SVG
Commentary
Weekly Standard

Unabated Hostility

Former Senior Fellow
Screenshot of the Iranian news program that aired footage of the 10 U.S. sailors who were taken hostage. (Sepah News)
Caption
Screenshot of the Iranian news program that aired footage of the 10 U.S. sailors who were taken hostage. (Sepah News)

Early last Wednesday, Iran released the ten American sailors it had detained to coincide with President Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday night. The administration understood clearly that the Iranians were both trying to ruin Obama's victory lap and sending a message—on the eve of implementing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—that Tehran will be calling the shots. So Obama made no mention of Iran's capturing 10 Americans during his speech: No way were the Iranians going to get a rise out of him on his day.

The administration would prefer to forget the incident entirely—along with a series of other hostile acts by Iran since the nuclear deal was signed in July. In addition to its customary "Death to America" rallies, in the last few months the Islamic Republic has sentenced, in secret, Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian; imprisoned U.S. citizen Siamak Namazi; tested ballistic missiles, in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions; fired rockets near a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Straits of Hormuz; and attacked two diplomatic missions belonging to longtime American ally Saudi Arabia. Detaining American sailors comports perfectly with this pattern.

Some American lawmakers aren't willing to let it slide. Representative Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) released a statement saying "we now must fully investigate Iran for possible violations of the Geneva Convention and ensure these sailors were treated properly."

Pompeo is on solid ground. When the Iranians detained British sailors in 2007 and paraded them on television, Prime Minister Tony Blair rightly described it as a breach of the Geneva Conventions. Article 13 stipulates that "prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity." The first piece of evidence that the Iranians violated Geneva are the photographs and videos of the American sailors, especially those of them kneeling with their hands behind their heads, which were shown repeatedly in the Iranian media; further evidence is the coerced apology from the commanding officer.

It's worth noting that Iran's latest hostile action has given us a clearer picture of how the regime actually functions. As the event unfolded, CNN and other American media spoke of the "two Irans," meaning the hardliners and the moderates. This has been the administration's working theory, which holds that the former comprises the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The "moderates" in this view are figures like President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. In this scenario, it was the "hardliners" who were responsible for detaining the 10 Americans, and it was thanks to the diplomatic channel that John Kerry opened with Zarif while negotiating the nuclear deal that the sailors were freed without much delay. This theory posits that the hardliners kidnapped the Americans in an effort to embarrass the moderates, who want warmer relations with the White House. Therefore, the fact that the moderates prevailed signals a great victory for moderation and American diplomacy—for "principled diplomacy," to use Obama's phrase.

This scenario may be possible, but it isn't likely. If there really is a split in the regime, why would the hardliners put themselves in a position to lose an intra-regime battle against the moderates? It would show the world that they're not only weaker than the moderates, they're also weaker than the moderates' new partners, John Kerry and Barack Obama. Indeed, if it was the moderates who liberated the sailors from the grip of the extremists, it means the supreme leader himself required them to free the Great Satan's seamen. Which would mean that the supreme leader has sided with the moderates and the Americans against the extremists.

That's a stretch, to say the least. What is far more likely is that there is no such split between moderates and hardliners. The two camps—if there are indeed two camps—work in tandem. The hardliners take prisoners and the moderates negotiate the price of their release. Iran's moderates are a ministry of bagmen sent out to collect on behalf of the hard men.

In short, the regime with which the White House has negotiated the future of American national security is still a regime that takes Americans hostage. Unless you believe that hijacking a U.S. Navy boat, humiliating its crew, photographing them with their hands above their heads, and broadcasting their apologies on state television is a demonstration of peaceful, moderate intentions.