Politics & Policy

Those Pallets of Cash Sent to Iran Were ‘Leverage’ After All

Secretary of State Joh Kerry (State Department/Flickr)
The latest news confirms the terrible costs of Obama’s deal with the Ayatollahs.

It’s time to update all those liberal “explainers” — you know, the pieces that patiently instructed conservative rubes that the pallets of cash we shipped to Iran on the exact day they released American hostages were not a “ransom.” The negotiations over the cash and the negotiations over the hostages were completely separate, the explainers assured us. Indeed, they were even separate from the nuclear deal itself. There were different negotiating teams working on different issues at different times, and the timing of the cash delivery was pure coincidence.

Here was State Department spokesman John Kirby, speaking two weeks ago:

As we’ve made clear, the negotiations over the settlement of an outstanding claim . . . were completely separate from the discussions about returning our American citizens home. . . . Not only were the two negotiations separate, they were conducted by different teams on each side, including, in the case of The Hague claims, by technical experts involved in these negotiations for many years.

Sure, the Obama administration knew that Iran was claiming the payments were linked to the hostage release. But administration officials encouraged the public to believe that the Ayotollahs were merely lying to look tough in the eyes of a gullible citizenry.

As new reporting emerged, the State Department was forced to update its story. Here’s the New York Times:

On Thursday, Mr. Kirby conceded that while the deals were negotiated separately, the timing of the final transactions was linked. “As we said at the time, we deliberately leveraged that moment to finalize these outstanding issues nearly simultaneously,” he said.

The State Department and the White House, however, said nothing about using the payment as leverage at the time, and on Thursday Mr. Kirby said, “I certainly would agree that this particular fact is not something that we’ve talked about in the past.”

There’s a word for those who bought the administration’s initial line about separate deals: “suckers.” There’s a different phrase for the journalists who sold the story: “partisan hacks.”

RELATED: President Obama Violated the Law with His Ransom Payment to Iran

Anyone possessing even the most passing familiarity with complex international negotiations — especially between adversaries — knows that they’re not conducted in completely separate and independent silos. Sure, there may be different teams working on different issues, but all of the teams and all of the issues are directly relevant to the underlying diplomatic and strategic relationships between the parties. Nations, however, use talk of “side deals” and “separate negotiations” to provide a degree of flexibility and deniability. For example, as the Times notes, the United States “agreed to move nuclear missiles out of Turkey as part of the 1962 agreement with the Soviet Union to end the Cuban missile crisis, but denied that the acts were linked. They clearly were.”

Another benefit of fictional “separate” deals is that they allow politicians to spin any given diplomatic outcome as favorable to the U.S. even when the agreement that produced it is a terrible net loss. And so it is here, as pundits and politicians have assured us that America’s agreement to pay $1.6 billion to Iran was a “favorable settlement” of an ongoing dispute over Iranian funds America seized at the onset of the Iran Hostage Crisis in the late 1970s.

RELATED: Secret Ransom Payment Is More Evidence of the Enormous Fraud of the Iran Deal

But while partisans in the U.S. may plunge their heads into the sand, not one single actual or potential American adversary is fooled. Here’s the bottom line of the various Iran deals: Iran has received $1.6 billion in cash, approximately $150 billion in international sanctions relief, access to international arms markets, access to imported ballistic-missile technology, and the release of seven Iranian criminals held in U.S. jails. In exchange, the United States got four hostages back and a series of extraordinarily difficult-to-enforce promises from Iran that, at best, can only serve to delay, rather than end, the Islamic Republic’s nuclear-weapons program. The Ayatollahs’ sponsorship of terror and their ongoing low-intensity warfare against the United States — warfare that has cost hundreds of American lives — continues apace.

In response to the latest revelations, politicians and pundits have spent days debating whether the Obama administration paid ransom for hostages. Even now, after the State Department’s admission that it used the cash as “leverage” to guarantee the prisoner exchange, Vox’s Zach Beauchamp is confidently declaring that that revelation “doesn’t amount to evidence of a ransom.”

#related#I think Beauchamp needs to meditate on the meaning of the word “evidence.” At the same time, however, focusing like a laser on the circumstances of the prisoner release actually serves the Obama administration’s purpose. They want us to break a national-security disaster into individual, defensible component parts.

Thus, every argument about side deals must be placed in the context of the overall agreement. Even putting aside, for the moment, the critical question of the legality of the Obama administration’s actions, the overlapping and related Iran agreements represent, collectively, a terrible deal for the United States and its key allies. It’s an agreement that will represent perhaps the administration’s most enduring — and deadly — foreign-policy blunder.

I’m thankful four innocent Americans are home. But Iran has secured a decisive diplomatic victory over the world’s greatest military and economic superpower in the bargain.

— David French is an attorney, and a staff writer at National Review.

David French — David French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Most Popular

PC Culture

Hate-Crime Hoaxes Reflect America’s Sickness

On January 29, tabloid news site TMZ broke the shocking story that Jussie Smollett, a gay black entertainer and progressive activist, had been viciously attacked in Chicago. Two racist white men had fractured his rib, poured bleach on him, and tied a noose around his neck. As they were leaving, they shouted ... Read More

Ilhan Omar’s Big Lie

In a viral exchange at a congressional hearing last week, the new congresswoman from Minnesota, Ilhan Omar, who is quickly establishing herself as the most reprehensible member of the House Democratic freshman class despite stiff competition, launched into Elliott Abrams. She accused the former Reagan official ... Read More
PC Culture

Fake Newspeople

This week, the story of the Jussie Smollett hoax gripped the national media. The story, for those who missed it, went something like this: The Empire actor, who is both black and gay, stated that on a freezing January night in Chicago, in the middle of the polar vortex, he went to a local Subway store to buy a ... Read More

Questions for Those Who Believed Jussie Smollett

The “we reported the Jussie Smollett case responsibly” contention has been blasted to smithereens. Twitter accounts and headlines in the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times reported as fact Jussie Smollett’s wildly implausible allegations, and many other journalists did so as ... Read More

White Progressives Are Polarizing America

To understand how far left (and how quickly) the Democratic party has moved, let’s cycle back a very short 20 years. If 1998 Bill Clinton ran in the Democratic primary today, he’d be instantaneously labeled a far-right bigot. His support for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Defense of Marriage Act, ... Read More

One Last Grift for Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders, the antique Brooklyn socialist who represents Vermont in the Senate, is not quite ready to retire to his lakeside dacha and so once again is running for the presidential nomination of a party to which he does not belong with an agenda about which he cannot be quite entirely ... Read More