La Stampa journalist Claudio Gallo writes, based on well-placed sources in Iran:
The campaign against the stoning of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, the nuclear bomb that for a decade has always appeared imminent, the fierce rhetoric against Israel, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial, dissidents in prison: this is the way we have become accustomed to seeing the land of ayatollahs.
Iran, however, refuses to be locked into a handful of easy definitions; instead, with the lack of democracy and transparency of this regime, forced through the prism of Western ideological views, sometimes makes Iran an opaque and inscrutable object .
What is Iran in the eyes of the Iranians? The question is crucial but difficult, because talking with an Iranian about his/her country has become almost impossible: old partners in Tehran put the phone down as soon as they realize the call is arriving from abroad. Since the disputed presidential vote more than a year ago, repression has become suffocating.
A university professor, who declined to be named, puts the irony: "We have freedom of expression, but to express it you lose your freedom." The question remains over how much support exists for the regime and, conversely, whether the Green Movement is still alive or has been crushed by the repression.
This week in New York, President Ahmadinejad said that Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, the woman at risk of being stoned to death for adultery and complicity in the murder of her husband, has never been convicted and the sentence has not been determined.
Ahmadinejad's claims are false, but that is not the point. The President, presenting himself abroad, uses a subject dear to the West to demonstrate to American and Europeans his desire for openness. He is happy that the West is mobilizing in favour of Sakineh, whom Iranian generally see as a criminal. He needs to show his domestic audience how unbalanced and biased the Western world is, transforming a murder into a heroine of freedom. This way he can link political dissidents with criminals for his public.
A well-known reformist, who asked not be named for fear of ending up in jail, says, "In Iran the story of Sakineh has helped us forget dozens of political prisoners detained without charge as well as many condemned to death." Some political prisoners have asked in a public letter, "Even though we are innocent, we are stoned every day. Why isn’t anyone in the world campaigning for us?"
A journalist in the capital ("No names, please") adds:
Here, because of a strong religious sensibility that easily becomes fanaticism, the illicit relations of a married woman are a very sensitive issue. And Sakineh is a person who had such relationships. She has also been involved in the murder of her husband committed by her lover. Many may disapprove the stoning, but certainly the opinion on the case is not favourable.
Golnaz Esfandiari, correspondent for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and one of the journalists most informed about Iran, says:
Regarding Sakineh, it's difficult to say. For example if you speak to activists and intellectuals they have of course heard about her and no one agrees with the barbaric sentence of stoning. But I doubt many people in smaller cities know about the case. There is also a sense among some Iranian intellectuals that some have been using Ashtiani's case to promote themselves and some actions of the Western media have been criticized.
A well-known writer asserts:
The demagogues who rule Iran are taking advantage of the occasion to tell people: "Look, for the defenders of democracy and for those who are against the death penalty, the meaning of human rights is that a married woman may have illicit relations and also participate in the murder of her husband while becoming a national hero.”
Should one witness the stoning and remain silent? “No," the writer answers, "it should be sufficient that the human rights defenders distinguish between the crime and the unacceptability of the death penalty. In other words, our challenge is not to defend one person’s crime, but to defend her rights. Sakineh has violated human rights (she participated in the murder of a person), although you must defend her right to life."
Meanwhile, the mother of all questions remained: what happened to the Green Movement? Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett have led the campaign to pronounce the death of the Green Movement. They argue that after the contested elections, President Ahmadinejad suffered a political backlash, but it was limited to a segment of society --- with whom the Western media identifies --- amongst the so-called élite of North Tehran. The government, they assert, never lost the consent of the masses. And with the closure of the notorious prison of Kahrizak, where post-election detainees were abused and killed, the regime tried to amend the excesses of repression and to again be accountable. In the absence of reliable data, the vision of the Leveretts has the advantage of simplicity: the debacle of the Greens must be clear to all.
Historian and analysis Stephen Kinzer offers partial support for the Leveretts' declaration on the Green Movement. He wrote recently in The Huffington Post after a visit to Iran: "Last year's explosion of anti-government protest is finished, at least for the moment. Governments use repression against protesters for the simple reason that it usually works. It has worked in Iran. Many people are unhappy --- it is impossible to estimate how many --- but no one I met predicted more upheaval soon”.
Esfandiari, who covers Iran on a daily basis, has a more complex assessment:
The regime managed to silence the opposition Green Movement through force. There are no more street protests, but many remain dissatisfied, there is also a feeling of resignation among some.
I think it's a short-term victory for the regime, but the movement has not died. Iranian leaders know that, that's why they're putting pressure for example on the reformist cleric Mehdi Karroubi and others. They're even banning religious ceremonies, there is a sense of fear on the part of the regime.
A reformist leader in Iran who wishes to remain anonymous summarised, "The society lives in fear, but under the ashes the fire of opposition hasn’t been extinguished. There is now a big gap between a large part of the Iranian people and its government."
The immediate enemy of the Government is the economic crisis. Esfandiari notes, "When you speak to Iranians the first thing on their mind is the terrible state of the economy, the inflation and unemployment. Young people are desperate, they see a grim future and many want to leave the country.”
With the imminent introduction of reductions in the $100 billion-per-year Government subsidies, money will be missing in the pockets of the people. That is now the hottest challenge for the regime, but its effects could reignite the fire under the ashes, reuniting dissatisfied segments of society as resurrecting publicly the opposition of the Green Movement.