Stanford Law School

SPONSORED BY:  Stanford’s Program in International and Comparative Law, Stanford’s Moghadam Program in Iranian Studies, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Iran has long viewed hostage taking as a tool of statecraft and source of revenue. Former IRGC commander Mohsen Rezaee, now vice president for economic affairs, admitted as much in a 2021 interview. He suggested that Iran could address its economic needs by simply taking 1,000 American troops hostage, then demanding $1 billion dollars each for their release.

The urgency of bringing hostages home is clear to Western states. But U.S. and European officials face difficult choices. Making payments to adversary states—even simply returning blocked assets they own—incentivizes additional hostage taking. Also, there is a risk that funds transferred to state adversaries will be used to support malign activities. For example, the U.S. State Department insists that the $6 billion made available to Iran in a September 2023 prisoner swap cannot be used to fund terrorist activities. But former Iranian president Ibrahim Raisi told NBC in an interview that Iran would use the unfrozen funds “wherever we need it.”

Our first panel will examine the policy consequences of states’ perspectives on hostage taking. Panelists will compare U.S., European, and Iranian views to analyze their competing interests and approaches. The panel will also explore how legal innovations could change political and policy calculations.

Moderator: Jon Alterman, Center for Strategic and International Studies