A hostage exchange with Iran in January depended on a U.S. payment of $400 million, State Department spokesman John Kirby said on Thursday. While “we don’t pay ransom,” Kirby said, the U.S. sought “maximum leverage” because “Iran has not proved completely trustworthy in the past.” He added: “There were opportunities we took advantage of, and as a result we got American citizens back home.”

When the cash element of the exchange was reported a few weeks ago, President Obama and the State Department denied any link between securing the hostages–a Washington Post reporter, a marine, and a pastor–and the payment. Thursday represents the first time the administration addressed the hostages’ return as being contingent on the $400 million. But while Republicans in Congress who oppose the softened stance the U.S. has taken with Iran viewed Kirby’s admission as proof the payment was a ransom, Kirby stopped short of labeling it as such, referring to it only as “leverage.”

Reporter to John Kirby: “It seems like such a ridiculous explanation it shocks me that you’re actually providing it”https://t.co/typHndIq1Q

— CSPAN (@cspan) August 18, 2016

“If it quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. If a cash payment is contingent on a hostage release, it’s a ransom. The truth matters and the president owes the American people an explanation,” said Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) on Thursday.

Kirby maintains the cash payment–which was part of a $1.3 billion sum the U.S. owed Iran from a botched arms deal in the 1970s–was negotiated separately from the hostage negotiations. The day the exchange took place at an airport in Tehran, January 17, was also the same day the Iran nuclear deal was officially implemented. All three negotiations–the $400 million, the nuclear deal, the prisoner return–were separate, according to Kirby, but it was convenient to carry them all out on the same day.

Obama and the State Department issued statements after the Wall Street Journal first reported the cash element in early August that seem to contradict what Kirby said on Thursday. “This wasn’t some nefarious deal,” Obama said on August 4, the day after the report came to light. “We do not pay ransom for hostages,” he added. And Kirby sent out a tweet the same day that said: “Reports of link between prisoner release & payment to Iran are completely false.”

But the way things shook out that day in January, there seemed to be a link between the hostages being released and the payment being made, a point Kirby made on Thursday. The $400 million–denominated in foreign bills like Swiss Francs and Euros–sat on a plane in Geneva as the American hostages boarded a plane in Tehran. State Department officials did not green light the plane with the cash to takeoff for Tehran until the prisoners were confirmed to have departed. Kirby, in front of a group of prodding, aghast reporters, refused to label the transaction as a ransom while admitting the payment was “contingent” upon the prisoner release.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post $400 Million Payment to Iran Connected to Hostage Release, State Dept. Says appeared first on Law Street.

President Obama has officially asked Congress to authorize military force to defeat the Islamic State (ISIS). The request was sent in the form of a three-page legislation draft, as well as a letter to the members of Congress. It would create a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF).

The force that Obama requested would be “limited”–although that term is obviously very vague. Essentially, what the Obama Administration is looking for is a three-year long military campaign against ISIS. There wouldn’t be a mass invasion, but rather air force and limited ground support. Particularly, Obama mentioned that U.S. forces would be used for matters “such as rescue operations” or “Special Operations forces to take military action against ISIL leadership.” Obama also acknowledged that the emphasis should be on supporting local forces, not sending in American troops, saying, “local forces, rather than U.S. military forces, should be deployed to conduct such operations.”

It’s important to note that American forces have been present in the fight against ISIS for a long time now. Obama had previously justified those actions based on the authorizations of force granted to President George W. Bush after 9/11. This new authorization would provide an update, and serve as a political point for Obama. As he puts in the letter:

Although my proposed AUMF does not address the 2001 AUMF, I remain committed to working with the Congress and the American people to refine, and ultimately repeal, the 2001 AUMF. Enacting an AUMF that is specific to the threat posed by ISIL could serve as a model for how we can work together to tailor the authorities granted by the 2001 AUMF.

Essentially what that means is that Obama still wants to curtail that original 2001 AUMF, which has been decried by many as being too broad, but still be able to use force against ISIS.

The president explained in the letter that the motive behind asking for this authorization to act against ISIS is based on the threat that the group poses to the region, and by extension, the world. He also brought up the actions that ISIS has taken against Americans–particularly the executions of American citizens James Foley, Steven Sotloff, Abdul-Rahman Peter Kassig, and Kayla Mueller, all taken as ISIS hostages. Foley and Sotloff were both journalists; Kassig and Mueller were humanitarians and aid workers. News of Mueller’s death came just a few days ago, although unlike the male American hostages, a video was not released of her execution.

So far, political responses to Obama’s request seem tepid at best from Republicans and Democrats alike. Many are aware of the incredible unpopularity of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars at this point. Obama has, at various points, been criticized for being too hesitant and too active in the fight against ISIS. Speaker of the House John Boehner said about the request:

Any authorization for the use of military force must give our military commanders the flexibility and authorities they need to succeed and protect our people. While I believe an A.U.M.F. against ISIL is important, I have concerns that the president’s request does not meet this standard.

Many Democrats were also less than enthused by the request, many of whom appear to think that it’s still too broad. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) stated: “Part of the feedback they’re getting from some members will be unless that is further defined, that might be seen as too big a statement to ultimately embrace.”

There’s a twofold need to balance here. First of all, it’s not surprising that within this hot-blooded, acrimonious political environment disagreements would be obvious. The politics here don’t surprise me. But what’s important to remember is that while Democrats and Republicans, and everyone in between, may fight about what to do against ISIS, no one really has an answer. We haven’t quite figured out how to fight terrorist groups yet; honestly the only thing that can be said with certainty is that they’re not like conventional conflicts. It’s hard to determine whether Obama’s action is right or wrong, and it’s just as difficult to determine which of his critics are right. That being said, what almost certainly won’t work against ISIS is doing nothing–a step toward action is probably a step in the right direction.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Asks Congress for Authorization to Fight ISIS appeared first on Law Street.