Hello from Tehran.

Or almost. I started writing my newsletter to you while in the Iranian capital, though I’m back in London now. Nick Pelham, our Middle East correspondent, and I spent most of the past week there. We went to learn about Iran’s rulers—who really is in charge these days? Who will take over when the ageing Supreme Leader dies? We also wanted to know about the effect of sanctions, the nuclear programme, the water crisis and how ordinary people feel about a dreadful regime. Our trip ended with a rare on-the-record interview with the urbane foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi. You can read a summary of that conversation now. The short version: he is really keen for Donald Trump to reopen stalled talks over nuclear matters. We will be writing more on this soon.

Nick’s return was especially pointed. Six years ago, after he had been invited in to report, he was seized by plain-clothes officials in a Tehran hotel as he prepared to depart for the airport. He was detained for some days, repeatedly interrogated, then refused permission to leave the country. It took seven weeks to get him out. (We had a chance to visit some of his old haunts. You can read about his detention, too.) Other visitors are also grabbed by Iranian police and held without trial, some for years. From my hotel room, in north Tehran, I could see the notorious Evin prison where some are detained, and which Israel bombed in June. Iranians who stand up to the regime suffer much worse fates. Rates of executions this year have soared. A newspaper editor told us how she is routinely censored and interrogated by officials—sometimes amiably over cups of tea, sometimes not.

Our trip went off fine, though our passports were taken from us for the entire period, a none-too-subtle message of who was in control. We were constantly accompanied by our government-provided “minders”. In addition we noticed others (it seems they have a particular dress code) who tailed us to monitor our actions. Interviews with officials were all very well, but we also needed to hear from ordinary people in cafés, book shops, the bazaar and beyond. When we introduced ourselves some responded with visible dismay, warning that “it is dangerous” to be seen speaking. Some of those brave enough to do so made clear their bitter dislike of soaring inflation, bad rulers and Iran’s steady decline.

Nonetheless, I came away from Tehran impressed on several scores. First, it was striking to see many women in public who were confident to do away with the hijab. After protests—especially by Gen Z women—officials have not scrapped the law that compels the use of the headscarf. But the law is now much less harshly enforced. The hated morality police were nowhere to be seen on our trip. Some social constraints have been eased, at least for now.

Second, I learned—not least from Nick’s expert guidance—how vibrant, strong and even secular ordinary Iranian society is. This is not a place, as in the popular imagination in the West, dominated by “mad mullahs” and other fanatics. Indeed, religion is less predominant than in many other countries. On our visit we met just one cleric on the street. We were encouraged to observe shops that sold Christmas decorations. One of our minders urged us to spend time visiting synagogues. On one day we were taken to a monstrous shopping mall—said to be the biggest in the Middle East—crammed with shops selling luxury goods. I particularly enjoyed the “Steve store”, a knock-off version of an Apple Store, crammed with real and fake Apple goods from China. The message: Iran really isn’t that different from any other place, and by the way, those sanctions don’t entirely work.

Finally, we got some sense of how ordinary Iranians feel about their rulers—and the outside world—five months after Israel and America had bombed the country. We visited the site of a blast in central Tehran. We were told by officials of a strong nationalism; that the public had “rallied around the flag” against the foreign attacks. (Note that phrase: Iranians are being encouraged to have a stronger national identity, not a religious one). Perhaps so. But I was also struck by the readiness of ordinary Iranians, especially the young, to say the country must move on. Antagonism towards the West is a mistake, we heard. Some young ones were simply eager to get out and live elsewhere. Some are even keen to welcome American diplomats back to reopen the old embassy that was stormed and seized in 1979. 

Meanwhile, other stories dominate the headlines. I’m dismayed by the American proposal for Ukraine to capitulate to Russia. Read our leader on the subject. And the fate of the markets remains in question. Doubts continue over the valuation of big tech, and AI companies. Nvidia’s stock, for example, has seen great swings in recent days.

Thank you for all of your messages in response to last week’s newsletter. For reasons of space, I’ll respond next week to these. But I’d also welcome any comments you have on our Iran reporting and analysis. What’s the right approach to handling Iran now, five months after the bombing? What is the smartest way to encourage an Iran to emerge that obeys the rules and treats its own people, and neighbours, much better? Write to me at economisttoday@economist.com.