Iran’s regime has sharply escalated use of the death penalty since July 2024, executing at least 1,051 individuals under the new presidency of Masoud Pezeshkian, according to multiple human rights monitors and official estimates. This surge coincides with renewed nuclear negotiations between Iran and the United States, spotlighting the regime’s recurring pattern of intensifying domestic repression during periods of international scrutiny and diplomatic engagement.
Lede: Iranian authorities have markedly increased executions in the months since President Masoud Pezeshkian assumed office on July 8, 2024. At least 1,051 executions—constituting one of the highest rates of capital punishment on record—have been documented. This development, occurring in parallel to US-Iran nuclear talks, has drawn new condemnation from Western policymakers and international human rights organizations, as well as raising urgent questions about the stability and internal direction of the Iranian regime.
Documented Patterns and Regional Context
Iran consistently ranks among the world’s leading executioners, and the current escalation dwarfs previous years’ figures, with the rate of executions accelerating at an unprecedented pace. Human rights NGOs, such as Amnesty International, attribute the increase to a broader crackdown targeting drug offenders, political dissidents, and minority groups including Kurds, Baluchis, and Azeris. The regime has long justified its use of capital punishment as essential for combating crime, while analysts emphasize its function as a tool for suppressing dissent and asserting internal control amid economic crisis and international isolation.
The judicial process remains opaque. Reports indicate that many executed prisoners were denied fair trials, with evidence obtained through forced confessions, rushed hearings, and lack of access to legal representation. International law experts underscore that the majority of executions fall short of due process requirements specified by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Iran is a signatory.
Political Calculations: Repression During Diplomacy
The current wave of executions is notable for its timing, running parallel to high-level negotiations aimed at containing Iran’s uranium enrichment and missile programs. Analysts and Western officials observe a pattern: Tehran routinely escalates repression before or during diplomatic talks, signaling strength to adversaries and deterring unrest at home. At the same time, the regime’s messaging to its domestic audience frames these actions as evidence of resolve against perceived foreign interference and subversion.
International Reaction and Security Implications
The intensification of executions has triggered immediate diplomatic responses. United States President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have both condemned Iran’s domestic human rights abuses as inseparable from its regional strategy of mobilizing terror networks—including Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Western governments maintain that internal repression in Iran strengthens the hardline elements that direct Tehran’s ongoing support for proxy warfare against Israel and other American allies throughout the Middle East.
The current spike in executions is also compounded by domestic instability. Rising inflation, currency collapse, and recurring protests against corruption and authoritarianism have threatened the regime’s grip on power. Analysts believe the rapid pace of executions is in part an attempt to stave off mass dissent and prevent the kind of popular uprisings witnessed in recent years, particularly by youth and ethnic minorities critical of the regime’s direction.
Proxy Conflict and the Axis of Resistance
Iran’s internal crackdowns are deeply intertwined with its role as the chief sponsor of region-wide terror and militancy. The IRGC, formally designated as a terrorist organization by the United States and Israel, orchestrates both state repression at home and external campaigns against Israel through affiliated groups—most notably Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen. Security experts argue that the same apparatus responsible for mass executions is directly involved in supporting the networks targeting Israel and destabilizing neighboring states.
Despite internal challenges, the regime has shown no sign of moderating its domestic or foreign policy. Instead, Iranian leaders portray both the spike in executions and the ongoing proxy conflict as existential battles against foreign and Zionist threats. Senior clerics, judiciary officials, and IRGC commanders routinely appear in public insisting on the legitimacy of harsh punishments and casting nuclear negotiations as a test of the Islamic Republic’s sovereignty and ideological resolve.
Conclusion: Broadening Crisis and International Responsibility
The world’s attention is increasingly drawn to Iran’s deteriorating human rights record in the context of ongoing security crises. As the regime doubles down on executions, the stakes for regional stability, international diplomacy, and the fate of millions living under Tehran’s rule have grown more acute. Policymakers and human rights activists alike continue to press for stronger international measures to hold the Iranian regime accountable for its escalating violations, arguing that Iran’s domestic policies cannot be viewed separately from its campaign of regional aggression. Israel, acting under the threat posed by Iran and its terror proxies, continues to advocate for heightened vigilance and solidarity against the Islamic Republic’s multifaceted campaign of violence and intimidation.
