“So, look at how the IRGC generates funds. The IRGC detains a spy like Jason Rezaian. The U.S. pleads for him to be released. We say: no, you have to pay for him.
Our government gets paid $1.7 billion to hand over this spy. Thus, by detaining just one spy, the IRGC earns the equivalents of the $1-2 billion it was supposed to receive from the government budget.” (Hassan Abbasi, state-run website Asr Iran, 23 January 2020)
These were the sentences of the former IRGC commander Hassan Abbasi, who was responsible for the development of the Revolutionary Guards Navy and a member of the Central Council of IRGC’s Ammar base. A number of government media, including the Asr Iran website, cited Hassan Abbasi’s remarks on the manner in which the Iranian Revolutionary Guards were held hostage to earning money on 23 January 2020. A terrorist approach by the IRGC to threaten, blackmail and extort Western countries under the policy of appeasement of Western countries to advance the policy of exporting terrorism by the mullah’s regime.
But is this confession confined to Abbasi alone?
“… The other thing is that the Americans have to know that there is no military action against Iran. If the Americans want to have a bad eye on Iran, think of a military attack, be sure that we capture the first thousand Americans at the first week, and at that time to set them free they must pay billions of dollars, and of course, many of our economic problems may still be solved, so we recommend getting the idea out of the way. (Sabzali (Mohsen) Rezaei, former chief of the Revolutionary Guards, Iran’s state television, 13 July 2015)
The famous terrorist, Anis Nakash, one of the Lebanese mercenaries of the mullahs ‘regime and close associates of Mohsen Rezaee and Mohsen Rafiqdoust, who had spent ten years in French prisons for murder and assassination, also revealed a portion of the Revolutionary Guards’ ransom policy with the use of hostage tacking and said:
“… I was in the French prison and they were operating in Beirut. Four French hostages were taken in Lebanon … One day someone from the French Foreign Minister office came to me … I said what do you want!? He said I don’t know right now that our hostages are alive or dead … I said yes, but with some conditions … The first clause is that these one million dollars must go back to Iran. Said OK, and said what next? I said expel Massoud Rajavi from France … “. (Iran State Television, Ofogh Network, Jahan-e-Ara Program, 11 February 2017)
This mercenary in this regime television program points out that as far as terrorism and hostage-taking are concerned, why should we go for negotiation and diplomacy and said:
“… I know how the situation in Lebanon is. These are taken hostage, and you cannot negotiate unless you are taken hostage immediately too. You can’t go into a negotiation with lying and negotiate for God’s sake…” (The same source)
On the issue of British hostage-taking in Iraq and their transfer to Iran, the British newspaper The Guardian wrote:
“An investigation by Guardian Films found that the al-Quds force, a special unit of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard responsible for covert foreign operations, was behind the seizure of the five Britons from the Iraqi finance ministry in May 2007. The captives were taken across the border into Iran on the first day and spent some of their captivity there, while an Iranian-backed Shia group in Iraq, Asaib Ahl al-Haq (the Righteous League), claimed responsibility for the abduction.
“Today Sharq al-Awsat, a London-based Arabic newspaper, quoted an anonymous source it described as a former Righteous League member as confirming the British hostages were taken into Iran soon after being seized.
“Iran was the only place where Peter Moore could be kept because Iran is a safe haven for most of the leaders of the Righteous League,” the source told the newspaper. “Iran is the country that benefited most from the kidnapping as it always likes to keep a card in its hand to apply pressure.”
And on the story of the mullahs’ hostage-taking of three American climbers, this newspaper in an article entitled: “Hostage-taking in Iran: the pawns in a battle against US imperialism” wrote:
“Hostage-taking serves a dual purpose for Iran. First, it demonstrates to Tehran’s foreign enemies that it has a means of striking against them as long as there are western nationals in its near vicinity. Secondly, it carries domestic propaganda value, drawing the population’s attention to the external threats the country faces, presenting the state as a defender of the nation against such threats, and smearing internal opposition as the product of foreign subterfuge.”