For those in Tehran and Washington who have spent a generation trying to redefine the US-Iranian relationship, Jan. 16, 2016, was a day of victories that had long been elusive. In the morning, Iran was found to have complied fully with the terms of the historic Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, marking the deal’s Implementation Day, and as such, triggering the lifting of all nuclear-related sanctions. Almost immediately, four Iranian-Americans jailed in Tehran’s Evin Prison were freed and hustled to Mehrabad Airport to catch a private plane bound for Germany. At the same time, an unmarked plane carrying $400 million in non-dollar currencies landed in Tehran, marking the successful settlement of a disputed US-Iranian arms sale dating back to 1979. Proponents of diplomacy saw the dramatic events as vindication of the notion that festering disputes between the two countries could be resolved through talks. Conservative skeptics of the nuclear deal in the United States and Iran, however, saw something very different — a hefty ransom paid to free the jailed American citizens.
Despite the fraught US-Iranian political relationship, legal settlements between the two countries historically have not been accompanied by the level of controversy surrounding this latest case. This has largely been due to the effective work of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, set up at The Hague by the terms of the Algiers Accord that resolved the 1979-81 US Embassy hostage crisis. The tribunal consists of an equal number of Iranian, American and neutral arbitrators who have worked on some 4,700 claims since 1981. To date, the tribunal has ordered Iran to pay more than $2.5 billion to Americans for broken business relationships and facilitated the settlement of restitution payments to the victims of the US missile attack on an Iran Air plane in 1988. Its work has progressed quietly, largely without fanfare or controversy, and has resulted in the peaceful resolution of many disputes between the two former allies.
