Case Study: Conflict Response To The Obama Administration
Conflict Response
In Early-August of this year, the Obama administration airlifted $400 million in cash to Iran, the very same day four Americans imprisoned in Tehran were released, sparking questions as to if the cash payment was a negotiation with terrorists (PBS, 2016, p. 1). In January of this year, the Obama administration did announce these payments as “the money was owed as part of a failed arms deal prior to the 1979 Islamic Revolution” (PBS, 2016, p. 1). However, many are wondering why the payment took almost nine months to pay out and why it was on the exact day four American prisoners were released (PBS, 2016, p. 1). It appears as if the Obama Administration was negotiating with terrorists even though they deliberately stated they were not (PBS, 2016, p. 1).
The timing is a tad bit peculiar because it certainly does appear to be a money trade for human life. President Obama stated, “We do not pay ransom. We didn’t here, and we won’t in the future” (PBS, 2016, p. 1). However, they decided to pay out a 37-year-old debt at the exact moment prisoners were being released? (PBS, 2016, p. 1). It appears to be too …show more content…
80). The US is forcing Iran to release hostages if they want the money the US owes them. Both countries have a need, however by American Law, the United States government does not negotiate with terrorists. In kidnapping or holding Americans against their will, the Iranians automatically became terrorists. It is more than apparent that “each party attempted to control the expectations of another party by influencing their judgments (Jeong, 2009, p. 81). The US government should have been more aware of American culture and realized many citizens would believe the government was being dishonest simply due to their abundance of secrecy and contradictory statements and
In Early-August of this year, the Obama administration airlifted $400 million in cash to Iran, the very same day four Americans imprisoned in Tehran were released, sparking questions as to if the cash payment was a negotiation with terrorists (PBS, 2016, p. 1). In January of this year, the Obama administration did announce these payments as “the money was owed as part of a failed arms deal prior to the 1979 Islamic Revolution” (PBS, 2016, p. 1). However, many are wondering why the payment took almost nine months to pay out and why it was on the exact day four American prisoners were released (PBS, 2016, p. 1). It appears as if the Obama Administration was negotiating with terrorists even though they deliberately stated they were not (PBS, 2016, p. 1).
The timing is a tad bit peculiar because it certainly does appear to be a money trade for human life. President Obama stated, “We do not pay ransom. We didn’t here, and we won’t in the future” (PBS, 2016, p. 1). However, they decided to pay out a 37-year-old debt at the exact moment prisoners were being released? (PBS, 2016, p. 1). It appears to be too …show more content…
80). The US is forcing Iran to release hostages if they want the money the US owes them. Both countries have a need, however by American Law, the United States government does not negotiate with terrorists. In kidnapping or holding Americans against their will, the Iranians automatically became terrorists. It is more than apparent that “each party attempted to control the expectations of another party by influencing their judgments (Jeong, 2009, p. 81). The US government should have been more aware of American culture and realized many citizens would believe the government was being dishonest simply due to their abundance of secrecy and contradictory statements and