Execution in Qom for Espionage: Iran Carries Out Death Sentence Against Alleged Mossad Agent
Iranian judicial authorities have confirmed the execution of an unnamed individual in Qom on Saturday, 26 Mehr 1404 (October 19, 2025) on charges of espionage for Israel. The person was convicted of being both “a combatant against God” (mohareb) and “corrupt on Earth” (mofsed-fel-arz) — two of the most serious capital offenses under Iran’s Islamic Penal Code.
According to Mizan, the official news agency of the Iranian judiciary, Kazem Mousavi, the head of the Qom Provincial Justice Department and Judiciary Council, announced that the death sentence had been upheld by the Supreme Court, and that the request for clemency was rejected before the execution was carried out at Qom Prison early Saturday morning.
Mousavi stated that the individual began cooperating with Israeli intelligence services in Mehr 1402 (October 2023) and was arrested in Bahman of the same year (February 2024). He said the defendant had “confessed to sending information to Israeli intelligence websites” and to maintaining contact with Mossad operatives. However, the judiciary did not release the name, age, or any identifying information of the executed person — a notable omission that has drawn significant attention and sparked concerns about transparency and due process.
Iranian media confirmed that officials described the convict as a spy for Israel’s Mossad, stating that the sentence was implemented after Supreme Court confirmation. The official charges cited were “intelligence cooperation with the Zionist regime,” and the individual was found guilty of both “enmity against God” and “corruption on Earth.” This execution marks another in a series of espionage-related death sentences that Iran has carried out in recent months following the June war and reported Israeli covert operations on Iranian soil.
The judiciary emphasized that the case was processed “in accordance with due legal procedure” and that the defendant had “freely confessed.” However, Iranian analysts and legal observers have questioned the credibility of such confessions, noting that in many security-related cases, coercion and closed-door proceedings are reported, leaving serious doubts about the fairness of the trial.
From the perspective of Iranian officials, the public announcement of the execution serves both a deterrent and symbolic purpose, signaling firmness against alleged espionage networks linked to Israel. It also coincides with heightened internal security measures and ongoing Israeli-Iranian confrontation following recent assassinations and intelligence operations.
Critics, however, view the case as part of a broader pattern of judicial opacity and political messaging, in which espionage accusations are used to project control and demonstrate state power. The absence of the suspect’s name and the lack of any independent verification have deepened concerns about transparency, accountability, and fairness.
The complete anonymity of the executed individual — with no name, initials, background, or images released — has been widely interpreted as a clear indicator of procedural opacity. In cases involving national-security or espionage charges, such concealment of identity prevents independent verification of evidence, the nature of the charges, the conditions of interrogation and detention or whether the defendant had access to legal counsel. The absence of a name effectively erases the accused from the public record, raising serious questions about whether a fair and transparent trial could have been held and whether the defendant’s fundamental rights were respected.
The Qom execution underscores both the severity of Iran’s legal penalties for espionage and the politicized environment in which such cases are adjudicated. Under Iran’s criminal code, convictions for spying on behalf of a hostile state can result in the death penalty if deemed to “endanger national security” or constitute “corruption on Earth.” Yet, when the state withholds even the most basic identifying information about the condemned, it effectively eliminates all avenues for oversight, defense, and accountability — leaving the public with an official verdict, but no verifiable truth.