From the early days of its campaign, the Biden administration has telegraphed its desire to recommit to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. That was easier said than done: then-Secretary of State John Kerry flipped counterproliferation precedent on its head when he both agreed to Iran maintaining the industrial base that it had previously used to pursue covert nuclear weapons-related technology and when he acquiesced to sunset clauses.
Certainly, Iran will loom large when Anthony Blinken, a longtime Joe Biden aide, goes before the Senate for his confirmation hearing. Republicans may grumble at some of Blinken’s policy preferences, but elections matter. There is simply is no reason to reject Blinken. He is a seasoned foreign policy hand and competent manager. He listens to Republicans even when he does not agree with them. As deputy secretary of state between 2015 and 2017, he ran the day-to-day affairs of the State Department while Kerry flew around the world, visiting territories and countries from Antarctica to Vietnam while treating mileage flown like a metric of success.
Rather than rehash tired talking points on the Iran nuclear deal, whatever the deal’s faults, and there were many, Blinken is too skilled to fall into any senator’s “gotcha” traps — the Senate should use Blinken’s presence to elucidate some elements of the deal which the press, too often caught up in its own cheerleading, fails to ask.
First and foremost, Republicans should drill down on Blinken to explain not only the decision-making process regarding the $1.7 billion ransom paid to Iran to win the release of American hostages but also why the White House and State Department went forward with the cash payment. Partisans may argue that the money was “always Iran’s,” but this is specious. The decision to incentivize hostage-taking was bad enough and, not surprisingly, subsequently led to more Iranian hostage-taking.
However, what is left unexplained is why the State Department did not demand the return of Bob Levinson, who, at the time, was already the longest-held American hostage.
There are three obvious explanations: First, Kerry was so desperate for a deal that, when Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif refused to include Levinson, Kerry acquiesced. Second, Levinson’s Iranian captors had already sold him onward to other terrorists. Or, third, that the State Department already believed that Levinson had died in captivity.
If Kerry decided to dispense with Levinson for the sake of speeding to a deal, he not only was the anti-James B. Donovan (the real-life character whose negotiating prowess and commitment to bring Americans home Tom Hanks portrayed in Bridge of Spies) but he also led the Iranians to conclude that they could push over the Americans on all subsequent issues. As for the last two possibilities, neither was a reason for silence. No prisoner simply walks out of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps custody and disappears into the ether. The proper State Department response was to demand the Iranian government come clean, openly and transparently. The same holds true if Levinson had already died in Iranian custody. At the very least, the Iranian government could explain under what circumstance he died and return the body.
The Levinson affairs mark an episode of tremendous American ignominy that spans the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations. However, Blinken had a unique perspective as the State Department traded for all hostages but Levinson. As he seeks Senate confirmation, it is time Blinken explains why President Barack Obama and the Kerry State Department left a man behind.
Michael Rubin (@Mrubin1971) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a former Pentagon official.
