Deeply Conflicting Casualty Figures Continue to Shape the Narrative of Iran’s January 1404 Crackdown
The events widely referred to as the Dey 1404 killings in Iran have generated sharply diverging accounts regarding the number of people killed, injured, and detained during the nationwide unrest. According to multiple accounts, on 19 Dey 1404 (January 9, 2026), Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei reportedly instructed security bodies in a Supreme National Security Council meeting to suppress the protests “by any means necessary.” Subsequent operations involved extensive use of force, which international media say resulted in a shocking rise in casualties. Due to a nationwide internet shutdown and severe information restrictions, independent verification has remained extremely difficult.
Official figures provided by Iran’s judiciary spokesperson Asghar Jahangir indicate that approximately 9,000 detainees are facing prosecution, with 10,538 individuals referred to court, 8,843 indictments issued or prepared, 3,047 non-prosecution orders, 96 terminated cases, and 508 suspended prosecutions. While authorities did not publish a comprehensive total number of arrests, independent human rights groups estimate significantly higher figures.
The Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) reported 53,552 arrests, 25,845 injured civilians, and 7,015 confirmed deaths, including 6,508 protesters, 226 children, 214 security personnel, and 67 non-protester civilians, with an additional 11,744 cases under investigation. However, HRANA and similar organizations have not released a full publicly verifiable list of names corresponding to their fatality totals, complicating independent cross-verification of their aggregate numbers.
In contrast, the Iranian government has officially announced 3,117 total fatalities, stating that the list of names was compiled by the Legal Medicine Organization and cross-checked with the national civil registry. Authorities published the names and invited families to report omissions or irregularities, presenting the step as part of a transparency initiative. Officials argue that the figure includes security personnel and civilians but have not released a detailed categorical breakdown.
At the same time, significantly higher estimates have circulated internationally. By early Bahman 1404, reported fatality estimates ranged from approximately 3,400 to more than 33,000, with the broadcaster Iran International citing sources to claim more than 36,500 deaths. The Guardian reported that fatalities may exceed 30,000, suggesting that fewer than 10 percent of deaths may have been officially registered. In contrast to HRANA, which has a methodology to verify the totals it produces, some of these totals appear to be based less on concrete information and more on loose estimates, further muddying the picture as to the toll of the crackdown.
Yet, even if the higher thresholds are inaccurate, the crackdown is still likely to be the largest mass killing of protesters in modern Iranian history. Amnesty International characterized the reported scale as potentially amounting to crimes against humanity. Some analysts have compared the scale of force to the Tiananmen Square crackdown, referring to the events as occurring under conditions of “digital darkness” due to the internet blackout.
Amid this wide spectrum of figures, veteran journalist Mashallah Shamsolvaezin has taken a distinct position, warning against what he calls the unethical inflation of casualty numbers without verifiable documentation. He argues that casualty reporting in Iran is exceptionally difficult due to centralized data control and restricted access to official records. Shamsolvaezin has stated that his own estimate of approximately 3,000 fatalities was derived from indirect statistical methods, including comparisons between burial data and baseline national mortality averages during the specific days in question. According to him, abnormal increases in burial registrations suggested a substantial spike in deaths during the crackdown, but he emphasizes that such analytical methods must be presented cautiously and transparently.
More critically, Shamsolvaezin argues that escalating casualty figures without documentary evidence risks distorting public perception. In his view, when unsupported estimates rise from several thousand to tens of thousands, the figure of 3,000 deaths—if accurate—may begin to appear “small” by comparison, which he considers deeply unethical. He maintains that the issue is not whether the number is higher or lower, but whether it is accurate, methodologically defensible, and responsibly presented, especially given the profound human significance of each life lost. Inflated figures, he warns, can ultimately undermine credibility and weaken demands for accountability.
The gap between the government’s official figure of 3,117 deaths, HRANA’s 7,015 confirmed fatalities, and separate estimates exceeding 30,000 illustrates the conflicting narratives surrounding the true scale of the Dey 1404 crackdown. While authorities emphasize named documentation and judicial procedures, rights groups point to information restrictions, pressure on families, and alleged underreporting. What is clear is that the disparity between 3,117, 7,015, and 30,000-plus fatalities reflects not only conflicting data but also deeper tensions over transparency, accountability, narrative control, and the ethical responsibility attached to reporting loss of life on such a scale.