PDA

View Full Version : Looks like there's a revolt on in the State Department



Parihaka
20 Aug 16,, 08:21
There have been several articles about 'sources' inside the department being upset over the money vs prisoner return deal. Now they're directly contradicting President Obama officially.


WASHINGTON — (http://nypost.com/2016/08/18/state-department-400m-cash-to-iran-was-contingent-on-us-prisoners-release/) The State Department admitted Thursday that the United States handed over $400 million in cash to Iran only after Tehran released four American hostages — two weeks after President Obama insisted the payment was not a “ransom.”

State Department spokesman John Kirby was asked at a press briefing: “In basic English, you’re saying you wouldn’t give them $400 million in cash until the prisoners were released, correct?”

“That’s correct,” he replied.

In an Aug. 4 press conference, Obama said the opposite.

Red Team
20 Aug 16,, 09:05
Wasn't this payment part of a settlement made well in advance? It was my understanding that the money was to be "delayed" in the event that the prisoners weren't returned in a timely fashion.

kato
20 Aug 16,, 13:48
The 400 million were part of this settlement (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/17/politics/us-pays-iran-1-7-billion/). It's a pretty minor part of up to 150 billion nominal assets that the US has been illegally keeping from Iran since the 70s.

Of course there's elements in the state department that are cranky about it. Reza Pahlawi still has his guys everywhere.

Double Edge
20 Aug 16,, 19:47
The 400 million were part of this settlement (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/17/politics/us-pays-iran-1-7-billion/). It's a pretty minor part of up to 150 billion nominal assets that the US has been illegally keeping from Iran since the 70s.
Exactly, US froze iranian assets, they said return what is ours or we hold your people.


Of course there's elements in the state department that are cranky about it. Reza Pahlawi still has his guys everywhere.
Well, maybe the US should have helped them a little more at the time...a nudge here, a call there and we would not be in the same situation today.

Dazed
20 Aug 16,, 20:04
The 400 million were part of this settlement (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/17/politics/us-pays-iran-1-7-billion/). It's a pretty minor part of up to 150 billion nominal assets that the US has been illegally keeping from Iran since the 70s.

Of course there's elements in the state department that are cranky about it. Reza Pahlawi still has his guys everywhere.

I think it all started with the illegal seizure of the US Embassy and holding 52 American diplomats and citizens were held hostage for 444 days (November 4, 1979, to January 20, 1981). It seem to rub America the wrong way at the time.

astralis
20 Aug 16,, 20:06
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/4/12370848/ransom-iran-400-million


Moreover, the basic logic of it didn’t make any sense. Iran was going to get that money back no matter what through the arbitration process — probably more, if the Obama administration was right. Why would it release potentially valuable hostages in exchange for money it would have gotten otherwise? Iran would have to be the world’s dumbest hostage taker.

Two recent Wall Street Journal pieces, both by Solomon and Carol Lee, attempted to clarify what actually happened. The core fact uncovered by Solomon and Lee is that the US refused to deliver the first $400 million payment owed under the settlement until it was sure that Iran had upheld its end of the bargain on the prisoner deal.

"US officials wouldn't let Iranians take control of the money until a Swiss Air Force plane carrying three freed Americans departed from Tehran on Jan. 17," Solomon and Lee write. "Once that happened, an Iranian cargo plane was allowed to bring the cash home from a Geneva airport that day."

Wooglin
21 Aug 16,, 03:52
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-sent-cash-to-iran-as-americans-were-freed-1470181874


Senior U.S. officials denied any link between the payment and the prisoner exchange. They say the way the various strands came together simultaneously was coincidental, not the result of any quid pro quo.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/world/middleeast/iran-us-cash-payment-prisoners.html


The State Department conceded for the first time on Thursday that it delayed making a $400 million payment to Iran for several hours in January “to retain maximum leverage” and ensure that three American prisoners were released the same day.

For months the Obama administration had maintained that the payment was part of a settlement over an old dispute and did not amount to a “ransom” for the release of the Americans. Instead, administration officials said, it was the first installment of the $1.7 billion that the United States intends to pay Iran to reimburse it for military equipment it bought before the Iranian revolution that the United States never delivered.

