Senator, let us start with your visit to Iran. Who did you meet there?

Thanks to the Italian Embassy in Teheran I was able to officially meet with Alaeddin Burujerdi, President of the Foreign Commission and of the National Security Council and also with Ali Ahani, the Deputy Minister Responsible for European Affairs. I also met privately with personalities from the university, business, cultural and entertainment worlds, as well as those dissenting with the authorities. I did not instead meet with leaders of the opposition because I feared that even just meeting with a politician from a Western country such as Italy could be used against them. I remember how only two years ago the situation was very different and an Italian parliamentary delegation met freely and at length with President Khatami in his office.

What impressions did you come away with?

I was left with the impression of a country with such a powerful demand for change that I do not believe it can be stopped. In spite of levels of repression unheard of in the past, with thousands of people in prison and a great deal of violence, the government has not managed to silence its opponents. 

So, this phenomenon is not restricted just to city of Teheran…

No, because contrary to what many believe, Iran is not just Teheran surrounded by a sea of countryside. There was the same atmosphere in Isfahan, Shiraz and in Yazd, which are large cities with universities and a rich social and cultural life. So I came away with the impression of a relatively homogeneous phenomenon involving the entire country and not just part of it.

Did you address any requests to those you spoke to?

I told Burujerdi that one cannot hold discussions as if the nuclear issue was the only point on the agenda, and ignore human rights on which international public opinion is currently focused. I also said that one cannot envisage solving a crisis, such as the one Iran is now experiencing, with violence and repression. I also added that as far as we are concerned, the existence of even just one political prisoner is one too many. One should not debate human rights as an abstract issue, but instead ask Iran to respect the international conventions and treaties it has signed, starting with the Civil and Political Rights Convention that it has been systematically violating for 25 years.

What was their reaction?

Burujerdi basically refused to acknowledge the social and political aspects of the current clashes and blamed the situation on troublemakers and hooligans, people exploited by international powers and by Israel. Ahani paid more attention and seemed to acknowledge the problems more clearly, although in the end his political position is no different. Obviously the other people I spoke to in Iran had very different opinions.

On this subject, how do the dissenters perceive the West?

It is almost impossible to walk down the streets of Teheran, Isfahan or Yazd, without being stopped by young people who through the look in their eyes alone, show their desire to communicate with the world they see through us. A world of freedom and new opportunities. On the other hand, I believe that one cannot explain what has happened in Iran since the elections held last June, without taking into account the new international context that Obama’s election has created, the changes that have occurred and the hopes it has brought.

There are some issues, such as American interference on nuclear matters that even the opposition does not share…

It is obvious that the opposition cannot walk away from the defence of national interests, leaving them in the hands of Ahmedinejad. When, in Geneva, it seemed that the Iranian President was ready to accept a compromise on the nuclear issue, two voices were raised, that of Larijani, the powerful Speaker of the Iranian parliament expressing the opinions of the Supreme Leader, and the voice of the opposition. If not addressed in a correct and balanced manner, it is precisely the nuclear issue that may reunite Iranian society against the West. 

What strategy should one follow?

Those wishing to see freedom and democracy grow in Iran need to adopt policies that do not isolate us from those fighting for change. In relations between the international community and Iran, at the moment unfortunately the nuclear issue is the only one on the table, as if human rights were a secondary matter. There is a degree of short-sightedness in those handling these relations and negotiations. It would be a very serious mistake not to understand that progress in the democratisation process in Iran would provide a powerful contribution to peace and stability. On the other hand, it is best to be aware that repression in Iran today differs from that of the past. It has changed from being a violent means for controlling a minority, into the method chosen for inspiring fear and terror to a majority, perceived has hostile by those in power.

In addition to religious issues there is also internal dissent within political and religious élites…

It is of the utmost importance that that clashes also occur within the kodì, which in Persian means “our people”, thereby involving members of the leadership such as Moussavi, Karroubi and Khatami, people who have been and are part of the political and religious system. It is precisely the combination of social phenomena and contradictions within the élites that has made it impossible for the government to destroy its opponents. This also explains why personalities such as Moussavi and Karroubi resist in such a situation, and express such strong and admirable coherence. They are aware that they express the opinions and represent a world that is their own. This world defends and protects them as well as a large part of public opinion. Unfortunately there are still no answers as to how long this will take and what the price will be to achieve change.

What will this change will result in? The end of the Islamic Republic or the reinstatement of its “ideal” implementation?

This is an open issue. From our perspective it is obvious that the vileyat-e-faqih, the jurist government envisaged by Khomeini, is in clear contradiction with the foundations of democracy. When the regime drafted the constitution it stated that the idea of an Islamic Republic was compatible with democracy. It is now their responsibility to verify such compatibility, since for the moment the answers provided move in the opposite direction.

Translated by Francesca Simmons