• Commentary
  • Research
  • Experts
  • Events
Carnegie China logoCarnegie lettermark logo
{
  "authors": [
    "Karim Sadjadpour"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "menaTransitions",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "MEP",
  "programs": [
    "Middle East"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "Middle East",
    "Iran"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Political Reform",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

Why Iran Freed Roxana Saberi

There are now many voices in Washington arguing that engaging Tehran’s leadership is an exercise in futility. The Obama administration should understand that this is precisely the conclusion Roxana Saberi's jailers would like it to draw.

Link Copied
By Karim Sadjadpour
Published on May 11, 2009

Source: New York Times

Why Iran Freed Roxana Saberi Everyone who knows Roxana Saberi was shocked to learn of her arrest last January. Of all my journalist friends in Iran, her reporting was always the most cautious. As a friend in Tehran put it, “if you had asked me to list 1,000 people the regime would potentially target, Roxana wouldn’t have been among them.” Several Iranian officials I spoke to conceded that the charges against her — espionage — were completely baseless.

So why did the Iranian authorities imprison her? Didn’t they realize that would damage Iran’s international reputation and increase its political and economic isolation? Didn’t they understand that by imprisoning an American citizen they would diminish the prospects of a diplomatic breakthrough with the United States? The answer is yes, and that is precisely what they’re hoping to achieve.

Going back to the 1979 hostage crisis, hard-line factions in Tehran have a history of provoking international incidents to advance their domestic political agendas. Figures like Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, a powerful supporter of President Ahmadinejad, argue that enmity toward the United States was a fundamental pillar of the 1979 revolution and central to the identity of the Islamic Republic: “If pro-American tendencies come to power in Iran we have to say goodbye to everything. After all, anti-Americanism is among the main features of our Islamic state.”

But while they cloak their hostility toward the United States with appeals to ideological purity, these actors — including powerful, aging clergymen and nouveau riche Revolutionary Guardsmen — are usually driven by power and greed. They recognize that improved ties with Washington would lead to greater openness, which would undermine the political and economic monopolies they enjoy in isolation.

Iran’s hard-liners may have calculated that after four months, the costs of holding on to Roxana Saberi outweighed any continued benefits. After all, there are now many voices in Washington arguing that engaging Tehran’s leadership is an exercise in futility. The Obama administration should understand that this is precisely the conclusion her jailers would like us to draw.

About the Author

Karim Sadjadpour

Senior Fellow, Middle East Program

Karim Sadjadpour is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where he focuses on Iran and U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East.

    Recent Work

  • Q&A
    What’s Keeping the Iranian Regime in Power—for Now

      Aaron David Miller, Karim Sadjadpour, Robin Wright

  • Q&A
    How Washington and Tehran Are Assessing Their Next Steps

      Aaron David Miller, David Petraeus, Karim Sadjadpour

Karim Sadjadpour
Senior Fellow, Middle East Program
Karim Sadjadpour
Political ReformForeign PolicyNorth AmericaUnited StatesMiddle EastIran

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie China

  • Commentary
    Malaysia’s Year as ASEAN Chair: Managing Disorder

    Malaysia’s chairmanship sought to fend off short-term challenges while laying the groundwork for minimizing ASEAN’s longer-term exposure to external stresses.

      Elina Noor

  • Commentary
    When It Comes to Superpower Geopolitics, Malaysia Is Staunchly Nonpartisan

    For Malaysia, the conjunction that works is “and” not “or” when it comes to the United States and China.

      Elina Noor

  • Commentary
    Neither Comrade nor Ally: Decoding Vietnam’s First Army Drill with China

    In July 2025, Vietnam and China held their first joint army drill, a modest but symbolic move reflecting Hanoi’s strategic hedging amid U.S.–China rivalry.

      • Nguyen-khac-giang

      Nguyễn Khắc Giang

  • Commentary
    Today’s Rare Earths Conflict Echoes the 1973 Oil Crisis — But It’s Not the Same

    Regulation, not embargo, allows Beijing to shape how other countries and firms adapt to its terms.

      Alvin Camba

  • Commentary
    China’s Mediation Offer in the Thailand-Cambodia Border Dispute Sheds Light on Beijing’s Security Role in Southeast Asia

    The Thai-Cambodian conflict highlights the limits to China's peacemaker ambition and the significance of this role on Southeast Asia’s balance of power.

      Pongphisoot (Paul) Busbarat

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie China
Carnegie China logo, white
  • Research
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie China
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.