But at a briefing on Thursday, John Kirby, the State Department spokesman, said the United States “took advantage of the leverage” it felt it had that weekend in mid-January to obtain the release of the hostages and “to make sure they got out safely and efficiently.”

So, more lies from this administration. There was nothing coincidental about it. It was used a "leverage" for a prisoner release, with money "Iran was going to get back anyway". Were they going to get it back anyway?

From the Vox article above...


Moreover, the basic logic of it didn’t make any sense. Iran was going to get that money back no matter what through the arbitration process — probably more, if the Obama administration was right. Why would it release potentially valuable hostages in exchange for money it would have gotten otherwise? Iran would have to be the world’s dumbest hostage taker.

Gotta love Vox logic... why would Iran release valuable hostages for money it was going to get anyway? Err.... Because they weren't going to get it back anyway??? It's not very good "leverage" if they're getting it anyway.

The fact is there was no arbitration ruling forcing us to pay Iran. The administration, after decades of no ruling on this, suddenly decided it was going to lose so decided to settle "out of court". I'm sure that was a complete coincidence too.

So yes, it was a ransom payment.

tbm3fan
21 Aug 16,, 04:29
The fact is there was no arbitration ruling forcing us to pay Iran. The administration, after decades of no ruling on this, suddenly decided it was going to lose so decided to settle "out of court". I'm sure that was a complete coincidence too.

So yes, it was a ransom payment.

...and that my friends is one man's personal opinion from the outside.

Wooglin
21 Aug 16,, 04:49
...and that my friends is one man's personal opinion from the outside.

It's called deductive reasoning. I'm sure you'd understand if the players involved had an (R) after their name.

Wooglin
21 Aug 16,, 06:50
...and that my friends is one man's personal opinion from the outside.

... and if you're doubting the fact that there was no arbitration ruling and they settled on their own try reading the links.

Red Team
21 Aug 16,, 09:28
Gotta love Vox logic... why would Iran release valuable hostages for money it was going to get anyway? Err.... Because they weren't going to get it back anyway??? It's not very good "leverage" if they're getting it anyway.

The fact is there was no arbitration ruling forcing us to pay Iran. The administration, after decades of no ruling on this, suddenly decided it was going to lose so decided to settle "out of court". I'm sure that was a complete coincidence too.

So yes, it was a ransom payment.

I don't see how Vox's logic is flawed. If the $400 million was already part of a settlement made possible by the conditions of the Iran nuclear deal, then wouldn't it make sense for Iran to ensure that it didn't do anything in bad faith to give the US cause to re-evaluate (or renege) promises on their end of the deal?

tbm3fan
21 Aug 16,, 09:50
It's called deductive reasoning. I'm sure you'd understand if the players involved had an (R) after their name.

Actually, not wanting to disappoint you, but frankly I wouldn't care one way or the other if there was a (D) or (R) after their name.

We had something that belonged to them and they had something that belonged to us. One way or the other an exchange would eventually have to be made in the classic Mexican standoff. Knock yourself dead with a conspiracy theory but it is a non-story to me either way.

Wooglin
21 Aug 16,, 19:42
Actually, not wanting to disappoint you, but frankly I wouldn't care one way or the other if there was a (D) or (R) after their name.

We had something that belonged to them and they had something that belonged to us. One way or the other an exchange would eventually have to be made in the classic Mexican standoff. Knock yourself dead with a conspiracy theory but it is a non-story to me either way.

Of course you do, which is why you can't let it go.

What conspiracy theory? LOL. First the exchange was coincidental, until it was confirmed it wasn't. The timing of the settlement was also supposedly coincidental, unless it wasn't. Anyone with a working brain cell and the ability to be intellectually honest has to admit it seems these things were not unrelated. But I know that's a tall order.

tbm3fan
21 Aug 16,, 21:55
Of course you do, which is why you can't let it go.



Whatever, reach as far as you want...

GVChamp
29 Aug 16,, 15:16
We had something that belonged to them and they had something that belonged to us. One way or the other an exchange would eventually have to be made in the classic Mexican standoff. Knock yourself dead with a conspiracy theory but it is a non-story to me either way.

Ransom payments are in a different category than exchanges, even prisoner exchanges. We don't want to encourage idiots to capture our citizens thinking they can extort money from the US.

Hopefully the idiots also realize this is a bad strategy, as eventually they'll provoke some serious bloodlust.