Much has been published about Iran's release of five American prisoners (and 10 sailors), but very little has been said about what Iran really got in return. Was it really an equal trade for seven Iranian sanction violators, or was it more than that? Under other circumstances this sort of deal would be considered a straight up trade, but the current Administration has a record of giving a lot and receiving very little in return (e.g., Bergdahl).
Is it really too far fetched to think this had more to do with the $150 billion funds transfer to Iran and internal U.S. politics than with a legitimate prisoner swap? The Administration and the MSM are touting this as a good will gesture by the Iranians, thereby proving the effectiveness of our soft line negotiating strategy, but downplaying any quid pro quo. Why is this?
We all like to see the return of American hostages returned to their homes, but have we entered a new age of paying ransom by another name? If so, doesn't this encourage more hostage taking? Is this our new motto:
BILLIONS FOR TRIBUTE, BUT NOT ONE OUNCE OF COMMON SENSE?
Is it really too far fetched to think this had more to do with the $150 billion funds transfer to Iran and internal U.S. politics than with a legitimate prisoner swap? The Administration and the MSM are touting this as a good will gesture by the Iranians, thereby proving the effectiveness of our soft line negotiating strategy, but downplaying any quid pro quo. Why is this?
We all like to see the return of American hostages returned to their homes, but have we entered a new age of paying ransom by another name? If so, doesn't this encourage more hostage taking? Is this our new motto:
BILLIONS FOR TRIBUTE, BUT NOT ONE OUNCE OF COMMON SENSE?