When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

You've reached your limit of one free article.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime .


Exclusive International news coverage

Ad-free experience NEW

Weekly digital Magazine NEW

9 daily & weekly Newsletters

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Free trial

30-days free access, then $2.90
per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch

A U.S.-Iran $6 Billion Prisoner Exchange: Ransom Or Realpolitik?

With $6 billion freed up to go in the coffers of the corrupt and repressive regime in Tehran, nobody is happy. But sometimes there is no alternative to the imperfect nature of international diplomacy.

Photo of statues exchanging a frozen handshake

We live in a political world...

Pierre Haski


PARIS — We find ourselves in the kind of scenario John Le Carré would have written about: five prisoners on one side, five on the other, brought to the same place at the same time for an exchange of freedom — simultaneously, $6 billion are transferred to bank accounts. The significant difference is that Cold War prisoner exchanges of Le Carré stories usually took place in Berlin; here, we are in Doha, Qatar, and the prisoners are American and Iranian.

The agreement carried out Monday is making a big splash. Principally because it has been a long time since there have been positive news between Washington and Tehran, and one can legitimately wonder if there will be any repercussions on the impasse regarding the Iranian nuclear issue.

But this exchange is also controversial: it has its critics in the United States who accuse the Biden administration of paying a "ransom" and putting all Americans at risk.

Indeed, the financial arrangement is unique: it does not involve American money, but rather $6 billion of Iranian oil revenue that had been frozen in South Korea due to sanctions. The money was transferred to accounts in Switzerland and Qatar, and Tehran can only access it for its most essential needs. Still, returning money to Iran is met with resistance among Biden's Republican opponents.

No goodwill

U.S. negotiators had made the release of their citizens a condition for any nuclear deal. An obstacle has therefore been removed, but it doesn't mean that a deal is within reach.

The optimism of negotiators, following Joe Biden's election, has long since faded. And the international context has completely changed: the supply of Iranian drones to Russia for use in Ukraine has destroyed the little goodwill that remained on the Western side.

The doors of diplomacy are not closed, despite appearances.

Last week, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom — the three European signatories of the 2015 agreement – announced that they would not lift sanctions against Tehran, which were supposed to expire on Oct. 18 under the original treaty. They argue that Iran is in violation of the nuclear agreement, and the sanctions will remain in place.

A last chance for diplomacy

The possibility of a new nuclear agreement seems difficult to envision, especially with the U.S. election just a year away and the potential victory of Donald Trump. Tehran is well aware that, as in 2018, Trump is likely to cancel the agreement once back in the White House.

Nevertheless, yesterday's prisoner exchange demonstrates that partial agreements are still possible: the doors of diplomacy are not closed, despite appearances. This possibility for agreement reminds us of the six French nationals and the Swedish EU official still held in Iran.

There is a complete discrepancy between symbols, popular emotions, and state diplomacy.

Another major criticism of the prisoner exchange agreement is its timing: 48 hours after the anniversary of the death of Mahsa Amini, the young woman killed by the morality police for wearing her veil incorrectly.

Once again, there is a complete discrepancy between symbols, popular emotions, and state diplomacy. The fact that the Islamic regime is recovering billions of dollars at a time when Iranians are paying the price for their quest for freedom leaves a bitter taste in the context of prisoner releases. But it has a name: realpolitik.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

FOCUS: Israel-Palestine War

Why Taiwan Backs Israel Even If Its Own Struggle Mirrors Palestine's

Taiwanese, though under the weight of a far more powerful neighbor, have the tendency to idealize Israel and fail to create a self-definition beyond the island nation's anti-China image.

Photo of police forces in Taipei, Taiwan, ahead of clashes during anti-government protests in Nov. 2020

Police forces in Taipei, Taiwan, ahead of clashes during anti-government protests in Nov. 2020


TAIPEI — After the October 7 attacks on Israel by Hamas, who killed around 1,200 people and took 200 hostages, Israel imposed a complete blockade on Gaza and began a large-scale counteroffensive. Originally, most Western countries fully supported Israel's right of self-defense. However, sentiments have shifted in a section of the west over the past month, with Israel's counterattacks having caused up to 10,000 deaths in Gaza and pushing the Gazan population into a humanitarian crisis, marked by a dire shortage of water, electricity, food, and medicine. With the opening of a new front by Israel on the Lebanese-Syrian border, there are fears that the fighting could expand even further, resulting in an even greater humanitarian catastrophe.

For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.

After the Hamas raid shocked the world, public opinion in the Chinese-speaking world, like in western society, split into two. One side firmly supported Israel's determination to defend its homeland and national sovereignty, while the other side invoked the region's history and sympathized with the Palestinians.

However, unlike in the west, most Chinese people did not choose a side based on well-considered national interests or humanitarian concern for the disadvantaged, but rather based on their attitudes toward the United States and China. Being anti-American or anti-China has become a fundamental factor determining whether you support Palestine or Israel.

Keep reading...Show less

The latest