The term "democide," coined to describe the murder of citizens by their own government, captures one of the darkest patterns in modern history. It encompasses mass executions, forced disappearances, and the systematic suppression of dissent through state violence. Few regimes embody this phenomenon as persistently as the Islamic Republic of Iran under the rule of its ayatollahs. Since the 1979 revolution that toppled the Shah and installed a theocratic system led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and later Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Iranian government has engaged in waves of killing that have claimed tens of thousands of lives, if not more. These acts are not mere anomalies or responses to external threats; they are deliberate tools to maintain absolute control in the name of religious ideology and revolutionary purity. Yet, amid these atrocities—particularly the brutal crackdown on the ongoing protests that erupted in late 2025 and continue into 2026—a striking pattern emerges in Western political discourse. Much of the progressive left, which is often quick to mobilize against human rights abuses in other contexts, has responded with relative silence, equivocation, or even implicit approval of the regime’s actions. This is not universal; some voices on the left condemn the ayatollahs unequivocally. But a significant portion, influenced by anti-imperialist frameworks and geopolitical alignments, either downplays the violence or redirects attention elsewhere. This essay explores the scale of democide in Iran, the ideological underpinnings of the regime’s repression, and the reasons behind this selective outrage on the left, arguing that it reveals deeper inconsistencies in contemporary progressive thought. Understanding Democide and Its Manifestation in Iran Democide differs from war or genocide in its domestic focus: it is the state turning its apparatus of power against its own people. In Iran, this began almost immediately after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The new regime, promising liberation from monarchical tyranny, quickly consolidated power through purges. Revolutionary courts summarily executed officials of the old order, political opponents, and anyone deemed counter-revolutionary. Thousands perished in the early years, setting a precedent for the use of violence as governance. The most infamous episode came in 1988, toward the end of the ruinous Iran-Iraq War. Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa ordering the execution of imprisoned members of opposition groups, primarily the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (MEK) and leftist organizations. "Death commissions" were established across the country, interrogating prisoners in brief sessions that often lasted minutes. Questions about loyalty to the regime determined fate. Those who refused to renounce their beliefs or express regret were hanged in groups, their bodies dumped in unmarked mass graves. Estimates of the death toll vary widely, from several thousand to as many as thirty thousand, but the scale was staggering—a systematic extermination of political dissidents hidden under the cover of wartime secrecy. This was not an isolated event. The regime has repeatedly deployed lethal force against popular uprisings. In 2009, the Green Movement challenged fraudulent elections, leading to street protests met with beatings, arrests, and killings. Security forces and the Basij militia fired on crowds, tortured detainees, and staged show trials. Similar patterns repeated in 2019, when economic protests over fuel prices escalated into demands for systemic change. Security forces shot protesters at close range, resulting in hundreds of deaths in a matter of days. The 2022 protests, sparked by the death of Mahsa (Jina) Amini—a young Kurdish woman beaten fatally by morality police for improper hijab—marked a watershed. Women led the charge, burning headscarves and chanting "Woman, Life, Freedom." The regime responded with characteristic brutality: snipers on rooftops, live ammunition in the streets, and mass arrests. Hundreds died, thousands were injured, and executions followed for those convicted in sham trials. But the current crisis, beginning in late December 2025, dwarfs previous episodes in its reported intensity. What started as demonstrations against economic hardship—skyrocketing inflation, corruption, and mismanagement—rapidly evolved into a direct challenge to the theocracy. Protesters chanted against the supreme leader, demanding the end of the Islamic Republic. The regime’s response has been apocalyptic: widespread use of live fire, attacks on hospitals, arbitrary arrests, and an internet blackout to obscure the bloodshed. Estimates of deaths range from hundreds in official admissions to over twelve thousand according to opposition sources, with credible reports placing the toll in the thousands. Security forces have stormed cemeteries to prevent mourning gatherings, and there are fears of a repeat of 1988-style mass executions in prisons. These killings are democide in its purest form. The victims are not foreign enemies or armed insurgents but ordinary citizens—students, workers, women, ethnic minorities—demanding basic rights. The ayatollahs justify this through a worldview that prioritizes ideological conformity above human life. The supreme leader, as God’s representative on earth in the velayat-e faqih system, claims divine authority to eliminate threats to the revolution. Dissent is equated with war against God, punishable by death. Minorities like Kurds, Baluchis, and Baha’is face disproportionate violence, alongside routine executions for offenses like drug possession, homosexuality, or adultery—crimes often fabricated to target activists. Iran consistently ranks among the world’s top executors, with numbers surging in recent years. Public hangings from cranes serve as spectacles of terror. This is not justice but a mechanism of control, designed to instill fear and prevent collective resistance.

