Trump takes a page from Reagan’s playbook and helps pull off Israel/Hamas hostage deal

Presidential leadership matters with respect to the timing of sensitive diplomatic agreements.

The events of this week make that abundantly clear.

Sunday saw the release of three of the more than 100 Israeli hostages held captive by the terrorist group Hamas for more than 15 months following a deadly terrorist attack in which more than 1,200 Israeli civilians were killed and an ensuing military response in which more than 40,000 Palestinians are reported to have been killed.

Though it is unclear how many of the rest of the hostages are still alive, four more are expected to be released on Saturday.

Hamas has agreed to provide a list of the names of those hostages today.

The transfer will mark the beginning of the second phase of the ceasefire agreement.

The agreement was brokered by the administration of then-outgoing President Joe Biden and the transition team of then-President-elect Donald Trump. It also included the release of 90 Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails.

Monday Trump was sworn-in for a second non-consecutive term as president.

In an unrelated hostage negotiation, two Americans held captive by the Taliban in Afghanistan for more than two years were finally released. That deal was brokered by Biden but the release officially took place on Trump’s watch.

Before the agreement between Israel and Hamas, Trump, who is widely known for his unpredictable behavior, had warned that there would be “hell to pay” if the hostages were not released before his taking office.

Forty-four years ago another agreement to release hostages took place on the eve of another presidential inauguration.

History repeats itself

On January 19, 1981, Democrat Jimmy Carter’s last full day as president, an agreement was reached to release the remainder of the 53 American hostages that had been held captive by militant Iranian students at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran for more than 440 days.

The hostages were released the next day just minutes after Republican Ronald Reagan was sworn-in as president.

Like with Trump, many pundits had suggested that more forceful action was to come if the terrorists had to deal with Reagan as opposed to Carter.

Some pundits say Trump’s threat is what sealed the deal this time around.

Are they correct?

Trump took credit for the deal shortly after it was announced.

Biden refused to comment when reporters asked about Trump’s assertion.

Trump reiterated the claim at a news conference on Tuesday:

“The hostages are starting to come back. If I weren’t here, they wouldn’t be back ever. They would never come back. They would have all died. If this were done a year earlier, if Biden would have done this deal a year and a half, two years ago, or frankly, it should have never happened.”

Is Trump correct?

What are some of the similarities between the Iran and Hamas hostage agreements? Who deserves credit for the most recent agreement? Trump? Biden? Both leaders? 

“The new presence of a strong U.S. president makes bad guys very nervous. That is the similarity,” former congressman and former Maryland governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. told the Baltimore Post-Examiner.   

“When you bring a strong American president on the world stage terrorists get very nervous and do things they would rather not do,” Ehrlich added.

However, there are two crucial differences between the Iranian and Hamas hostage agreements, Ehrlich said.

“Here you had a third party: Israel and [Israeli Prime Minister] Bibi Netanyahu. That obviously was a factor in all this. Netanyahu’s strong relationship with Trump and trust in Trump certainly played a part here….In the Iranian situation, you had all of the hostages being released. Here you just have the first trickle, which is certainly welcome. But we have a long way to go.”

Richard Vatz, a professor emeritus of political persuasion at Towson University, said the perception of unpredictability widely attributed to both Trump and Reagan makes the Iran and Hamas hostage agreements somewhat similar.

“No one who had any political sophistication at the time doubted that it was Reagan’s resolution and the perception that he was no one with whom to be trifled. In fact, those who voted for Carter thought that Reagan was so unpredictable that he would lead us to war.  And to be fair, the Iranians detested Carter for his perceived support of the Shah which, of  course, Reagan shared.”

But the similarities end there, Vatz said.

“The major difference is that in dealing with Iran we were dealing with an evil regime but one not as reckless as the actors today who are merely controlled by Iran; namely Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and others who are not nation-states. The stark difference is that this deal, generated by Trump’s threat has led to a less stable resolution, with many of the hostages dead and permanently injured, and Trump must reconcile his actions with the strategies of the Israelis, who represent the majority of the hostages’ homeland.”

Todd Eberly, a professor of political science at St. Mary’s College of Maryland, said both Trump and Biden deserve credit for the present agreement.

“This a classic situation of two things being simultaneously true: Yes, the deal was mostly negotiated by the Biden Administration AND the deal was accepted because Trump won. I think it’s safe to say that Hamas knew that there was no way the deal would be any better for them under Trump, so they recognized the advantage of agreeing to the deal, as Biden was on the way out and Trump was on the way in. So both administrations can claim some credit here.”

But Trump is likely to be held responsible for whatever happens next, Eberly said.

“His administration is likely to receive accolades if it’s successful or the blame if it falls through. Think of it like the Afghanistan withdrawal, it was negotiated under Trump but Biden carried it into effect. It went poorly and Biden took the blame… but had it gone well, Biden would have received the praise. In both cases, on whose watch the deal unfolds becomes the more important focal point for history.”