Harrop, a faculty expert on Iran at [...]]]> W. Scott Harrop has an interesting piece on the Iranian Review of Foreign Affairs. In “Obama’s Iran Policy: Mutual Respect Matters,” (pdf), he traces President Barack Obama’s rhetoric about mutual respect with Iran, starting from the campaign, through the famous Norouz message, and up to the present.

Harrop, a faculty expert on Iran at the University of Virginia, also searches out the idea of “mutual respect” in Obama’s personal biography and even its appearances in  his writings. Harrop notes the use of the phrase throughout the history of the Islamic Republic, from the leader of the revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to current president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

But Harrop concludes that the policies pursued by the administration don’t match up with Iranian expectations of “mutual respect” (my emphasis):

In his Administration’s zeal to obtain greater international support for further sanctions, President Obama vowed to ensure that the “international message” to Iran was unified and unmistakable. Yet he was apparently tone deaf about how that message of pressure was actually received inside Iran. Obama might rationalize that “biting” Iran economically is better than military force, but he disregards how such pressures will be deemed by Iran as contradicting professions of respect. More likely, they are driving Iran away from the table, or at best, making it more difficult.

The key problem reduces to not comprehending what “mutual respect” means to Iran. Sanctions, pressures, and threats are inimical to the ideal of mutual respect — a sure fire way to demonstrate that seemingly pleasing words to a Western ear will be rendered as a trick, a disrespectful deceit, to an Iranian ear.

Here’s the abstract and here’s the PDF of the whole article.

Despite a long-held policy of going after regime figures and their associations — and not “Jamshid Average” — the Washington Post reports [...]]]> The U.S.-led sanctions effort against Iran is indeed ‘biting.’ But rather than only eat away at the plates of those the sanction’s target, the program is also ‘biting’ lots of everyday Iranians.

Despite a long-held policy of going after regime figures and their associations — and not “Jamshid Average” — the Washington Post reports that planes operated by Iran Air are unable to refuel in most of Europe as the result of a deal struck last month between four European oil companies and the United States.

Thomas Erdbrink writes in the Post that this is part of a broader move to “discourage international businesses from dealing with Iran.” Thus, going after the refueling of Iranian jets

illustrates a shift away from an earlier U.S. policy of reaching out to the Iranian people and trying to target mostly state organizations central to Iran’s nuclear program. Officials now admit that the increased pressure is hurting ordinary Iranians but say they should blame their leaders for the Islamic republic’s increasing isolation.

[...] As a result of the canceled jet fuel contracts, all Iran Air planes departing from destinations such as Amsterdam, London and Stockholm are now forced to make lengthy fuel stops either at an airport in Germany or one in Austria, where Total of France and OMV of Austria are still providing the 66-year-old airline with jet fuel until their contracts run out, possibly as soon as next month. At that point, Iran Air could be forced to cancel or severely reduce flights.

Iran Air flies reports to fly about 500,000 passengers each year between Tehran and 11 European capitals and other destinations.

At his press conference on Friday, State Department Spokesperson P.J. Crowley told reporters (with my emphasis):

We want to see the Iranian people have the same opportunities to travel, to engage as others in the region and around the world have. And the only thing that’s impeding Iran from having that kind of relationship with the United States and the rest of the world is the government and policies of Iran. If they change their policies, if they meet their obligations then certainly, as we continue to offer the prospect of engagement and a different kind of relationship, that depends squarely on what Iran does and what policies it chooses to pursue.

Of course it is untrue that the behavior of the Iranian leadership is the only thing preventing Iranians from traveling around Europe. The U.S. sanctions program certainly bears some responsibility.

Crowley’s statement clearly conflates the Iranian leadership and the nation’s people: “Iranian people…impeding Iran…policies of Iran…they change their policies…what Iran does and what policy it chooses.”

If Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sticks by her claim earlier this year that Iranian is drifting toward a military dictatorship, and if anyone in the administration buys into the idea that the 2009 Iranian elections were fraudulent, it seems pretty tough to understand how the U.S. administration could be holding the Iranian people responsible for the actions of their leaders.