The Intricacies and Repercussions of Hostage Diplomacy

The recent deal struck by the Biden administration with Iran has sparked intense criticism and debate. Against the backdrop of Iranian citizens fighting for freedom in the recent months, concerns have been raised that this agreement only strengthens the regime. The recent deal involved Iran transferring four dual U.S. Iranian nationals wrongly incarcerated in Tehran’s Evin Prison to house arrest. The reported transfer marks the initial phase of a sequence aimed at ultimately securing the release of five U.S. citizens. In exchange, Iran will gain access to billions of dollars of its frozen assets. To be clear, bringing home Americans should be a top priority for the United States government and the prospect of five Americans coming home soon from their illegal detentions in Iran is wonderful news. However, two things can be true at once. Bringing home Americans is great news, sending billions of dollars to a regime that sponsors terrorism, is not.

In 2016, under President Obama, the U.S. sent approximately $1.7 billion to Iran as part of a settlement over an unfulfilled military equipment deal dating back to the 1970s. This act coincided with the release of five American prisoners held in Iran. Critics argued that the money was essentially a ransom payment. This approach has not yielded lasting solutions, as evidenced by the recent surge in hostage taking incidents globally. Not only has there been a surge in hostage taking, but the Iranian Regime has only increased in power and influence since the deal took place.

Iran’s regional influence, particularly through proxy groups, cannot be overlooked. Hezbollah, the Lebanon based militant group, has grown from a small militant faction into a powerful political force. The funding from Iran has been instrumental in allowing Hezbollah to maintain a significant military arsenal, which it has used in conflicts within Lebanon and Syria. In 2019, Amer Fakhoury, a U.S citizen was kidnapped in Lebanon and illegally detained for several months to be used as a political pawn by Hezbollah. Amer Fakhoury returned a dead man from Lebanon due to the mental and physical torture he received. To this day, there has been no accountability for what happened to Amer. Unfortunately, this is all too common for hostage cases. Instead of holding accountable foreign governments for their actions, we reward them.

It's noteworthy that some Iranian officials have described hostage-taking as a profitable business. Which only makes sense considering what we have seen. By providing financial incentives to countries that engage in hostage diplomacy, we inadvertently reinforce their actions and create a dangerous cycle. To break this troubling cycle, it is crucial to develop alternative strategies that prioritize the safety and well-being of hostages without compromising long-term solutions. This is possible to do. Both Michael White and Xiyue Wang, former American hostages In Iran, were released in December 2019 without any financial reward given to Iran.

Secretary Blinken gave a speech the other day regarding the release of U.S. citizens from Iranian prison to house arrest, “We continue to hold the regime accountable for its human rights abuses, destabilizing actions in the region, funding terrorism, provision of drones to Russia…among many other offenses,” he said. This statement however contradicts what is happening. Releasing billions of dollars of frozen assets to Iran, will only allow the regime to bolster its military capabilities, expand its influence across the region, and support proxy groups that destabilize neighboring countries. The release of funds will only have adverse effects on the Iranian people. Like we have seen before, the funds that are meant for “humanitarian purposes” will be redirected toward the regime’s own priorities, including funding its elite Revolutionary Guard Corps and supporting proxy militias. This will result in continued deterioration of human rights, economic hardship for the Iranian population, and limited progress towards political reform.