The Islamic Republic’s Execution Machine: From Moharebeh to Systematic Elimination of Protester Benjamin Naghdhi

The Islamic Republic’s execution machine continues systematic elimination of protesters and instilling fear in society through charges of moharebeh and case fabrication.

As Iran experiences an escalating wave of suppression, another shocking case has emerged from the Islamic Republic’s judicial treatment of protesters, revealing new dimensions of human rights violations. The case of Benjamin Naghdhi, a young athlete from Shiraz, exemplifies a pattern in which security and judicial apparatus use serious charges and forced confessions to expose protesters to death sentences.

According to a report published by the human rights organization Hengaw, Benjamin Naghdhi, a 26-year-old citizen arrested during December 2025 protests, is currently detained in Adel Abad Prison in Shiraz and faces charges of “moharebeh” (waging war against God); a charge widely used in the Islamic Republic’s judicial system to issue death sentences against political opponents.

This political prisoner is held under conditions reported to include solitary confinement, denial of visits, and no access to a lawyer. Human rights sources have also emphasized that the judicial proceedings in his case proceed in a completely non-transparent environment without respecting minimum standards of fair trial.

According to published information, Benjamin Naghdhi was arrested on Saturday, December 13, 2025, during public protests in Shiraz and was subjected to pressure and torture during interrogation to extract a confession. Shortly after his arrest, government-affiliated media released a video of his forced confession; a method that in recent years has become one of the primary tools of security institutions to legitimize suppression.

The charge of moharebeh against this athlete is based solely on his presence at the protests and these forced confessions, a matter that once again demonstrates how the Islamic Republic’s judicial apparatus serves political suppression rather than administering justice.

Before his arrest, Benjamin Naghdhi was a recognized athlete in kickboxing and muay thai, known as a champion in amateur competitions. However, his athletic and social background has not only failed to protect him from judicial persecution but demonstrates the reality that the scope of suppression encompasses various sections of society.

The human rights organization Hengaw, expressing grave concern over the condition of this political prisoner, has warned of the imminent danger of an execution order being issued and carried out against him, and has called on international organizations to intervene immediately to prevent this action.

According to this organization’s statistics, at least 14 political prisoners, including 7 of those detained in the protests, have been executed in Iran since the recent unrest began. This figure reveals a concerning pattern in which the death penalty has become a tool for creating terror and silencing dissent.

In recent years, international organizations have repeatedly warned about the Islamic Republic’s widespread use of charges such as “moharebeh” and “corruption on earth” to suppress opponents. These charges, which have vague and broad definitions, allow judicial authorities to issue severe sentences including death without presenting sufficient evidence.

What is seen in Benjamin Naghdhi’s case is merely one example of a broader pattern in which arbitrary arrests, torture to extract confessions, deprivation of basic rights, and ultimately the issuance of death sentences function as links in a chain of suppression.

Under such circumstances, repeated demands by human rights organizations to halt executions and conduct independent investigations have been met with indifference from Islamic Republic authorities; a matter that has further increased concerns about the continuation of this cycle of violence.

Benjamin Naghdhi’s case once again raises a fundamental question: how much longer will execution be used as the government’s primary tool for dealing with popular demands?