$6 Billion US-Iran Hostage Deal Stumbles— Israel-Hamas Conflict is the Reason
The United States is apprehensive that this money could be used to fund the terror organisation Hamas against Israel.
Background
In a strategic move to prop-up diplomatic relations and secure the safe return of five of its citizens imprisoned in Iran, the U.S. finalised had a landmark agreement with Tehran barely last month. This significant development, which led to their release, was the focus of a succinct article we published just three weeks ago.1 A key component of this agreement was the unfreezing of $6 billion in Iranian assets, initially stored in a South Korean bank. The funds were transferred to a Qatari bank, with the stipulation that Iran could access the money only for humanitarian aid, and under strict oversight from the U.S. Treasury Department.
New Developments
However, the landscape has shifted dramatically in the weeks following the deal. Heightened concerns about Iran's possible involvement in the recent attacks on Israel, orchestrated by Hamas, have led to increased scrutiny and bipartisan calls for action within the U.S. Congress. These calls have primarily revolved around the notion that Iran should be barred from accessing the $6 billion, based on their substantial annual financial backing of Hamas, estimated at $100 million. The US Deputy Treasury Secretary, Wally Adeyamo told House Democrats behind a closed door meeting that $6 billion meant for Iran under this deal ‘isn’t going anywhere anytime soon’
In a timely and tactical move, the U.S. and Qatar have now agreed to prevent Iran from gaining any access to this substantial sum,in the near future. Interestingly, no specific timeframe has been disclosed for how long this freeze will be in place. U.S. officials have pointed out that Iran has yet to utilise any of these funds and that the U.S. retains the option to re-freeze these assets whenever deemed necessary.
Critics and Implications
The move has attracted both praise and criticism. Detractors argue that any financial resources, even if designated for humanitarian purposes, could indirectly aid Iran in funding activities considered as terrorism on a global stage. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has maintained that the U.S. reserves the right to freeze these assets and seems undeterred by questions surrounding the ethicality or potential ramifications of not fulfilling the initial agreement with Iran.
The latest turn of events casts a cloud of uncertainty over future negotiations between the U.S. and Iran. While it may strain relations and complicate future discussions, the move also signifies a strict stance by the U.S., aligning with broader international concerns about terrorism and regional stability.
This development, while seemingly modest on the surface, serves as a compelling reminder that in the complex arena of geopolitics, agreements sealed just yesterday could run aground on unforeseen sandbars.
