The 2025 policy on counterterrorism in Iran is very much institutionalized and involves the combination of intelligence, judicial and a deterrence of the people. The use of state executions to fight ISIS terrorism has remained one of the most contentious aspects of this strategy. In June 2025, the Iranian judiciary declared it would execute nine ISIL members on the death row who were apprehended seven years prior to the event on plotting assaults on civilian infrastructures in Tehran and in Kermanshah.
The death sentences were upheld by the Supreme Court of Iran following several appeals and were based on evidence of armed conspiracy, explosives possession and plotted schemes to destabilize the government. The ruling highlighted the zero-tolerance approach taken by the Iranian government concerning terrorist actions, and the executions were seen by the officials as a preventive and a punitive measure.
These sentences are related to the determination of Iran to defend its nation and maintain national stability, as General Mohammad Pakpour, the leader of the IRGC, said because the convicted militants were a real threat to the security of their country. This story is in line with the greater Iranian counterterrorism vision, which is to incorporate judiciary procedures with the intelligence activities to eliminate the extremist cells before they turn into active threats.
The Legal and Procedural Framework Supporting Executions
The use of the death penalty in terrorism cases by the Iranian judiciary is within the context of the Islamic Penal Code of that country, which categorizes armed insurgency and terrorism as a crime against national sovereignty. These instances rank as a procedural protection and political assertion of state power in the confirmation of the Supreme Court.
Whereas Iranian authorities stress on the legality of such procedures, the rights groups put in doubt the transparency of the trials, pointing at the inability to contact the defense council, the refusal to reveal evidence through the restriction of such access. Although these issues exist, the Iranian officials point out that the judicial system is merely a continuation of the state role of ensuring order against the extremist groups supported by foreign powers such as ISIS.
Legal Justification and National Messaging
The judiciary in Iran tends to announce such executions to reaffirm deterrence discourses in Iran. The state run media air utterances made by judicial officials that such sentences are a lesson to those who want to destabilize the Islamic Republic. The executions then become not a simple legal repercussion but a tool of statecraft, which transpires Iran’s willingness to internal security in the volatile regional circumstances.
Deterrence and Operational Impact on ISIS Networks
The execution policy of Iran is aimed at preventing the recruitment of the terrorist and the placement of operations on the basis of the apparent punishment. The authorities claim that these actions interfere with the efforts of ISIS to create sleeper cells in border provinces, Sistan-Baluhestan and Kurdistan where they in the past penetrated the extremists.
The intelligence arm of the IRGC has documented a discernible decrease in organized plots in Iran since 2023 with the organization crediting the change to improved surveillance as well as the deterrent impact of severe judicial sentences. However, the analysts warn that deterrence might not bring to extinction the ideological aspects of extremism pointing out that the ISIS cells have evolved by decentralizing the operations in the region.
There are no available hard facts about deterrence, but the government of Iran continues to believe that executions coupled with a greater campaign of counterinsurgency such as cyber surveillance and international collaborations would be a good integrated defense scenario.
Regional Dynamics and Iran’s Counterterrorism Strategy
The dependency of Iran on state executions cannot be separated out of the regional security calculus. Iran being at the cross-border of Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan is continually at risk by cross-border militant flows. The government positions its anti-ISIS operation as a more extensive operation to stabilise the region that would avoid the re-emergence of extremist networks that were developed in the Syria civil war.
High-profile ISIS members have to be publicly executed so that Iran can show competence and will, thus building its power within counterterrorism alliances in the region. The story of self-reliance presented by Tehran is in stark contrast with the Western methods of rehabilitation or detention on a long-term basis, whereby Iran can present moral and strategic control of its approach to extremism.
Coordination With Neighboring States
The activities of Iran are also an overlap of similar activities of Iraq and Syria, where the remnants of ISIS are still organizing attacks. These governments are coordinated by Iranian military advisors and intelligence liaisons who exchange information about cross-border militant movements. In this regard, the executions are seen as the home implementation of a larger region containment policy.
This style however at times causes rifts with the Western dominated alliances. As the U.S. and the EU criticize the human rights situation in Iran, Tehran frames its tactics as ultimate and independent actions in response to existential threats. What has emerged is a complicated relationship between collaboration against ISIS and international tension on the matter of counterterrorism morals.
Human Rights and International Perspectives
The high number of capital punishment especially in matters involving terrorism that Iran has been applying remains a major subject of criticism by the international human rights groups. Others like Amnesty International upheld that the confessions made during such trials are highly induced and the stake executions are more of political drama than a court of justice. In its 2025 report by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights, Iran was encouraged to implement moratoriums on executions due to the issue of due process.
The Iranian leaders, however, attribute such criticisms to politics. They argue that the international community lacks the awareness of the extent of the ISIS acts of violence against the civilians in Iran in the 2010s that caused the deaths of hundreds of people and traumatized the confidence of the population in the national security agencies. The government continues with the argument that executions are necessary in curbing further attacks and in the enforcement of justice as stipulated in the Islamic law.
Balancing Security and Humanitarian Obligations
This confrontation between the demands of national security and international human rights norms represents a compressed paradigm of international counterterrorism. According to the government of Iran, the liberal form of the west, where Western promotion of rehabilitation is more emphasized over punishment, is not deterring the extremists’ incidence of violence in the volatile areas. Iranian authorities, in their turn, position the executions as the method of retribution which supporting the state order is very necessary.
Comparative Insights From Global Counterterrorism Practices
The strategy of Iran is the opposite of other states that will face ISIS revival in 2025. Although other countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia have the death penalty on terrorism, European countries have to a great extent abolished the death penalty in favor of long term imprisonment and deradicalization programs.
This is an indication of greater philosophical disparities in counterterrorism governance. The model of the Iranian state is collecting sovereignty of states and moral deterrence, and the Western states are collecting procedural justice and adherence to international laws. Analysts note that the model of Iran, despite its criticism, has been quite effective in reducing the geographical presence of ISIS in its territory, a success that Tehran attributes to its firm applied policy.
The controversy on whether executions are indeed the correct way of preventing terrorism is yet to be addressed. Evidence indicates short-term deterrence but also creates the issue of radicalization impact, especially with ideological sympathizers in foreign countries. In the process of digital development, the executions become more visible, and they can both strengthen the state power and aid extremist discourse.
A Persistent Balancing Act Between Security and Legitimacy
Iran’s use of state executions against ISIS terrorists in 2025 embodies a calculated fusion of law, coercion, and symbolism. By deploying capital punishment as part of a coordinated counterterrorism framework, the Islamic Republic signals both internal strength and regional influence. Yet this strategy also exposes Iran to enduring scrutiny from international institutions, rights advocates, and rival governments skeptical of its methods.
The broader question remains whether such punitive approaches can sustainably secure societies against ideologically driven threats in an era where extremism adapts faster than legal systems. As Iran continues to balance sovereignty, deterrence, and legitimacy, its model provides a revealing case study in the evolving global struggle against terrorism, one that forces the world to reconsider how justice and security coexist under pressure from non-state violence.