it was irans money darlin
Perhaps you could explain something to the class?
- If it was Iran’s money anyway, why did it take 40 years to give it back to them?
- Why was it given back at the exact same time Iran gave us our hostages back?
- Why wasn’t it wired transferred like all funds would be (especially of that extreme amount)?
- Why was it sent in the middle of the night, in unmarked crates, on an unmarked aircraft?
See...if there was nothing illegal and unethical with that money...
none of that happens. None of it. The money is securely wire transferred. Placing it in unmarked crates on an unmarked air craft in the middle of the night left it open to being stolen. Or the plane hijacked. Or...what if the plane had crashed?
Its all
explained here.
Basically, its related to the hostage crisis, and a claims tribunal which dragged on for decades. In 1983, Iran had paid the US nearly a billion dollars, but the US kept that $400 million from iran.
Yeah...it’s “explained” by left-wing nitwits such as yourself. It’s called propaganda. It takes a monumental idiot to buy into it. Nobody is “returning” money from 45 years ago. And...it sure as hell doesn’t get sent in unmarked crates on an unmarked plane. AND....all of that sure as hell doesn’t happen to just coincidentally coincide with the moment hostages are released.
Just stop already. You’re embarrassing yourself. Have an ounce of self-respect, for God sakes.
Why the $400 Million Wasn’t Ransom
The deal’s defenders insist that the financial negotiations were totally separate from both the nuclear deal and the hostage talks, and were led by three separate teams. It’s impossible to verify or refute that information.
A stronger argument is that the U.S. had to make a big payment to Iran because of a 35-year-old deal for weapons that were never received. It wasn’t a matter of if, but when and how much. Washington was worried that the tribunal would impose a payment of several billion dollars, as Tehran demanded, and grabbed the opportunity to settle for the $1.7 billion as part of a overall pact at the same time Iran was benefiting from the nuclear agreement.
It’s also reasonable to ask why Iran would release hostages in exchange for $400 million, when—according to the deal’s defenders—it was bound to get at least that amount from the Hague anyway, and could keep the hostages to boot. Of course, it’s impossible to verify if Tehran was truly convinced a bigger, though later, settlement was likely. Still, it’s clear that the payout from the $400 million dispute was coming, and would happen with or without a release of hostages.
“This was not a quid pro quo for hostages,” says
Barbara Slavin, acting director of the Future of Iran Initiative at the Atlantic Council. “It was an opportunity for countries with no diplomatic relations to clear away a number of diplomatic disputes. For the U.S, it was important to get back the detained Americans, and the Iranians wanted their seven citizens out of jail.”
Slavin adds that most of the recent coverage of the U.S.-Iran dealings ignores the importance of the prisoner exchange.
According to Sick: “It was all taken care of at the same time, through separate channels. It was a good deal for U.S. taxpayers, the U.S. obeyed the law, and the payment was always going to happen anyway.”
