The Hill: White House: $1.7B Iran payment not 'ransom'
The White House is denying that the $1.7 billion sent to Iran to settle an outstanding claim this weekend was in any way tied to the release of five American prisoners.
GOP critics of the payment are “wrong” to indicate that the payment amounts to "ransom," White House press secretary Josh Earnest said on Tuesday, following a whirlwind weekend that saw a number of milestone developments in the Obama administration’s engagement with Iran.
In addition to the implementation of the international nuclear accord and a prisoner swap to secure the release of five Americans, the Obama administration also sent Iran $1.7 billion that it had been owed for decades.
Roughly $400 million had been sitting in “an escrow account” since the Iranian revolution in 1979, Earnest said on Tuesday.
On Sunday, the U.S. paid that money back, as well as $1.3 billion in interest.
Read more ....
Update: White House defends $1.7B payment to Iran, denies it was ‘ransom’ for prisoners (Washington Times)
WNU Editor: The White House can deny all that they want that this $1.7 billion has nothing to do with the release of five American prisoners .... but the optics and the timing says otherwise.
12 comments:
When Reagan released the Iranian assets in accordance with the Algiers Accords, even the pro-Democrat, ( at the time) WaPo didn't call it ransom.
Now of course, reading , watching or listening to the US MSM, is a lesson in propaganda, hype, delusion and false outrage. Stirring up fear and anger sells.
Faux News has become the model.
http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5
Sometimes, even the MSM can't stave off reality intruding:
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2016/01/the-washpost-is-trying-to-escape-usg-censorship.html#comments
I believe that under law and if we wanted to normalize relation we had to release the 1.7 BN
That said I believe that Iran detained Jason Rezaian and Mathew Trev ... as leverage.
Obama did not get the FBI agent back; Obama is a pathetic and weak failure of a man.
The Christian pastor should never have been arrested. But then Jay says the Iranians are so tolerant
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saeed_Abedini
As an Iranian American, he knew he was breaking the law in Iran.
In Saudi Arabia , ( Anzino's BFF's), his conversion to Christianity alone would have seen his swift execution.
Just as I have no sympathy for tourist drug smugglers or spoiled American delinquents in Singapore,
If you go to Iran, you play by Iran's rules.
In Saudi Arabia, about 100 people a year are beheaded for apostasty, and thousands are jailed and tortured until they convert to Whabbism.
"Stirring up fear and anger sells." Actually the opposite seems to be true. If the true nature of the threat posed to the US by Iran, ISIS, and others were exposed by the media, the US economy and possibly the rconomy of much of the world would likely collapse as paralysis from fear would take over. Hence the threat posed by Iran and other American enemies must constantly be understated.
The payment of the 1.7 billion is/would be neccessary to get the hostages released and to normalize relations with Iran. Team Obama could simply say so. There would be little cost and there would be huge upside potential at least in the mid term.
At some point, team Obama might be expected to deliver on normalizing such relations. Since there seems to be no mechanisms in place to ensure Iranian compliance, it seems US officials are rushing into this thing with arms opened and eyes closed. Given that Mr. Obama and many of his associates have deep roots in Anti-Americanism, it seems no surprise that they implicitly trust America's historical enemies and fail to act decisively when dealing with current threats to America or its interests.
You know that the US has over 1,361,000 active duty Military and Iran has 550,000
That the USN has 430 ships, ( not including boats) and Iran has 73
That US Air combat aircraft number 5,032, Iran has 278.
The US spent over $598.9 billion on the US Military in 2015, not including the Nuclear Arsenal, combat deployments overseas, or Military aid, and Iran spent in 2015 $10.2 billion, which includes deployments in Iraq and Syria, aid to Iraq and Hezboallah.
That the US has 1,900 active nuclear weapons, 2,700 in reserve and Iran has 0.
That the US has 978,871 missiles with the range to hit targets in Iran, and Iran has 0 missiles that can hit targets in the US.
Iran would probably not use a direct military invasion against the United States in the traditional sense. Most likely they would use operatives already in the United States to launch non conventiknal attacks using dirty bombs or perhaps suitcase nuclear weapons, if they could obtain them which they probably could. Also, the Iranians are likely to have Russian and Chinese assistance which would mitigate any advantages the US may have in tbis area. Also, the US military is worn down from continuing operations, training is not what it needs to be, morale is poor, and leadership is questionable. As such, more military personnel is not better. Furthermore the network of support Iran has it disposal is extremely formidable.
More shios will not neccesssarily be better. You are probably aware of the drill the US Navy conducted several years ago. One team served as the "blue team." The other team served as the "red team." The blue team simulated the US Navy with it's ships and tactics. The red team simulated the Iranians along with their use of small fast speed boats and swarming tactics. While the blue team won the simulation it was VERY costly with significant losses to the blue team. Given the nature of the current US government and prior history, I think it highly likely the US Navy overestimated it's own capability while underestimating that of the Iranians.
As you are likely well aware of, a US military vessel was recently captured by the Iranians and the crew detained. This would seem to validate that Iranian tactics are very effective. Furthermore any success on the part of the Iranians is only likely to further energize their supporters. Essentially a naval victory is by no means guaranteed.
Additionally Iran has demonstrated the ability to sink a simulated US aircraft carrier. When confronted with this, the US Admiral in charge of Middle Eastern operations fippantly dismissed this. Even if the US is/was unable to counter this a better response would have been something to the effect "we are well aware of Iranian capabilities and have taken the appropiate counter measures." At least this would indicate a serious mand might inspire some confidence. Not only tjis but top officials up to and including POTUS failed to discipline this man. Examples of bad keadership all the way around. I'm pretty sure American "allies" are not inspired while Iran and it's allies get a huge boost from yhis.
