INTERVIEW FOR SIMA 04-03-24

The Iranian regime’s hostage-taking policy can best be described as a tactic used to leverage power and influence in its interactions with Western countries. The regime uses hostages as bargaining chips to advance its agenda and secure concessions from other nations. This behaviour can be seen as a sign of the regime’s willingness to employ extreme measures to achieve its goals and assert its authority on the international stage.

The regime has a history of using hostage-taking as a tool of negotiation and coercion, especially in times of political tension. When the so-called reformists were in power, there was a reduction in hostage-taking activity, probably as a way of trying to fool the west into believing that the reformists were genuine, which of course was a fallacy. 

In the case of the theocratic regime, hostage-taking is usually carried out by state-affiliated groups such as the IRGC or Quds Force, although more recently there is evidence that the regime is using foreign drug-cartel affiliated gangsters to do their dirty work, including kidnappings and assassinations in the EU and US. The regime’s proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas also utilise hostage-taking as a major blackmail tool, as we have seen clearly in the current conflict in Gaza. This behaviour demonstrates a willingness to intimidate and manipulate other countries in pursuit of the Iranian regime’s strategic interests. It also reflects the mullahs’ disregard for international norms and human rights standards.

The hostage-taking instances orchestrated by the Iranian regime have spanned several decades and have taken on various forms. One of the most notorious cases was the 1979 takeover of the US embassy in Tehran, where a group of Iranian students held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. This event had far-reaching implications for US-Iran relations and the broader geopolitical landscape. More recently there has been the case of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, the dual nationality Iranian/British young mother who was simply taking her toddler daughter to visit her parents in Tehran. She was held for 6 years in the notorious Evin prison on bogus charges and only released after the UK agreed to pay the mullahs’ regime a disputed sum of money involved in an arms contract with the deposed Shah.

The regime’s use of different tactics in hostage-taking, from targeting diplomats to western tourists/journalists and employing proxy groups in various countries, reveals a calculated and strategic approach to exerting influence and advancing its agenda. 

By targeting a wide range of individuals and groups, the Iranian regime demonstrates a willingness to exploit vulnerabilities and spread fear among its adversaries. Overall, the path of hostage-taking by the Iranian regime highlights its willingness to use coercion and violence to achieve its objectives, regardless of the human cost. It underscores the regime’s disregard for international norms and values, as well as its willingness to project power and destabilize regions through such tactics.

To address the hostage-taking practices of the Iranian regime, effective solutions or policies must involve Western nations taking a firm stance against such actions, including implementing targeted sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and coordinated responses to hold the regime accountable for its actions. Additionally, building alliances with regional partners and advocating for human rights can help deter future hostage-taking incidents. The appeasement policy of countries like Belgium, where the government released a convicted Iranian terrorist – Assadollah Assadi – in an outrageous prisoner swap for a Belgian citizen – Olivier Vandecasteele,  held on trumped up charges in Iran, simply provides the regime with impunity and emboldens them to strike again.

Describing “hostage-taking diplomacy” as a form of diplomacy by the Iranian regime is a valid characterization, as it reflects their strategy of using hostages as leverage to achieve political or strategic goals. This tactic undermines diplomatic norms and practices, as it involves coercion and threats rather than honest dialogue and negotiation.

In terms of the leading figures involved in these actions within Iran, it is certain that decisions regarding hostage-taking policies are made at the highest levels of the regime. The Supreme Leader will certainly authorise all such hostage-taking actions and his orders will then involve key figures in the Iranian government, intelligence agencies, and military who have the ability to carry out such instructions. 

Recent prisoner swaps involving Iran have included the Assadollah Assadi case mentioned previously, where the so-called ‘diplomat’ terrorist was sent home to a hero’s welcome and a personal home visit by President Ebrahim Raisi. This kind of capitulation to Iranian hostage-taking and threats undermines our system of justice and undermines the decision of the courts. The Biden administration also agreed to a prisoner-swap deal that involved the release of more than $6 bn in frozen Iranian assets, money that was then used by the regime to bolster its funding of proxy wars in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, Gaza and Iraq, and to accelerate its nuclear programme. 

This was a shocking act of appeasement and again simply served to embolden the Iranian regime. Such actions can be seen as legitimizing or rewarding terrorism. It is disgraceful that the US agreed to reward the theocratic fascist regime for kidnapping and imprisoning innocent people on entirely bogus charges.

In conclusion, hostage-taking is a wholly unacceptable tactic used by the criminal mullahs’ regime. Western nations must never kowtow to such toxic behaviour. In any instance of Western citizens being unjustly imprisoned and held as hostages, Iranian ambassadors should be immediately expelled, and their embassies closed, and Western ambassadors recalled. There should be no negotiations with gangster tactics.

General Alexander Haig, who was US Secretary of State under President Ronald Reagan, referring to the American Embassy hostages famously said: “Then came the hostage crisis during which Carter did nothing to rattle the ayatollahs who hung tough until Ronald Reagan was inaugurated, when they suddenly backed down”. Haig knew that appeasement never works. He knew that the only way to counter the mullahs is from a position of strength. It is a lesson that President Biden, Antony Blinken and western democracies need to learn.