On Monday, word filtered out of Tehran that Iran had finally convicted and sentenced Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian on spurious charges of espionage. The mockery of justice that constituted Rezaian’s trial ended two months ago, but the Islamist regime has been playing its cards close to its chest about the case. Though the Iranians are treating this affair as if it is a matter of routine criminal justice, it is anything but. Rezaian, who was convicted on unspecified charges that are believed to be related to his reporting on Iran’s nuclear program and its efforts to evade international sanctions, is nothing more than a hostage. So are the other three Americans who are being held in Iran; Pastor Saeed Abidini, ex-Marine Amir Hekmati, and CIA contractor Robert Levinson. The reason these Iran hostages are still in the hell of Tehran’s prison system can be explained by one person: President Obama, the man who decided to leave them behind and who will now presumably pay for the release of Rezaian and perhaps the others with even more concessions.

The quartet, of which Rezaian is the most well known, are bargaining chips that Iran refused to give up even in the toughest moments of the negotiations over the nuclear deal it signed with the West. Since President Obama made a conscious decision not to demand the release of the Americans in exchange for the concessions he made to Tehran, they all remain in jail even as Iran prepares to celebrate the vast wealth from frozen assets that will fall into its hands as a result of the pact. With that money now all but theirs, and even more soon to be had from the end of sanctions, Iran is confidently beginning to violate the nuclear pact. But by confirming Rezaian’s conviction on trumped-up charges, they are about to begin a new set of negotiations. If the past is any guide, if one or more of the Americans are released, it will only be at a price that most Americans would consider unacceptable: the release of Iranians held in U.S. prisons on lawful charges, as well as unknown concessions that might strengthen Iran’s quest for regional hegemony in the Middle East.

The most important point that must be understood about this sordid tale is that throughout the nuclear talks, Obama held the stronger hand than Iran. With Western sanctions crippling the Iranian economy and Congress prepared to enact even stricter restrictions that would amount to an embargo on the rogue regime, the president was in position to make demands on Iran that would have forced it to give up its nuclear program as he had promised he would do when campaigning for re-election in 2012. Just as important, he could have, as a precondition for embarking on the secret talks that began in 2013 to insist that Rezaian and the other Americans be released before he began a process that would bring such benefits to the Iranians.

But Obama was as reluctant to insist on the freeing of the American hostages, as he was to demand that Iran give up its nuclear program. Whereas in the past some American presidents — notably Ronald Reagan — made some unwise decisions motivated by a desire to free Americans held by Iran and its allies, Obama would not be deterred from his main goal by that issue or anything else. Everything on the American agenda with regard to Iran, be it the hostages, their role as the world’s leading state sponsor of terror or its production of ballistic missiles that threaten the United States and the West, was tossed aside in the reckless pursuit of a deal at virtually any price.

The result was a weak nuclear deal that virtually guaranteed that Iran would get a bomb sooner or later, whether by cheating on easily evaded restrictions or by patiently waiting for the agreement to expire. But it also granted Iran everything it wanted — a viable nuclear program on a path to a bomb and the end of sanctions — without having to give up the hostages or its nuclear assets. Obama discarded all of his leverage to get what he wanted. For the president, the goal wasn’t an Iran that could no longer threaten American allies in the Middle East or even the West itself, but a chance for détente with the Islamists that he had sought since his first day in office.

That now leaves Iran free to start a new hostage negotiation secure in the knowledge that the U.S. won’t risk the nuclear deal over its captured citizens. That could mean a ransom for them that might involve more than just those Iranians rightly held for their role in evading sanctions. Given Obama’s track record on Iran, it’s possible to imagine the regime getting just about anything from the president, so long as, in the end, he can hold a White House photo op where he can play the hero with one or more of the grateful hostages and their families.

We pray that all four are soon released. But the price that the president is likely to pay for them ought to concern all Americans. More to the point, the fact that all four are still in Iranian hands even though the U.S. had the ability to demand their freedom for the past two years is a scandal. And if the deal for Rezaian that Iran is hinting that it will strike with the U.S. goes through without all four coming home, that should prompt an outcry that should shake even this arrogant president. Though he may claim to care about them, the president has demonstrated that he cares more about the mythical détente with Iran that he has sought. The suffering of these four men is on his conscience. So, too, will be the consequences of the concessions that he will now make in the coming ransom negotiations with his friends in Tehran.