It’s bad enough, argues Aaron David Miller, that the Obama administration paid $400 million to Iran in exchange for the release of hostages, concealed and denied the fact that it did so, and probably handed over the funds in violation of U.S. law. But something even more important is at stake:
In the Middle East, strength and negotiating acumen are prized; they demonstrate power and credibility. And the region tends to consider actions and strategy in a time frame that stretches far beyond the four- and eight-year scale of U.S. politics. Meanwhile, the Obama administration’s handling of Iran in this situation plays into the narrative that the U.S. is weak and feckless and behaving as if it doesn’t know what it’s doing. . . .
Meanwhile, the Obama administration is tripping over itself trying to explain how and why it didn’t pay ransom as Iranian hard-liners contend that that is precisely what happened—adding to the perception that Washington was played and is violating its own pledge of not bargaining for imprisoned Americans.
All of this feeds into an image of U.S. policy fundamentally constrained by a changing region, one that seems beyond Washington’s willingness and capacity to manage. The central actor in this new landscape is a rising Iran, willing to sacrifice much for its vital interests.
What can be hard to keep in mind in all the back-and-forth is that Iran isn’t ten-feet tall—its regime has its own constraints in Syria and Iraq. But in a region of weak Arab states, alongside a Russia willing to assert its power, and a Washington constrained by a nuclear accord that has expanded Iran’s ambitions, Tehran is a force to be reckoned with. This will be the case even more when the constraints on its nuclear program begin to sunset in a few years. At which point cash-for-prisoners may end up being the least of U.S. concerns.
Read more on Wall Street Journal: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/08/22/why-cash-for-prisoners-may-end-up-being-least-of-u-s-concerns-over-payment-to-iran/