The Ideological Roots of the Regime’s Violence The ayatollahs' rule is grounded in a revolutionary Shiite Islamism that views compromise as betrayal. Khomeini’s vision rejected both Western liberalism and Soviet communism, promising an authentic Islamic governance. In practice, this has meant a fusion of clerical authoritarianism with revolutionary zeal. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Basij function as praetorian guards, loyal not to the nation but to the supreme leader. This ideology frames internal opposition as existential threats, often linked to foreign plots. Protesters are labeled agents of America, Israel, or Saudi Arabia, justifying extreme measures. Women challenging compulsory hijab are seen as corrupting Islamic society. Ethnic groups seeking autonomy threaten national unity under Persian-Shiite dominance. The result is a state where human rights are subordinate to regime survival. Torture in prisons like Evin is routine; forced confessions air on state television. The judiciary, controlled by hardliners, rubber-stamps death sentences. This systematic repression qualifies as democide because it is intentional, state-directed, and aimed at segments of the population perceived as disloyal. The Western Left’s Response: Silence, Equivocation, and Selective Solidarity Against this backdrop of unrelenting violence, one might expect universal condemnation from progressive circles in the West. The left has a proud history of championing human rights, opposing authoritarianism, and supporting oppressed peoples—from anti-apartheid in South Africa to solidarity with Latin American dissidents. Yet, when it comes to Iran under the ayatollahs, the response from much of the progressive left has been muted, inconsistent, or absent. This is particularly evident in the current 2025-2026 uprising. As reports emerge of thousands killed amid an information blackout, campuses and streets that erupted in massive protests over other causes remain quiet. Activists who organize tirelessly for Palestinian rights or against Western interventions have offered little visible support for Iranian protesters chanting for freedom and against theocracy. This pattern is not new. During the 2022 Woman, Life, Freedom movement, support existed in some quarters—feminist groups cut hair in solidarity, and some politicians spoke out. But it paled compared to the mobilization on other issues. In earlier protests, criticism was even scarcer. Why this disparity? Several interconnected factors explain the phenomenon. First is the legacy of anti-imperialism. Many on the left view global conflicts through a lens of opposition to American hegemony. Iran positions itself as a resistor to U.S. and Israeli power, funding proxies against shared enemies. For those prioritizing "anti-imperialist" solidarity, criticizing the Iranian regime risks aligning with Western hawks who advocate regime change for their own reasons. This "campist" mindset divides the world into opposing blocs: the U.S.-led imperialist camp versus the "resistance" axis. Iran, despite its theocratic brutality, falls into the latter. In this framework, Iranian dissidents become suspect—potential tools of CIA plots or Zionist agendas. Protests are dismissed as color revolutions orchestrated from abroad, rather than genuine grassroots uprisings against domestic tyranny. Economic grievances and corruption are acknowledged, but the regime’s ideological repression is downplayed. Second, cultural relativism plays a role. Some progressives hesitate to condemn non-Western regimes harshly, fearing accusations of Islamophobia or cultural imperialism. Compulsory hijab or executions for apostasy are framed as internal cultural matters, even as the same voices celebrate Iranian women’s defiance. This selective application undermines universal human rights principles. Third, the overwhelming focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict consumes activist energy. In recent years, pro-Palestinian activism has dominated progressive spaces, often portraying Israel as the primary oppressor in the Middle East. Iran’s role—funding Hamas and Hezbollah, calling for Israel’s destruction—is overlooked or justified as resistance. When Iranian protesters wave pre-revolutionary flags or express pro-Israel sentiments in desperation, it alienates potential left-wing allies who see such symbols as reactionary. Iranian exiles and dissidents have voiced profound frustration. Many feel betrayed, noting that the left amplifies voices from other oppressed groups but ignores theirs because their struggle doesn’t fit the narrative. Women risking their lives against gender apartheid receive less solidarity than causes aligned with anti-Western themes. This silence has practical consequences. It demoralizes Iranians fighting for secular democracy, signaling that their lives matter less. It emboldens the regime, which monitors international reactions and interprets Western left quiescence as tacit acceptance. Not all the left fits this description. Trade unions, certain socialist groups, and human rights-focused progressives have condemned the crackdowns. Feminist organizations have highlighted women’s leadership in protests. But these voices are often marginal compared to the dominant strains of activism that prioritize geopolitical alignments over consistent opposition to authoritarianism. Comparisons and Contradictions The inconsistency is stark when compared to other causes. Progressive movements mobilize rapidly against police violence in Western countries or military actions by the U.S. and its allies. Accusations of genocide or apartheid flow freely in certain contexts. Yet, the Iranian regime’s actual mass killings—thousands gunned down in streets, prisoners hanged en masse—elicit far less outrage. This selective morality reveals a hierarchy of concerns where anti-imperialist credentials trump human rights. Regimes opposing the West receive leniency, even as they oppress their people more severely than many targeted by left-wing criticism. Historically, the left has grappled with similar dilemmas—excusing Stalin’s purges or Mao’s famines in the name of anti-capitalism. Today’s version substitutes anti-Americanism for anti-capitalism, with Iran as beneficiary. Toward Consistent Human Rights Advocacy The ayatollahs' democide demands unqualified condemnation. The Iranian people—diverse, resilient, and courageous—deserve solidarity not contingent on geopolitical utility. For the Western left, confronting this silence requires introspection. True progressivism means defending universal rights everywhere: against Western excesses and non-Western tyrannies alike. Supporting Iranian women’s fight against theocracy is not Islamophobic; it is feminist. Opposing mass executions is not regime-change advocacy; it is basic humanity. As the current uprising faces existential threat, the cost of equivocation grows. Thousands have died challenging a regime that views its citizens as expendable. Their cries for freedom echo across decades of democide. Silence in the face of such horror is not neutrality—it is complicity. The left, with its moral tradition, should lead the chorus of condemnation, not lag behind. Only by rejecting campism and embracing consistent solidarity can progressives reclaim credibility as champions of the oppressed. The Iranian struggle is not just about one nation; it tests whether human rights remain universal or become subordinated to ideology. The ayatollahs bet on division and fear. The world, particularly those claiming moral high ground, must prove them wrong.