Background: In March 1998, Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia entered judgment against the Islamic Republic of Iran, ordering it to pay $225 million to the Flatow family for its role in the 1995 terrorist attack that killed Alisa Flatow.

Flatow requested the State and Treasury Departments provide a list of frozen Iranian assets in the United States, but the Departments refused to cooperate. This represented a shift in policy as the U.S. government had initially provided critical information to help Flatow win their case against Iran. (Washington Post, 1998).

Collecting From the Iranian Embassy

Without a list of Iran’s frozen assets, Flatow attempted to satisfy the judgment from known Iranian properties the State Department had seized in 1980. The Iranian Embassy stood vacant in Washington’s Embassy Row neighborhood, and the former ambassador’s house was next door. The State Department rented out the Iranian Embassy’s military attaché’s residence, located at 3401 Garfield St. NW to a private individual.

Normally, a judgment creditor can utilize a court order called a “writ of attachment” to collect a debt from the debtor’s property. Here, two options existed: The court could either sell Iran’s diplomatic properties or direct the rental income to satisfy the judgment. Flatow filed a “writ of attachment” to seize the rental proceeds, but the Justice Department strongly opposed it, citing political and legal obstacles.

Political: First, the U.S. argued that protecting adversary nations’ diplomatic buildings in the United States safeguarded U.S. properties abroad. Second, citing Vietnam as an example, the U.S. was preparing for a return to normalized diplomatic relations with Iran.

Vietnam: In April 1975, Saigon fell to the North Vietnamese, and U.S. Treasury and State Department officials froze all the assets of the former South Vietnamese government, including bank accounts. The State Department estimated the Vietnamese government held $126 million in foreign currency reserves. In May 1975, the Vietnamese Embassy closed its doors in Washington. The AP reported:

“The future of the Embassy itself remains cloudy. When the Ambassador locked its gates for the last time, he turned over the key to the State Department, which will act as caretaker. The new Government in Saigon has requested the Algerian Government to act as the protective power over the Embassy and other Vietnamese assets. A State Department official said today that no decision had yet been made on whether the Algerians would be allowed to do this.”

The Vietnamese Embassy remained closed until 1995.

After years of international negotiations, President Clinton announced a “normalization of relations” with Vietnam in July 1995. A month later, Secretary of State Warren Christopher visited Hanoi and officially opened the U.S. Embassy. Vietnam simultaneously opened an embassy in Washington. (vn.usembassy.gov)

Citing return to diplomatic relations with Vietnam and the reopening of their embassy just three years prior, the U.S. argued that it was in its long-term diplomatic best interest to keep the Iranian Embassy under State Department control. Even diverting rental income constituted interference with State Department control of diplomatic properties.

The U.S. Embassy in Tehran

While the U.S. closed the doors of the Iranian embassy in Washington, the Iranian government converted the U.S. Embassy in Tehran into a museum. The Iranians call it the “Den of Espionage,” and it contains displays focusing on U.S. spy and espionage efforts conducted from its embassy. Question: If Tehran is not keeping international law by allowing trespass in the U.S. embassy and openly displays American diplomatic documents and other moveable property, why should the United States treat the Iranian embassy as sacred? Is the U.S. fighting “asymmetric warfare”?

One could note that Iran did not demolish the embassy. Perhaps Iran maintains the United States’ embassy as a museum, which allows for upkeep of the premises in hopes of a return to normal diplomatic relations. Leaving the American embassy empty would allow it to fall into disrepair.

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations: Aside from political reasons, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 legally safeguarded the Iranian Embassy in Washington. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations affirmed the long-standing international recognition of diplomatic agents and their protections. It emphasized the importance of maintaining peace and friendly relations, and the need for privileges and immunities—not for personal benefit, but to ensure diplomatic missions can function effectively. Several articles of the Vienna Convention protect diplomatic property.

Article 22: (1) Embassy buildings are off-limits (“inviolable”). The host country’s government (the “receiving State”) may not enter a foreign embassy or mission unless the head of that mission gives permission. (2) The host country must protect the embassy. It has a special responsibility to prevent trespassing, damage or anything that disturbs the peace or dignity of the embassy. (3) Embassy property is protected from legal actions. Everything inside the embassy—furniture, vehicles and other belongings—cannot be searched, seized, taken by force or used to pay off debts through court orders.

Article 23: (1) No taxes on embassy buildings. The country sending the diplomats (the “sending State”) and the head of the embassy do not have to pay any national, local or regional taxes on the embassy building—whether they own it or rent it.

Article 30: (1) Diplomats’ homes have the same protection as the embassy. A diplomat’s personal residence is given the same strong legal protection as the embassy itself. (2) Private items are also protected. A diplomat’s personal documents, mail and—except in limited situations—even their property cannot be searched, taken or interfered with.

Seeking Refuge in an Embassy

Because an embassy is “inviolable” under the Vienna Convention, many have attempted to find refuge in embassies.

On November 21, 1985, Jonathan Pollard and his wife attempted to gain asylum at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C., but were ordered to leave. FBI agents arrested Pollard as soon as he left the embassy. Had Pollard not left the embassy, the FBI could not have stormed in to remove him, as the 1961 Vienna Convention protected the embassy.

Julian Assange, an Australian journalist and founder of WikiLeaks, began publishing classified material in 2006. In 2010, WikiLeaks published a significant amount of classified information from the U.S. government. Facing possible extradition to the U.S., Assange took refuge in Ecuador’s London embassy in 2012 and was granted asylum. His asylum was revoked in 2019, leading to his arrest by British police. After serving time for U.K. offenses, Assange later pled guilty in the U.S. to one count under the Espionage Act. In June 2024, Assange returned to Australia.

In sum: The U.S. Justice Department asserted that the Vienna Convention on Embassy Relations established that the Iranian embassy and other diplomatic properties were untouchable. Further, it was against U.S.’s long-term diplomatic interests to sell or divert the rent from Iran’s frozen diplomatic property. Although Iran may be considered rogue today, that may not always be the case. While the State Department collected rent from diplomatic Iranian residences, and seemingly did treat them as sacrosanct under the Vienna Convention, the U.S. government refused to allow Flatow to collect from these assets. Question: Is the U.S. bound to the 1961 Vienna Convention if Iran committed a material breach by violating the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979?

Eliyahu Asher Prero, Esq., is a practicing lawyer and certified mohel. He graduated magna cum laude from Seton Hall Law with a concentration in intellectual property law and served as a clerk for the Honorable Thomas A. Sarlo, Superior Court of New Jersey, Civil Division—Bergen County. He is currently an associate at the law firm Schenck, Price, Smith & King, where he focuses on constitutional law and civil litigation. Please address all correspondence to The Jewish Link.