1. Iran Sees the Protests as an Existential Threat

Iran’s leadership frames the current wave of protests not merely as demonstrations, but as a direct challenge to the authority and stability of the Islamic Republic. Officials including the judiciary have publicly described many detainees as “rioters,” “terrorists,” or even “enemies of God” under Iranian law, which carries the death penalty. This characterization is significant because charges like moharebeh (“waging war against God”) and corruption on Earth are among the most severe in Iran’s penal code and can justify expedited procedures and capital punishment.

Fast-tracking trials and executions, from the regime’s perspective, is intended to crush dissent quickly and signal to the population that any large-scale challenge to state power will be met with overwhelming force.

2. The Judiciary’s Own Rationale: Speed to Maintain Order

Iran’s top judicial officials have explicitly stated that delays in prosecuting protesters would diminish the “impact” of judicial action. The head of the judiciary, Gholamhossein Mohseni-Ejei, emphasized that addressing cases promptly is essential in his view for justice to serve its purpose and deter further unrest. That official discourse is used internally to justify accelerated case handling and harsh sentencing.

3. A Response to Widespread Unrest and State Violence

The current protests are among the largest and most sustained anti-government demonstrations in Iran in decades, sparked by deep economic grievances and evolving into broader demands for political change. Security forces have killed large numbers of civilians in clashes with demonstrators, and tens of thousands of people have been arrested. The scale of unrest combined with efforts by the government to maintain control underpins the judiciary’s push to conclude cases rapidly and impose severe penalties, including death sentences, to create a chilling effect.

4. International Pressure and Internal Messaging

Iran’s leadership is operating under intense international scrutiny and pressure, including warnings from the United States and concerns from human rights bodies. Rather than softening its stance, the judiciary’s signaling of fast trials and executions appears partly intended to display resolve domestically and to international audiences that it will not bow to external demands. Officials often justify this approach by accusing foreign powers of inciting or supporting unrest.

5. Human Rights Concerns About Due Process

Human rights organizations have long documented that Iran’s use of fast-track or “summary” trials in politically charged cases often comes at the expense of basic legal protections. Reports from earlier protest waves show that defendants have been denied meaningful access to lawyers, subjected to forced confessions, and convicted after proceedings that fall far short of international fair-trial standards. This historical pattern intensifies global concern about the current situation.

6. Symbolism and Deterrence in a Climate of Fear

In legal and symbolic terms, swift judgments and executions serve multiple functions:

• Deterrence: Harsh and quick punishments are intended to deter others from participating in protests.

• Reassertion of Authority: It shows the regime is unwilling to tolerate challenges to its rule.

• Internal Messaging: Within governmental, judicial, and security structures, such measures reinforce discipline and loyalty.

Taken together, these elements demonstrate that fast-tracking trials and executions for detained protesters is part of a broader strategy by Iran’s leadership to maintain control and intimidate opposition amid one of the most volatile periods in its modern history.