Foreign Policy

The US $400 million counterterrorism payment to Iran

Now, Phil, you have an interesting take on this. You just say this is the business, this is the life we’ve chosen. I mean, this is the kind of thing that happens in deals like this.

 

PHIL MUDD: Well, there’s a couple things to think about here, John. First of all, we’re talking about going into a negotiating room, and we as Americans tend to believe we walk into a negotiating room, whether it’s with the Iranians or the Russians, and say, “Here’s the deal, here’s how it’s going to go, sign on the bottom line.” The Iranians, in this case, say, “You’ve frozen assets since right after the revolution 35 years ago, we want our assets back that we paid you. You never gave us the military material we paid for.” Then they say later, “We’ll release hostages.” This isn’t exactly a hostages-for-money deal. I understand the optics look bad, but this is a diplomatic deal. It’s got to be done if you want to get those people out. The second thing I’d say, John, is people thinking $400 million is significant. That’s chump change. The sanctions mean Iran can get tens of billions of dollars from returning to the oil market. $400 million is a lot to pay, I understand, from the optic of an everyday American. In the world of Iran with its return to the oil market, it’s not a significant amount of money.

You've reached your daily free article limit.

Subscribe and support our veteran writing staff to continue reading.

Get Full Ad-Free Access For Just $0.50/Week

Enjoy unlimited digital access to our Military Culture, Defense, and Foreign Policy coverage content and support a veteran owned business. Already a subscriber?

Now, Phil, you have an interesting take on this. You just say this is the business, this is the life we’ve chosen. I mean, this is the kind of thing that happens in deals like this.

 

PHIL MUDD: Well, there’s a couple things to think about here, John. First of all, we’re talking about going into a negotiating room, and we as Americans tend to believe we walk into a negotiating room, whether it’s with the Iranians or the Russians, and say, “Here’s the deal, here’s how it’s going to go, sign on the bottom line.” The Iranians, in this case, say, “You’ve frozen assets since right after the revolution 35 years ago, we want our assets back that we paid you. You never gave us the military material we paid for.” Then they say later, “We’ll release hostages.” This isn’t exactly a hostages-for-money deal. I understand the optics look bad, but this is a diplomatic deal. It’s got to be done if you want to get those people out. The second thing I’d say, John, is people thinking $400 million is significant. That’s chump change. The sanctions mean Iran can get tens of billions of dollars from returning to the oil market. $400 million is a lot to pay, I understand, from the optic of an everyday American. In the world of Iran with its return to the oil market, it’s not a significant amount of money.

BERMAN: Phil, ransom, and hostages is something I know you’ve thought a lot about. It’s deeply personal to you. You worked in a, you know, you probably have personal connections to it that we might never learn about. What’s the difference between “ransom,” which is a loaded word, and a quid pro quo that those hostages would not have been released had that money not been delivered.

MUDD: There’s a couple differences. First, we’re dealing with a government, we’re not dealing with a terrorist organization here. Second, I think this is subtle but significant. We didn’t pay for hostages. We paid to resolve a diplomatic dispute that goes back right after the Iranian revolution. What the Iranians would say is “we have a right to get money when we never received what we paid for.” Then they’re going to say at another diplomatic table, “Hey, it’s about time we released these hostages.” This is not as clean as it should be. The White House looks bad, but I understand what they’re doing here. They’re saying, “If we want to get something, we’ve got to give something.”

Content Via – Media Matters

Featured Media – CNN

Featured Image – Labeled for reuse, Google Images

About SOFREP News Team View All Posts

The SOFREP News Team is a collective of professional military journalists. Brandon Tyler Webb is the SOFREP News Team's Editor-in-Chief. Guy D. McCardle is the SOFREP News Team's Managing Editor. Brandon and Guy both manage the SOFREP News Team.

COMMENTS

You must become a subscriber or login to view or post comments on this article.

More from SOFREP

REAL EXPERTS.
REAL NEWS.

Join SOFREP for insider access and analysis.

TRY 14 DAYS FREE

Already a subscriber? Log In