Simay Azadi’s Interview with Ambassador Stephen J. Rapp on Iran’s Situation
On July 31, 2025, just before the Free Iran Summit in Rome, I spoke with Ambassador Stephen J. Rapp, 4th United States Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues who has long campaigned for justice for victims of political repression. Ambassador Rapp is among more than 300 international figures who signed a recent statement urging urgent action to stop the execution of Iranian political prisoners. In this interview, he spoke about the recent execution of two People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK) supporters, Behrouz Ehsani and Mehdi Hassani, the 1988 massacre, the need for international accountability, and his strong support for the President-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), Mrs. Maryam Rajavi’s Ten-Point Plan for a democratic Iran.
Question: Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador, for accepting this interview with Simay Azadi. Recently, two political prisoners, PMOI supporters Behrouz Ehsani and Mehdi Hassani, were executed. And at least 14 other PMOI supporters are on death row. You are among over 300 personalities who signed a statement urging the international community to stop their execution, and you later condemned these executions. Can you elaborate about this situation?
Ambassador Rapp: Well, what we see in Iran these days is almost massacres in plain sight. Using this judicial system—five-minute trials behind closed doors, false evidence, charges like “enemy of God” or terms that don’t mean anything in terms of people’s actual conduct or criminal conduct—resulting in executions. The UN rapporteur said we may see the largest number this year since the horrendous 30,000 executions that occurred back in 1988. Clearly, this regime is using the threat of death through these processes to intimidate and to try to silence the opposition. They’re not going after even their foreign enemies. They’re going after the domestic opposition—the people that would be elected if Iran was a democracy.
It’s absolutely essential that the international community speaks strongly, but goes beyond words to effective action, to show that there will be accountability for these crimes and that the prospect of justice for the survivors of these victims won’t be swept under the carpet. There must be the expectation that those responsible for these mass murders are held to account.
Question: You mentioned the 1988 massacre. We had, was the landmark report by Professor Javaid Rehman about this massacre, and he specifically underlined that these crimes against PMOI supporters back in the 1980s amount to crimes against humanity and genocide. As an expert, what is your opinion about this report? And what should the international community have done since this report was published?
Question: Well, it’s essential to hold the people responsible for those crimes to account. Obviously, we had people like President Raisi, who led those executions, who is no longer with us. But there are thousands of others who have moved into positions in this regime that are responsible for those crimes, and some who may be abroad, and some who may have assets abroad. They need to be held accountable.
The professor is clear: these are international crimes. In many countries of the world, crimes can be prosecuted even if they’re not committed in those countries, if they are international crimes—even for crimes committed in 1988, because they were international crimes at that time.
What we’ve done in other situations—for instance in Syria—we had a regime under Assad strongly supported by Iran and its militia Hezbollah. One reason that a vicious dictator was able to stay in power so long, to kill half a million of his own people, destroy half the country, drive off half the population, and engage in mass murder, mass disappearance, torture, and use of chemical weapons, was because of that support. Even while that regime lasted—and of course we know it fell thanks to the Syrian people themselves last December—we were able to hold some of his torturers to account in courtrooms in Germany, in France, in Scandinavia, and other cases are pending around the world, even one against Assad himself.
Now we have a chance for justice in Syria by the Syrian people, and I strongly support that. But you can begin cases like that and you can prosecute them. It’s very important that countries assist each other and also resist the kind of pressure, for instance, that Sweden faced when it was forced to give up one of those executioners it convicted. That’s the kind of resolution it takes if we’re going to achieve justice in this situation and send a clear message to the leaders of Iran that if they commit these kinds of crimes again, they will not have a day of rest in this life.
Question: You just mentioned that the regime has ramped up suppression since the end of the12-day war. How do you perceive that, and can you elaborate, because you have written about the regime’s recent rampant executions?
Ambassador Rapp: Well, clearly the regime is using its own weakness not to go after its external enemies but rather to turn its attention on people who support a free Iran. Those are the people it is vulnerable to. The possibility of external intervention would be a disaster for Iran; it is the people of Iran who need to make the change.
As we’ve seen in the demonstrations of 2019 and 2022, and in the government’s failure to even run the electricity and provide necessities to its population, there’s enormous opposition to it. That’s what the regime fears. It uses foreign enemies as an excuse to go after people who have nothing to do with those enemies, who support Iran and want democracy.
Change is always possible. It’s happened in many countries. Regimes seem permanent until they’re not. Sometimes even people within the regime realize it’s not serving the country. The only permanent regime change that serves the people’s interests is when they do it themselves. External intervention, as we’ve seen, has enormous negative consequences and often allows bad regimes to wrap themselves in the flag, pretending they’re fighting for the country when they’re fighting for themselves.
We need to do everything we can to assist the people inside—with justice, documentation, isolation of the regime, and making it a pariah. Pressure should not be let up. Justice should not be traded away. There should be insistence on change in Iran. Otherwise, it will continue to be an international pariah, and those implicated or complicit in its crimes will be held to account.
Question: You’ve spoken about the Ten-Point Plan. Could you share your view on it?
Ambassador Rapp: I’m very attracted by the Ten-Point Plan. It’s a democratic platform—one that represents the people. It recognizes that human rights are universal, not just for people in certain countries but for people everywhere. It rejects the death penalty and the restoration of monarchy. It calls for a democratic solution.
In other transitions, we’ve often seen one dictator follow another, looking like a savior but quickly using the same prisons, shackles, and tools to torture opponents. This program gives great hope that when we have a transition in Iran, it will be for the benefit of all the people.
My message to those carrying on the fight within the country is: keep up your courage. We are united on the need for democratic change and on our support for efforts to create that change. This is not a one-time commitment for a conference or an open letter. This is a continued commitment. As long as I live, this will be a priority of mine to ensure justice is achieved for the people of Iran.