JQPublic1
Gold Member
- Aug 10, 2012
- 14,220
- 1,543
- 280
We could have kept the money but what message would that send to other foreign governments doing business with us?
They might think twice before investing in our national debt or storing large fortunes in our banks.
Now they can take more hostages since they know we will pay to get them back.
I tend to believe that if Iranian assets hadn't been frozen in 1979, there would have been no payment at all. That nexus is sufficient to give veracity to Obama's claim that the release of funds had been planned before the 4 US spies were disclosed in Iran. BTW I don't think we would have paid 100 million a piece for the return of spies. It is far cheaper to deny them!
The funds were frozen because they took over the US Embassy and held US hostages for almost a year. We should have kept the funds as payment for the Embassy IMO.
I think the i billion dollar Iranian owned skyscraper in Manhattan we seized is adequate compensation for the embassy. DOntcha think????
Is this the building you refer too?
"In a setback for victims of attacks linked to Iran, a federal appeals court in New York on Wednesday threw out a lower-court ruling that had upheld the government’s move to seize a landmark Manhattan building on charges that it was a front for Iran.
The court, in a separate decision, also reversed a ruling that could have allowed people with relatives killed in terrorist attacks tied to Iran to collect proceeds from the sale of the property, at 650 Fifth Avenue near Rockefeller Center."
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/business/iran-assets-terrorism-appeals-court-ruling.html
Yep....