Since nationwide protests erupted in late December 2025,over 50,000 Iranians have been arrested according to human rights monitoring groups. Now, as military conflict intensifies across Iran's cities, a grave new concern is emerging: whether the regime will use the fog of war to carry out mass reprisals against those detained.
The calculation is grim.As military attacks rain down on Iranian cities, those imprisoned have no shelter except the prison walls themselves, and current conditions are described as horrific even under normal circumstances. Yesterday, a Brisbane-based activist whose friend is in prison expressed fears about what might unfold as bombs fall outside prison gates.
The international framework governing this situation is clear.Under international humanitarian law, prisons are protected facilities during wartime and prisoners must receive humane treatment in accordance with international law. Yet Iran's own history suggests this protection may be illusory.In June during a 12-day conflict with Israel, Evin Prison in Tehran was struck, killing around 80 people.
The Centre for Human Rights in Iran issued a direct warning.The regime has a history of using the shadow of war and crisis to carry out abuses in prisons and retaliate against political prisoners, according to the organisation's recent statement.
What makes this particularly troubling is the opacity surrounding current detentions.According to reports from family members of political prisoners, groups of prisoners in Evin prison have been moved by authorities to unknown locations, raising questions about the motivation behind this relocation.Many detainees are held incommunicado without access to independent legal counsel, and thus at extreme risk of abuse in custody.
One consistent pattern emerges from the testimonies: the weaponisation of prisoners as human shields or leverage.Authorities may be using detainees to intimidate the public, prevent people becoming a threat to the Islamic Republic, or as leverage against countries like Israel and the US, according to a human rights activist now in Canada.
The precedent of 1988 casts a long shadow over these current fears. Detainees worry that,during wartime conditions when people may not gather in public, authorities could take revenge on prisoners to create fear and prevent future street demonstrations.
A Sydney man whose cousin was executed in 2023 after being arrested during earlier protests now campaigns for others facing similar charges.He expressed worry about a "second massacre" that could happen, noting that the Islamic regime has demonstrated willingness to commit horrible things without fear of consequences.
Yet even here, a more complex picture emerges when we acknowledge legitimate competing interests. The Iranian government would argue that strong detention practices serve national security during a period of genuine military conflict. Security forces contend they are protecting the state during genuine external threats. These are not trivial concerns for any government facing simultaneous internal unrest and military pressure.
What distinguishes this case is not the existence of those competing interests, but the scale of detentions, the opacity of the system, and the documented pattern of abuse.Many detained protesters are held in so-called "black box" sites, unofficial detention facilities operating completely off the grid with no access to families, lawyers or independent monitors, heightening the risk of torture.
The answer to whether pragmatic policy requires addressing these risks does not demand ideological commitment. Rather, it reflects basic institutional logic: any state's legitimacy depends on adherence to the rule of law, even in crisis. Nations that preserve legal safeguards during emergencies strengthen themselves; those that abandon them sow seeds of future instability. The evidence suggests Iranian authorities are choosing the latter path, and the international community has clear responsibility to insist otherwise.