Wartime repression in Iran shows how an external conflict can become an internal weapon against the people a government claims to protect. Iranians face military danger and disruption from outside, while arrests, prosecutions, and executions continue at home under broad national-security justifications.
War does not interrupt repression. It gives the regime a stronger excuse to intensify it, presenting dissent as disloyalty and criticism as possible collaboration with the enemy. When opposition can be treated as a security threat, who is Iran’s national-security machinery really protecting?
Source:
Human Rights Watch: Iranians Face Double Peril of Gallows and Bombs
What Is Wartime Repression in Iran?
Wartime repression in Iran is the use of conflict, foreign threats, and national-security claims to expand the state’s power over dissent, information, and political opposition.
It reaches far beyond executions. Under wartime conditions, authorities can widen mass arrests, conceal detainees through enforced disappearances, and accelerate trials in which defendants have little access to independent legal support.
Journalists, lawyers, and activists may face espionage or security allegations, while internet shutdowns restrict communication and make abuses harder to document. Ethnic and religious minorities, protesters, and civil society groups can become especially vulnerable when ordinary criticism is treated as a threat to national survival.
These methods are not entirely new, but war makes them easier to intensify and defend. In April 2026, the UN reported that Iranian authorities had arrested more than 4,000 people on national-security-related charges since the war began and executed at least 21 people during the same period. Wartime repression is therefore not one punishment or isolated crackdown. It is a broader system in which fear of an external enemy is used to increase control over people inside the country.
Sources:
Reuters: UN Says Iran Has Executed 21, Arrested Over 4,000 Since War Started
How Does War Turn Dissent into a National Security Threat?
War allows the Iranian authorities to present political disagreement not merely as criticism, but as assistance to a foreign enemy.
A protester can be described as a destabilizing force rather than a citizen demanding change. A journalist who reports on military damage or state abuse can be accused of assisting hostile media. Lawyers who challenge security cases may themselves face allegations of spreading propaganda, while contact with people or organizations outside Iran can be portrayed as espionage or foreign collaboration.
This shift changes the political meaning of dissent. The question is no longer whether criticism is lawful or justified, but whether it can be associated with an external threat.
Who Can Be Redefined as an Enemy?
Under an expanding security narrative, the category of “enemy” can include protesters, journalists, lawyers, students, teachers, activists, ethnic and religious minorities, and even families seeking justice for people killed or executed by the state.
These groups do not need to share one political program. Their vulnerability comes from challenging official control, documenting abuses or refusing the regime’s version of events. The authorities do not need to prove that every critic works for a foreign power. They only need to make the accusation frightening enough to justify punishment and discourage others from speaking.
Sources:
Amnesty International: Iran: Mass Arbitrary Arrests and Political Executions Mark Intensifying Repression
Why Do Arrests and Trials Become More Dangerous During War?
Arrests and trials become more dangerous during war because urgency, secrecy, and national security can be used to weaken already limited protections for defendants.
Vaguely defined security accusations can be investigated behind closed doors, while access to independent lawyers, evidence, and public scrutiny becomes more restricted. Confessions may be coerced or disputed, yet still presented as proof. Pressure for rapid convictions can also turn severe punishment into a public warning, leaving less time and space to challenge the state’s version of events.
The July 22 execution of Mehdi Khaneki shows how competing accounts can emerge around such cases. Iran’s judiciary-linked Mizan news agency accused him of protest-related crimes and actions benefiting Israel, the United States and hostile groups. The National Council of Resistance of Iran instead said he was executed for opposition activity and alleged that he had been physically and psychologically tortured in custody. The case does not resolve those conflicting claims; it shows why transparent procedures matter when the state controls the accusation, evidence and punishment.
This acceleration builds on a broader pattern examined in Iran Executions: Why the Regime Cannot Kill Resilience. Wartime justice becomes most dangerous when political speed replaces the slower work of establishing truth.
Sources:
Reuters: Iran Executes Man Over January Protests, Judiciary’s News Agency Says
How Do Internet Blackouts Make Wartime Repression Easier?
Internet blackouts make wartime repression easier by isolating victims, obstructing documentation, and allowing the authorities to control what the outside world can verify.
When communications disappear, families may be unable to locate detainees, confirm whether they are safe, or learn where they are being held. Journalists and human-rights organizations lose access to witnesses, images, and records needed to verify reports of arrests, killings, and abuse. Citizens also struggle to warn one another, organize assistance, or preserve evidence before it is removed.
Iran’s nationwide shutdown in January reduced connectivity to near-zero across most of the country for almost three weeks. ARTICLE 19 reported that even basic communication was blocked in many areas, preventing contact with relatives and restricting the flow of independent accounts. The blackout therefore did more than interrupt daily life. It created an information gap in which alleged abuses became harder to document and easier for the authorities to deny or redefine.
Propaganda changes what people are encouraged to believe. A blackout changes what they are permitted to see at all. In wartime, controlling that difference can shield repression from both domestic resistance and international scrutiny.
Sources:
ARTICLE 19: Iran: 20 Days of Shutdown Hides Full Scale of Human Rights Abuses
Why Are Ordinary Iranians Trapped Between Two Threats?
Ordinary Iranians are trapped because foreign attacks can endanger their lives and essential infrastructure while the regime uses the same conflict to tighten control at home.
This creates a moral distinction that public debate often ignores. Opposing the Iranian government does not mean accepting airstrikes that kill civilians or damage the systems they depend on. At the same time, condemning foreign military action does not require defending a regime that arrests critics, restricts communication, and punishes dissent. Both forces can harm the same people at once.
Recent reporting describes Iranians facing repeated airstrikes alongside power failures, internet disruption, water shortages, and continuing repression. Damage to electricity, communications, and water infrastructure does more than create immediate hardship. It can leave families isolated, reduce access to reliable information, and make already vulnerable communities more dependent on institutions they do not trust.
This distinction is central to The Iran War Debate: Would We Accept the Laws We Defend for Others? Protecting Iranian civilians is not the same as supporting Iran’s rulers, just as opposing the regime is not permission to disregard the lives beneath it. Ordinary Iranians should not have to choose between violence from outside and repression from within.
Sources:
The Guardian: ‘It’s Truly Hell Here’: Airstrikes, Repression and Water Shortages Become ‘New Normal’ for Iranians
Does Foreign Military Pressure Weaken the Regime or Strengthen Its Control?
Foreign military pressure can damage the Iranian state while simultaneously strengthening its immediate justification for surveillance, punishment, and enforced unity.
The contradiction lies in the difference between capacity and control. Military losses can weaken infrastructure, personnel, and the resources available to the state. Yet an external threat also gives leaders a reason to demand loyalty, expand the authority of security institutions, and portray criticism as a danger to national survival. Opposition groups may become divided between resisting the regime and rejecting foreign intervention, while fear of chaos can silence people who might otherwise challenge those in power.
The regime can then present itself as the only barrier between Iran and collapse. In that environment, arrests and restrictions are framed not as political choices but as emergency measures required to protect the country. Research on developing states supports this tension: external threats can give leaders direct political cover to repress opponents, while their longer-term effect may differ if conflict also changes the state’s institutional capacity.
As the earlier analysis in Iran Domestic Crisis: How Regime Weakness Fuels Global Destabilization showed, a threatened regime can become more dangerous because it is afraid of appearing weak. This article adds a different conclusion. War may reduce the regime’s resources while strengthening the story it uses to justify repression. Military pressure can therefore weaken the state without immediately loosening its grip on society.
Sources:
Cambridge University Press: External Threats, Capacity, and Repression: How the Threat of War Affects Political Development and Physical Integrity Rights