More planes will not neccesarily be better. Also, the Russian backex Iranian air defense system is vdry formidable and its questiknable as to whetherthe USAF or it's "allies" could oenetrate it. Furthermore this service branch faces the same challenges with regards to leadership, traing, working equipment, and morale the other military branches have. Essentially victory is by no means guaranteed and, at best for America even if victory could be achieved, it would be VERY costly and any success by the Iranians energizes tbeir supporters making an American victory still more problematic.
The gross dollar amount spent on the military is not neccessarily the deciding factor. If merely spending money were all it took, world poverty woukd lijely have been eliminated long ago. Furthermore Iran seems to have a much more reliable network of allies available to it tgan America does. This combined with superior human intellegence services, infiltration of the US government, US media, combined with non conventiknal options limely available to Iran makes it very formidable meaning an American victory while it coukd happen is by no means assured.
The nuclear arsenal may well be the only area where it could be said with some degree if probability the US definitely has an advantage. With that said, if even one of these weapons were used against Iran, Russia would likely respond in kind with extreme action and the US would likely lose most any support it has for pretty much anything it may have with most anyone around the world. This would likely be a most pyric victory for the US. As such, given the extreme costs to America that this option would entail, it seems highly unlikely US Leadership would ever consider it. In any event, I'm pretty sure with the possible exception of propaganda purposes the Iranians spe b d little to no time worrying about this as they are lijely awzre of the extreme costs to America this would entail.
Furthermore tge arsenal is likely subject to cyber attack by tbe Russians, Chinese, or both as they seem to be beyond America in tbese areas. Iran is likely aware of this and can act with some degree of confidence. While the nuclear option, is limely the most likely path to "victory" for America, the extreme costs associated with tnis would be pyric. Hence the term "victory" is used.
Now if this could be made pyric for Iran, they may not consider an attack. This seems to be the reason for the nuclear arsenal.
Furthermore we have no certainty tgat Iran does not have nuclear weapons. Some commentators have alluded to this. It seems Iran gave up far more than it needed to in negotiatikns which could kend credence to this, in any event, it seems mikitary planners would be unwise to blythly assume Iran is not nuclear armed.
As for the number of missles, Iran's air defense system is very formidable. Few of tbose missles are linely to reach tbeir targets hence the large number to try and have a fighting chance to overwhelm the system. In any event, the attacks on the American mainland by Iranian agents or other groups backed by them are limely to do as much damage or more tgan the US missles would. As such, an advantage here is by no means assured.
Finally and very respecrfully most Americans are aware of the raw numbers you mention. Also, it's understood by many that more, while generally hellful, is not beccessarily better. It seems as though the nedia hin concert with a number of US officials for a combination of ideological and economic reasons has grossly understated the Iranian threat.
I apologize for the many misspellings here.
Yeah Jay, we are only ever going to fight one enemy at a time and not a coalition.
Japan, Italy & Germany were a coalition.
When discussing budgets one needs to look at economic parity. No doubt Iran pays their soldiers less per day than the U.S.
The payment is Iranian money and assets, plus interest , that was in the US and illegally seized by the US Government, and it's return to it's rightful owner, was a key requirement of the 5+1 Agreement.
Returning stolen money to it's rightful owner in no way constitutes "paying a ransom".
If someone commits a crime against someone, in this case Iran committed crimes against the US, money was taken by the victim, in this case the United States, as compensation from the one who committed the crime. When the criminal changes behavior, perhaps as a part of the settlement, especially when their are conflicting claims and multiple grievences to sort out, the party can expect to get money out of the deal as part of the deal to settle all outstanding disputes. In such a case, this type of payment would be acceptable and even encouraged.
Unfortunately this situation is nothing like this. The funds were siezed by the intended victim to try and prevent the agressor, in this case Iran, from doing unspeakable harm to America. Furthermore American officials took enormous risks in taking this action as the world is typically not inclined to side with America in such situations. It was obviously felt by such officials that such an extreme action entailing such massive risks was necessary to protect America, it's citizens and it's "allies" from extreme harm.
As such, the current situation is more like a gang rape against America carried out by Iran and its supporters during the negotians. To make matters worse, US officials didn't even bother to protest much, if at all, and even seemed to enjoy being raped!! Initially I thought the very real anti-American sentiments prevelant among top officials in the Obama Administration including POTUS himself made it difficult for them to resist. While I do think this is a factor, I'm reminded of the poor Tunisian who dared resist the authorities. American officials likely knew any protests were only going to make things worse.
A UN Tribunal to settle all outstanding disputes would be good. Especially in a case like this one where the parties (America and Iran) likely have good reasons, at least in their minds, to distrust each other. If in such a case a payment of this amount or any other type resulted as part of the settlement and the relevant disputes are resolved, this would be acceptable and very likely encouraged.
Unfortunately nothing like this seems to have occurred. An intractable enemy who poses an existential threat to America is now getting a massive cash infusion, there is no change in behavior on their part, and now they are in an even stronger positikn and have taken major steps toward their goal.
Recently US sailors were drawn off course by Iranian tactics, overwhelmed by a vastly stronger force, equipnent was siezed, and those men and woman were thoroughly humiliated. Had the forces not been there perhaps this could have been avoiddd. (If I were POTUS I'd have had them deployed far from there.) Next time it may be done off the US coast. There'll be no justice for them. No one likes America. No one liked Jews in the 1930s.
While one can argue over semantics, this appears to be a ransom layment. As stated earlier, this is fine if a resolutikn of outstanding issues results. In this case, nothing is resolved, Iran js stronger, America is weaker, and the ability and the will of Iran to harm America has now grown very likely exponentially.
Post a Comment