The Washington PostDemocracy Dies in Darkness

Opinion Obama’s Iran debacle looks worse and worse

Columnist|
August 3, 2016 at 2:30 p.m. EDT

The Wall Street Journal’s blockbuster report tells us:

The Obama administration secretly organized an airlift of $400 million worth of cash to Iran that coincided with the January release of four Americans detained in Tehran, according to U.S. and European officials and congressional staff briefed on the operation afterward.
Wooden pallets stacked with euros, Swiss francs and other currencies were flown into Iran on an unmarked cargo plane, according to these officials. The U.S. procured the money from the central banks of the Netherlands and Switzerland, they said.

With a straight face, administration officials declare that there was no ransom paid. (” ‘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,’ State Department spokesman John Kirby said.”) Nevertheless, “U.S. officials also acknowledge that Iranian negotiators on the prisoner exchange said they wanted the cash to show they had gained something tangible.” So they wanted the Iranians to think it was ransom?

Analyst Omri Ceren points out that international banks “don’t want to touch Iran’s financial system because of years of sanctions for terrorism, money laundering, etc. The State Department and Treasury Department enlisted the Swiss and Dutch governments to route hard cash to Iran to circumvent those problems.” Once again, the administration fell all over itself to sweeten the pot and get its historic “deal,” which increasingly seems to be even more heavily titled in Iran’s favor than was known when Congress voted on it.

Indeed, a number of foreign policy gurus have remarked on how shady the arrangement was. Michael Makovsky, CEO of JINSA, observes that “the president has gone rather rogue by circumventing sanctions restrictions on banks by laundering the money through European central banks, which is not only wrong but sends a dangerous signal to other countries and companies.” He further notes, “This payment coincided with not just the release of civilian hostages from Iran but also followed by a few days the release of American sailors who were abducted the prior week.”

And, of course, paying ransom begets more hostage-taking. (“Since the cash shipment, the intelligence arm of the Revolutionary Guard has arrested two more Iranian-Americans. Tehran has also detained dual-nationals from France, Canada and the U.K. in recent months.”) This comes in the context of the administration’s refusal to respond in any meaningful way to Iran’s illegal missile tests, support for Bashar al-Assad and human rights abuses. “Rather than punishing the Iranian regime for its malign behavior, it appears the Administration is rewarding it,” says an official at a pro-Israel group. “That, in turn, will likely provide an incentive for even more bad actions by Tehran.”

Elliott Abrams, former deputy national security adviser, tells Right Turn: “Now we understand why Iran goes on arresting and imprisoning Americans. The Obama administration paid a huge ransom for previous prisoners, so Iran figures it can get more cash for more of them.” He continues, “The administration and its apologists have been saying these jailings are the work of bad right-wingers in Iran, who are trying to undermine the nuclear deal. So the lesson is we need to do all we can to support ‘moderates,’ you see. But now the truth is out: The jailings are the work of Iran’s government, which enjoyed getting the cash for previous American prisoners and simply wants more — and believes Obama will give it to them.”

Critics of the deal point out that the administration hid the ball from Congress, as it did on a number of fronts. Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.) and other lawmakers sent letters to the administration, all of which in one way or another demanded information about the reported $1.7 billion transfer to Iran.

Republican members of Congress have reacted with predictable and appropriate outrage. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) released a statement blasting the administration. If true, this report confirms our longstanding suspicion that the administration paid a ransom in exchange for Americans unjustly detained in Iran. It would also mark another chapter in the ongoing saga of misleading the American people to sell this dangerous nuclear deal,” he said. “Yet again, the public deserves an explanation of the lengths this administration went to in order to accommodate the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.”

Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), who has been involved in virtually every Iran sanction bill, released a statement saying, “We were right in January 2016 to describe the Administration’s $1.7 billion transfer to Iran as a ransom payment. Paying ransom to kidnappers puts Americans even more at risk. While Americans were relieved by Iran’s overdue release of illegally imprisoned American hostages, the White House’s policy of appeasement has led Iran to illegally seize more American hostages, including Siamak Namazi, his father Baquer Namazi, and Reza Shahini.”

Experts emphasize just how peculiar this arrangement was. “The White House sent pallets of cash in an unmarked plane to pay off a state sponsor of terrorism. This is what we call ‘bulk cash smuggling’ in the terrorism finance business,” Jonathan Schanzer of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies remarks. “Until recently, this kind of activity could result in punitive sanctions. Now, the Obama administration is trying to tell us that this is statecraft.”

Other than outrage it is not clear what Congress is willing to do. Democrats have stalled on meaningful sanctions legislation, either to extend the existing sanctions due to expire at the end of the year or to authorize new sanctions. Hillary Clinton has talked tough during the campaign, but critics of the deal are skeptical she will have the nerve to pass new sanctions that the Iranians will claim “threaten the deal.” That is the problem, of course. Iran managed to get a deal out of Obama that required no permanent changes; preserved its option down the road to go nuclear; alleviated economic pressure; delivered cold, hard cash; and gave it ongoing leverage to defend its ongoing defiance, aggression and human rights abuses.

If Clinton is elected, it will be incumbent on Republicans to work with her, pushing Democrats in the direction of a much tougher line on Iran. Passage of sanctions, a zero-tolerance policy for illegal missiles (shoot one down, perhaps) and purchase of banned materials, and renewed efforts on the ground to oust Iran’s partner Bashar al-Assad are needed. Most of all, however, it will be up to the next administration to figuratively and literally stop Iran from holding us hostage. After years of acceding to Iran’s behavior, the United States will need to convey forcefully and promptly that a new U.S. policy is in effect.