A Massachusetts man has been convicted of conspiring to illegally export electronic components to Iran, violating strict U.S. sanctions aimed at preventing military technology transfers to the country. The guilty verdict was announced in a Boston courtroom on Monday after a federal trial that drew attention due to its connections to Iran's military drone program and ongoing geopolitical tensions.
The convicted individual, Mahdi Mohammad Sadeghi, is a 43-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen who formerly worked for Analog Devices, a major global electronics company. He stood accused of conspiring to help an Iranian business associate circumvent American export control laws by facilitating the transfer of sensitive electronic parts. Prosecutors presented evidence that the Iranian associate's Tehran-based company manufactures navigation systems used in military drones operated by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a powerful branch of Iran's armed forces.
Central to the prosecution's case was the allegation that Sadeghi and his associate, Mohammad Abedininajafabadi (commonly referred to as Abedini), orchestrated the creation of a front company in Switzerland. This front was reportedly used to mask the true destination of the electronic components, thereby bypassing U.S. restrictions designed to prevent Iran from acquiring advanced technology that could enhance its military capabilities.
Unlike Sadeghi, Abedini did not stand trial alongside him. Abedini remains outside U.S. jurisdiction, believed to be in Iran following a complex prisoner exchange involving the release of an Italian journalist detained in Iran. U.S. authorities charged Abedini not only with export control violations but also with conspiring to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization, charges linked to the deaths of three American service members.
The jury found Sadeghi guilty on three of five counts related to the conspiracy. He showed no visible reaction when the verdict was read out early on the fourth day of deliberations. After the verdict, neither Sadeghi nor his legal team made any public statements as they exited the courthouse. He remains free on bail pending sentencing, which is scheduled for October 13.
Sadeghi chose not to testify during the trial. A father of two, he lost his job at Analog Devices following his arrest in December 2024, which occurred well before the recent escalation in hostilities between the U.S. and Iran. His trial, however, unfolded amid rising tensions and conflict, adding a layer of public interest and geopolitical significance.
In her closing arguments, Assistant U.S. Attorney Alathea Porter emphasized the clear legal boundaries governing exports to Iran. "At its core, this case is straightforward," she told the jury. "You cannot send goods, especially the goods at issue in this case, to Iran. Period. Full stop. The defendant knew that, and conspired with Mr. Abedini to do that."
Assistant U.S. Attorney Jared Dolan reinforced this position by highlighting the documentary evidence presented during the trial. He pointed to a trove of documents, text messages, and photographs that prosecutors argued proved the illegal exports were the direct result of the relationship between Sadeghi and Abedini. "The evidence established that he knew what Abedini was doing because he told him in writing," Dolan said. "He helped him anyway."
The defense, led by attorney William Fick, contested the prosecution's narrative vigorously. Fick told jurors that the government's theory was riddled with inconsistencies and lacked concrete proof. He argued that Sadeghi's role was limited to offering business advice to a longtime friend about working with a semiconductor company, rather than actively procuring parts or facilitating illegal exports.
Fick also challenged the prosecution's claim that the Swiss company was merely a front designed to disguise the true destination of the components. "If you look at the world through dirty glasses, everything looks dirty," he said. "That is fundamentally what the prosecution is asking you to do here."
Another key point raised by the defense was the absence of evidence showing that the components actually ended up in Iran. Fick stressed that the prosecution failed to prove where the parts ultimately went, or that Sadeghi personally benefited from the alleged scheme. "He had nothing to gain and everything to lose," Fick said. "He has lived in the country for decades. He was a well-regarded, respected employee on his way up in the company."
Prosecutors had intended to introduce evidence relating to an Iranian drone linked to a 2024 attack that killed three U.S. service members at a remote base in Jordan to underscore the military implications of the exports. However, prior to trial, the defense successfully sought to exclude specific evidence connecting Abedini's company with drone manufacturing or attacks on American troops. The judge ruled that prosecutors could only present general evidence about the Iranian company's potential military applications, including drone technology, but not direct ties to the attack.
During a pretrial hearing in February, prosecutors conceded they lacked proof that Sadeghi was aware that the technology he was accused of exporting was used in the drone responsible for the Jordan attack. This limitation shaped the scope of the evidence presented in court.
The broader case involves serious federal charges against both men. Both Sadeghi and Abedini face export control violations. Additionally, Abedini faces a separate charge of conspiring to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization, linked to the deaths of American service members, elevating the case beyond a typical export violation.
Abedini's arrest occurred in December 2024 at an airport in Italy on a U.S. warrant. He was released a month later and reportedly returned to Iran. Shortly after his arrest, Italian journalist Cecilia Sala was detained in Iran while reporting, believed to be held as leverage in a prisoner swap. Sala was released in January 2025.
Sadeghi's conviction highlights the U.S. government's firm stance on enforcing export controls designed to prevent Iran from acquiring technology that could bolster its military programs. The case also illustrates the challenges of prosecuting complex international schemes involving front companies, dual-use technology, and the intricate networks used to evade sanctions.
As the geopolitical landscape remains volatile, particularly with ongoing conflicts involving Iran, this conviction serves as a reminder of the legal risks faced by individuals who attempt to circumvent American sanctions and export laws. The sentencing scheduled for October will determine the penalties Sadeghi will face following his conviction.
This case draws attention to the broader efforts by U.S. authorities to monitor and disrupt the flow of technology that could enhance Iran's military capabilities, especially in the realm of drone warfare. It also underscores the delicate interplay between international diplomacy, national security, and the enforcement of export controls designed to protect American interests and allies.
The trial's outcome marks a significant victory for federal prosecutors, affirming the legal principle that sanctions violations carry serious consequences. Meanwhile, the unresolved status of Abedini continues to complicate the narrative, particularly given his alleged involvement in activities linked to terrorism and the ongoing diplomatic efforts surrounding his case.