The Contradiction of the Prisoner Exchange: The Influence of Presidential Elections on Foreign Policy

There is no logic equivalent to the “exchange of prisoners” with a ransom of 6 billion dollars, except for the effect of the season of presidential elections on foreign policy

Posted on: August 15, 2023: 08:54 PM GST Last updated: August 15, 2023: 08:58 PM GST

Last week, those interested in American foreign policy stopped at two decisions of President Biden’s administration that appear to be contradictory, but there is a link between the two. The first two decisions are the White House’s decision to conclude a side deal with Tehran to exchange prisoners and pay a ransom on the one hand, and the second is the Pentagon’s decision to mobilize and deploy in the region to “deter Iran.”

This strange equation comes out to the American and international public opinion carrying some contradiction and a lot of ambiguity? It is possible to ask: How can things be equal between sending six billion dollars (publicly) to Tehran, which will enhance its national defense capabilities, and at the same time sending naval, aviation and infantry units to the Gulf, which means spending a military budget to “face Iranian challenges”?

How can such logic be accepted, whatever its causes? If the Iranian regime is a source of threat that calls for sending battleships, missiles, bombers and special forces, then why does Washington send, in parallel with its forces, six billion dollars to the same regime at the same time?

Some in the American administration justify that this is the price of five American hostages! Does this make sense? At the height of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, the price of a “hostage” of one superpower was the equivalent of another superpower. So, if Washington and Iran exchanged five hostages for five, why did six billion transfer to Tehran at the request of the administration to the Iranian state’s accounts via Qatar?

Others, especially the team in charge of negotiations in the Biden administration, also explain the financial transfers with confusing contradictions. On the one hand, they interpret it as intended for the purchase of medicines and humanitarian needs. The response here is that the authority has the ability to purchase from the proceeds of selling oil to China and India and the liquidity coming from previous transfers, so why does the administration do this additional “favor”?

While a third party claims that the amount will oblige the regime to stop enriching uranium! The question here is about the results of previous transfers since the Obama period, because they also did not put an end to enrichment and the purchase of strategic weapons. So what goes on behind the scenes deals?

Why the deal?

It seems that the “prisoner exchange” is practically an implementation deal for the great agreement signed by the Obama administration, the Trump administration withdrew from it, and the Biden administration returned to implement it, as I explained in my book “The Imperialist Republic of Iran”.

The six billions are part of the tens of billions that have been agreed to be transferred since 2015. As for why the insistence on transferring them to Tehran despite the approach of the Islamic Republic, it is because a huge deal was agreed upon between major financial blocs in the West, including the United States and the Iranian leadership, and we have detailed it in articles precedent. Unless circumstances or policies change, the transfers will continue until 2025, with all its geopolitical implications. However, the administration knows the extent of Congress’ opposition to these deals, so it resorts to linking them to files dear to the heart of public opinion, such as the recovery of American hostages and “humanitarian aid.”

“military deterrence”

As for the issue of moving US military units in the Gulf “and the region”, it is within the jurisdiction of the Pentagon, meaning that the military leadership, which constantly evaluates the proportion of the “Iranian threat”, submits proposals for moves to the White House for approval, but the decision is for the National Security Council, and the president for the final decision. Political, media and electoral elements are included in the evaluation, as Iranian moves and provocations have not stopped for years.

It seems that the administration decided to accept the Pentagon’s proposals this time for political reasons, and most of them may be related to the seven billion deal. Amid intense domestic opposition to the transfers, the military deployment seems to suggest that the White House “knows how to act.” He pays money to free the hostages, which are billions that were originally allocated to the nuclear agreement, and he sends military equipment as a message to Iran not to exceed its borders.

However, observers and a large part of the American public have realized the reality of the maneuver. The amount is huge to justify the liberation of five people, and the military maneuver does not seem as if it will clash with the Iranians without much reason. Perhaps most importantly, the season of presidential elections is now affecting foreign policy more.

*according to The Independent Arabia

#deal #Iran #mobilization #it..
2023-08-15 16:54:00