I went through that article and I can't figure out what is the Iranian authorities motivation to persecute those people, what are they going to gain?
From the article it seems that there is a group of passionate eco-activists which suddenly became a target of Iranian anti-espionage agency; this sounds like a waste of time. I know that authoritarian regimes behave in a non-logical way, but here it looks like really stupid move. Are those people members of opposition or something like this?
In Iran at least there is a reoccurring narrative that people with any connection to outside groups or people who are even distantly critical of Iran are targeted by conservative forces inside the country who do not want to move towards any kind of conciliatory position / open the country to the rest of the world and other policies. The idea is actions like this help to cement their somewhat isolationist positions / fit the propaganda of Iran under siege by outside forces.
I can't say how accurate that is, but that's the explanation you see a lot even from folks inside Iran, but generally government policy in Iran doesn't seem as unified as others and there are a lot of folks with their hands on the strings of government. You'll see someone released and it seems like a move towards less persecution, and in the same turn someone else picked up inexplicably for what seems like nothing at all. The idea being that different people are pulling the strings.
This might be due to the involvement of Panthera Corporation in the conservation effort. The founder of Panthera,Thomas S. Kaplan, is also the main donor to United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI). UANI aggressively lobbied for sever sanctions on Iran and if I am not mistaking was against JCPOA.
Of course this just could be a simple coincidence, but also a possible and reasonable suspicion for further investigation.
There is nothing to gain, as such. They became suspect because of their association, however remote, with the founder of Panthera:
A letter seen by National Geographic sheds new light on how PWHF staff became concerned with their cheetah conservation work getting derailed by politics in the months before the arrests.
The letter, dated October 17, 2017, was addressed to then chief conservation officer Luke Hunter at the big cat conservation organization Panthera, which occasionally provided technical assistance and sent experts to Iran to work with PWHF as part of the Conservation of Asiatic Cheetah and Its Habitat Project (CACP), funded by the UN and Iran’s Department of the Environment.
It voiced “alarm and consternation” regarding comments critical of Iran made by Panthera chair and co-founder Thomas Kaplan, a billionaire investor, businessman, and philanthropist. The previous month, Kaplan had spoken at the summit for United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), the lobby group he helps fund and which counts among its board former members of U.S. and Israeli intelligence services. Although Kaplan was not speaking in his capacity as Panthera chair, the letter suggests the Iranian researchers were worried that being associated with an organization linked to someone publicly criticizing Iran could be problematic for them.
UANI advocates “the economic and diplomatic isolation of the Iranian regime in order to compel Iran to abandon its illegal nuclear weapons program, support for terrorism, and human rights violations,” according to its website. This summit was the first public show of Kaplan’s support for UANI.
It looks like the PWHF people themselves realised the risk of such an association early on.
I wonder if this is the reason: "It has long been hunted as a trophy species..."
Usually it is the individuals at the top who give/sell access to their friends for trophy hunt expeditions. Having a chance of cameras filming it would jeopardize that and would expose the corruption.
You see things like this, and people like Tashpolat Tiyip in China, and it is scary how an authoritarian state can come down on people who seem to be no threat in any way, and in fact are working to help people or the environment in the state.... and still they're persecuted.
The article fails to mention a growing problem associated with such cameras: class and economic disparity. All too often such cameras are setup in rural areas by outsiders. Whether in africa or texas, the story is generally the same. The educated and literate city folk setup cameras in a "wilderness" occupied by less-educated and less wealthy farmers and hunters. When asked to explain why the cameras are needed the response is some version of "counting animals to protect them". Locals understand this as counts today, new regulations tomorrow. Over this is a layer of legal nuance as to land rights. What is listed as wilderness or public space in a government registry may be understood very differently at the local level. So by setting up a camera a researcher can unwittingly aggravate some underlying land dispute. In the worst case, that local "game trail" you want to watch with a camera may also be a local smuggling route.
The answer is that researchers must bring local populations into the project before cameras are used. And when they are installed, the locals need to retain control over their placement and the images they take.
We had a problem with cameras being setup in my area. One day I spotted a few in a local park boarding a watershed (canada, rain forest). Other people walking dogs had noticed at least four more in the area. Nobody knew who was installing them. So someone (not me) setup a hidden camera watching one of the cameras. A local cop was caught swapping the SD card. The cops were using cameras to count mountain bikers riding on trails where bikes were not allowed. Counting today, tickets tomorrow. After this became known the police cameras didn't survive the night.
Looks like it to me. Look at who was involved, at who they are connected with. These are well-educated people operating at an international level. They are rich elites.
Then look at who gave them permission to setup cameras: a central government. And their supporters are international organizations. Did they have the support of the local mullah? Did the local police approve the project? Did they hire local hunters to help install the cameras? Who retained the copyright over the images? This looks like the very typical situation I described above.
What you cite about this case and what the article says all sounds pretty circumstantial to me as far as your larger theory. To you these look "like" a situation, but there's nothing to indicate it is, or if any of what you feel resembles something else even is that.
From the article it seems that there is a group of passionate eco-activists which suddenly became a target of Iranian anti-espionage agency; this sounds like a waste of time. I know that authoritarian regimes behave in a non-logical way, but here it looks like really stupid move. Are those people members of opposition or something like this?