A Noose for Trump, a Message to the World!

A Noose for Trump, a Message to the World

Friday, 15 Aban 1405, corresponding to 6 November 2026

S. Rouzbeh – I was watching the scene of Donald Trump’s symbolic execution. Perhaps many people found it funny: a man wearing a mask of the US president and a prison uniform stood behind bars, bringing the noose towards his own neck. Beside him, a person with a covered face, showing only their eyes, played the executioner.

But I could not laugh at this spectacle. Instead, my eyes filled with tears; I remembered a public execution scene I had once witnessed at close quarters!

I felt a deep unease. Suddenly, I thought of the thousands of people who have been executed in Iran; young people, some of whom were denied even the most basic rights to a fair trial. I pictured families whose loved ones were taken to the gallows and never returned.

I asked myself why a government that has enforced the death penalty for years would turn to the noose even to humiliate the president of another country. Did those who staged this spectacle realise that it might send the world a message quite different from the one they intended?

A spectacle to laugh at, or a language of threat?

On 13 and 14 Aban 1405 (4 and 5 November 2026), images of Trump’s symbolic execution in Tehran’s Tajrish Square were published, and the Islamic Republic’s state broadcaster aired the spectacle. Earlier, a symbolic prison for him had been built in the same square. In Enghelab Square, a sign bearing the English words “We will kill Trump” was also put on display.

Criticism, mockery and even the making of effigies of political leaders have a history around the world. But there is a difference between independent citizens’ protests and a spectacle staged as part of government institutions’ programmes and broadcast on state television.

In this spectacle, it was not only Trump’s face that was mocked. The condemned man’s clothes, the prison, the noose and the masked executioner recreated a whole set of symbols of capital punishment, fear and terror—as if the image of an execution were more forceful than any argument in expressing political opposition.

The Islamic Republic wanted to humiliate Trump, but unwittingly put its own logic of governance on display for the world.

A noose that is real for Iranians

According to Amnesty International, at least 2,159 people were executed in Iran in 2025 (parts of the years 1403 and 1404 in the Iranian calendar)—the highest figure the organisation has recorded for Iran since 1981. Iran Human Rights, using a different documentation method, recorded at least 1,639 executions.

These figures do not mean that every person executed had a political case. Many had been convicted of murder, drug offences or other crimes. But I oppose the death penalty as a matter of principle, because taking a human life is an irreversible punishment, and no judicial error can be put right once it has been carried out.

The issue is not only the number of executions. Amnesty International has repeatedly reported unfair trials, defendants being denied their choice of lawyer, forced confessions, and violations of the right to an effective appeal in specific cases.

For families who have endured such a fate, the noose is not a form of entertainment. Behind every execution was a person with a past, a family, hopes and a future—someone who was given no further chance to live.

Had those who staged Trump’s spectacle spared a moment’s thought for these families?

When the message slips beyond its maker’s control

Political imagery does not always convey the meaning its maker intends.

Foreign media also described Tehran’s spectacle in different ways. The British newspaper the Daily Express reported it in the context of a chilling threat. Some media outlets focused more on its propagandistic aspect and the confrontation between Tehran and Washington.

This was not the first time state media had used threatening imagery. On 2 Shahrivar 1405 (24 August 2026), the Islamic Republic’s television broadcast a video featuring graphic, simulated images concerning a threat against Barron Trump, the US president’s son; the video claimed that his movements were being monitored.

In my view, this is the same language of threat that the people and young people of Iran have also faced for years in various forms, from threats of arrest and imprisonment to death sentences—and which the Islamic Republic has carried out in practice, and continues to carry out.

It is as though the Islamic Republic’s first official language is the language of threat; a language whose audience is sometimes the people inside the country, and sometimes its opponents and foreign leaders.

It cannot be claimed that all foreign audiences interpret these images in the same way. But the government may create an image to demonstrate its power that foreign viewers interpret as a sign of threat and violence.

If they had the power to carry out the threat?

This question cannot be raised without considering the Islamic Republic’s historical record.

In the case of the assassination of four Iranian opponents at the Mykonos restaurant in Berlin, a German court established on 21 Farvardin 1376 (10 April 1997) that officials of the Islamic Republic had played a role in ordering the assassinations.

On 18 Aban 1403 (8 November 2024), the US Department of Justice also announced a case in which the plot to assassinate Trump was attributed to an individual linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. This was a judicial allegation and should not be treated as a definitive conviction.

These precedents do not prove that the recent spectacle is a prelude to carrying out a real threat. But they leave a troubling question:

What prevents the physical elimination of powerful opponents: a principled opposition to killing people, or limits on power and the heavy cost of such actions?

It is not easy to give a definitive answer to this hypothetical; but a government’s record of conduct matters when assessing its threats today.

A message beyond the noose

Perhaps the municipal and government organisers of this spectacle thought that by humiliating Trump they were demonstrating their power. But for me, those few moments on television became a painful reminder: a reminder of the thousands of people who are no longer with their families.

This is not about defending Trump or his policies. The question is why the image of death should become a tool for expressing a political position.

The people of Iran have known the true meaning of the noose for years. The world, too, must be able to distinguish between political humour, a display of intimidation and a credible threat.

And, in the end, one unanswered question remains:

If a government stages an image of the execution of the president of the world’s most powerful country to humiliate him, how should the world judge the security of dissidents who have neither Trump’s power nor the means to protect themselves?