The shock of "hostage diplomacy" between the United States and Iran, involving a $6 billion disbursement from Washington to Tehran in exchange for the release of five US hostages, continue to echo, not only within our region but also across Europe and the United States.
The debate is based on a basic question: and exchange them for the seized money?
The crux of the debate revolves around a fundamental question: Would this deal, or the ransom, encourage Iran to take more hostages and use them as bargaining chips for the released funds?
The situation, however, is considerably more intricate.
The danger of this “hostage diplomacy” lies in the timing, the approach, and the role of the allies in the nuclear agreement. This deal came as a result of a clear scenario warning us of what awaits us in the nuclear file... Why?
The reason is that Washington has entered the electoral mood, or the season of madness, as it is called there. Therefore, the US Administration has currently no intention of negotiating with Iran over the nuclear file, while Tehran has taken important steps that enable it to build nuclear weapons.
What happened, according to several sources, is that Washington decided to freeze the nuclear negotiations until after the elections, and now decided to achieve electoral gains with Tehran, translated into the release of the hostages, while warning Iran that any continuation of the nuclear project might be met with Israeli military action.
The deal was completed, and money was provided to free the hostages - who had not arrived in their country as of writing the article - but without full transparency with the parties involved in the nuclear negotiations, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
If the international parties involved in the nuclear file were not aware of the “hostage diplomacy” agreement, how will they be informed of the course of negotiations, if those are resumed after the elections?
How can the American negotiator be trusted when the world does not know what happened to the special envoy for Iran, Robert Malley? Why was he questioned? For what reasons was he ousted? No one knows about his successor, who in turn is not much aware of the nuclear talks? What is the reason behind this democratic lenience, since Obama’s tenure, with Iran, whether by freeing up funds or rushing to negotiate according to Tehran’s conditions, despite its continuous procrastination?
Therefore, the fear now is that the process of liberating the American hostages, through this “hostage diplomacy” deal, is just a rehearsal for any US post-election negotiations with Iran, especially if President Biden wins another presidential term.
Democratic leniency towards Iran is expected to increase, since the president is in a second term, and has anything to lose. This would affect the future of the region, and even its reality and stability, because it would mean proliferation of nuclear weapons – a true disaster.
Someone might argue that if a Republican president came to power, the negotiations could falter, and Iran would rush to develop nuclear arms. This could be possible. Therefore, there are no easy solutions. But what’s more complicated is Washington’s dealing with Tehran with ease and impulsiveness, without the full knowledge of the international allies.
Consequently, we are potentially witnessing a rehearsal to the dynamics that could unfold between Washington and Tehran following the presidential elections.
