beyond its domestic policies, impacting regional stability and conflicts. This intertwining of domestic repression and international involvement makes it difficult to address the issue of executions in isolation.
The question of why certain countries are singled out for criticism while others with high execution rates, like China or even the US, receive less attention is a recurring theme. While the US does have the death penalty, its numbers, even in 2025, are significantly lower than Iran’s reported figures. However, the principle that all state-sanctioned executions are problematic remains a valid point, suggesting a need for consistent global pressure across the board.
There are also arguments that the Iranian regime’s actions, while horrific, are a response to external pressures and potential threats, including foreign-backed protests or interventions. The idea that violent repression is perceived by the regime as a necessary tool for survival in the face of perceived threats, and that this lesson is reinforced by international actions, presents a bleak outlook for de-escalation. The notion that the development of nuclear weapons might be seen as a viable path to self-protection in such a climate further highlights the dangerous cycle of escalation.
Ultimately, the situation in Iran, as reflected in these alarming execution statistics, is a profound human rights crisis. It demands attention not just for its sheer numbers, but for the brutal methods employed, the vulnerable populations targeted, and the evident attempts to control information. The global community faces the challenge of addressing such atrocities without getting lost in geopolitical entanglements or allowing comparisons to dilute the urgency of the situation. The call for all countries to eliminate state-sponsored executions is a universally relevant ideal, and Iran’s reported figures in 2025 serve as a stark reminder of how far many nations still have to go. The responsibility to condemn these actions, regardless of political affiliations or other global conflicts, remains paramount.