How have Iranian authorities historically used espionage claims to justify protest crackdowns?
Executive summary
Iranian authorities have repeatedly framed domestic dissent as foreign-instigated espionage or “infiltration” to justify harsh crackdowns, combining public accusations of Mossad or US involvement with arrests, show trials and death-penalty threats to silence protests [1][2][3]. Independent monitors, diaspora outlets and rights groups report that these claims are embedded in a broader disinformation strategy and are often paired with information controls and violent repression [4][5][3].
1. How the charge is deployed: immediate criminalisation of protesters
From recent rounds of unrest to previous uprisings, state officials and state media have quickly accused protesters of being collaborators with Israeli or American intelligence services — labelling them “agents,” “mercenaries” or “terrorists” — and used those labels to justify mass arrests and lethal force [6][7][1]. Officials publicised arrests they described as Mossad operations embedded in protest movements, presenting confessions on state TV and in government outlets to link street dissent to external enemies [2][1].
2. Legal levers: espionage charges, death penalty and securitised prosecutions
Espionage and collaboration with foreign intelligence are criminal offences that carry the harshest penalties under Iranian law; human-rights monitors warn the regime increasingly applies these charges to protesters, a step that raises the risk of death sentences and summary executions in politically charged cases [3]. Rights groups document a pattern where accusations escalate rapidly from arrest to televised confessions to threats of capital punishment, converting political protest into national-security crimes [3].
3. The information ecosystem: state media and disinformation tactics
State broadcasters and pro-regime outlets play a central role in amplifying espionage narratives and normalising a security response, running programmed segments that portray violence as the work of foreign-directed “terrorists” rather than state forces, and commissioning counter-demonstrations to manufacture domestic support [8][1]. Analysts and policy institutes describe this as part of long-standing disinformation playbooks intended to delegitimise protesters and push the uprising into an “armed revolt” frame to rationalise a heavier crackdown [4].
4. Operational accompaniment: blackouts, surveillance and crowd control
Espionage accusations rarely stand alone; they come with parallel operational measures that make independent verification difficult and magnify the state’s control — nationwide internet shutoffs, seizure of footage from private cameras, confiscation of satellite dishes and mass detentions — all used to stifle reporting and identify alleged collaborators among demonstrators [5][7][9]. Human-rights monitors link those information controls directly to increased risk of enforced disappearances, arbitrary detention, and unreported executions [3].
5. Timing and political incentive: external conflict and domestic legitimacy
Observers note an uptick in claims of foreign collusion, especially after the 2025 conflict with Israel, suggesting that wartime rhetoric and security anxieties have been repurposed to label dissent as treasonous collaboration, thereby expanding the regime’s licence to use extreme measures [3]. Hardline leadership statements characterising protesters as foreign agents also serve explicit political aims: to rally conservative bases, discredit moderate critics, and frame international scrutiny as external interference [8][10].
6. International scrutiny and competing narratives
International media, UN officials and rights groups have expressed scepticism about many state claims, highlighting the absence of transparent evidence and noting that information suppression makes independent verification nearly impossible; at the same time allies of Tehran sometimes echo the regime’s narrative, arguing that external actors seek to destabilise Iran, which complicates consensus responses [11][10]. Analysts caution that whether fully true, partially accurate or fabricated, such espionage claims function politically to criminalise dissent and justify disproportionate force [4].
Conclusion: accusation as a tool, not always proof
Across recent protests the pattern is clear: public espionage allegations are leveraged as a tactical and rhetorical tool — synchronised across courts, media and security operations — to delegitimise movements, rationalise lethal force and neutralise opposition; independent verification remains constrained by blackouts and repression, leaving observers to weigh state claims against patterns documented by rights monitors and independent reporting [2][3][5].