Britain preparing to transfer 400 million pounds to Iran - Telegraph newspaper

[webfact]

Britain preparing to transfer 400 million pounds to Iran - Telegraph newspaper

 

Iranian-British aid worker Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is seen in an undated photograph handed out by her family. Ratcliffe Family Handout via REUTERS

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain is preparing to transfer over 400 million pounds to Iran as it seeks the release of a jailed Iranian-British aid worker, The Telegraph newspaper reported, citing unidentified British sources.

 

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, a project manager with the Thomson Reuters Foundation, was sentenced to five years after being convicted by an Iranian court of plotting to overthrow the clerical establishment. She denies the charges.

 

Britain has sought legal advice over whether it could transfer the funds which it owes as a result of a disputed arms deal in the 1970s. Diplomats told the newspaper that any payment should not be linked to the fate of Zaghari-Ratcliffe.

 

The Thomson Reuters Foundation is a charity organisation that is independent of Thomson Reuters. It operates independently of Reuters News.

 

A spokesman for Britain's Foreign Office could not be reached for comment out of normal business hours.

 

(Reporting by Guy Faulconbridge; editing by Kate Holton)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-11-16

[Basil B]

Just send in the SAS.

 

Problem being if she is released they will just find more innocent victims to hold as hostages for ransom.

[anon789561]

so if i am set up out here by some corrupt bib or army on false charges and am sent down for a few years they are gonna pay the thais a couple of hundred million to get me out? sweet, good to know

[champers]

Call it humanitarian aid post earthquake. An expensive gaffe by Blundering Boris.

[gamini]

This headline seems deliberately misleading. The money is owed to Iran from an arms deal. Not from public funds.

[jaiyen]

Surely they will spend the money on their nuclear programme that is in the news at the moment. America wants to stop it and the dumb British government want to give them money to help make it happen.  Unbelievable !!

[ExpatOilWorker]

How can UK owe money to Iran over a disputed arms deal?

Did Iran sell weapon to the UK?

[phantomfiddler]

What a joke. The biggest bunch of ratbags on the planet, and in my opinion more of a threat than North Korea  Brits should be barred from going to this ****hole of a country !

[sanuk711]

5 hours ago, Basil B said:

Just send in the SAS.

I think they tried that (or the American equivalent of the SAS) nearly 40 years ago and they got soundly beaten then...

If you are going to make a deal with them---we will sell you these arms (and of course all the spares you need to keep them working)

Then the Poodle's  master says dont send them the  spare parts--and of course you obey your master.

You have broken the contract....sold them a product with no spare parts to keep working...You need to pay them....

After all your master paid them....3 plane loads of fresh Dollar bills sent from Obama with love.......so Americas Poodle should pay them also.

[sanemax]

42 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

How can UK owe money to Iran over a disputed arms deal?

Did Iran sell weapon to the UK?

No, Iran paid the UK 450 Million quid to buy some Cheifton tanks in the 1970s , then came the Iranian revolution and an arms embargo and the UK could not deliver the tanks .

  The UK didnt not either deliver the tanks or return the money , so, the UK should either deliver those tanks or return the money

 

[sanuk711]

51 minutes ago, jaiyen said:

America wants to stop it and the dumb British government want to give them money to help make it happen.  Unbelievable !!

The unbelievable part is that you do not seem to remember sending Plane loads of money over to them just a short while ago.....

No not the 400 million the mad UK is thinking about --not twice that amount....not 3 or 4 times that amount......500% more...

Fact-check: "Handel claims Obama flew $2 billion to Iran, admitted it is being used to fund terrorism"--As part of that exchange, an unmarked cargo plane delivered the money after American officials were certain that three Americans held in Iran were on their way home.

.

But hey its about 11 months ago---lets forget about that and talk about those mad Brits

[Basil B]

Just now, sanuk711 said:

I think they tried that (or the American equivalent of the SAS) nearly 40 years ago and they got soundly beaten then...

If you are going to make a deal with them---we will sell you these arms (and of course all the spares you need to keep them working)

Then the Poodle's  master says dont send them the  spare parts--and of course you obey your master.

You have broken the contract....sold them a product with no spare parts to keep working...You need to pay them....

After all your master paid them....3 plane loads of fresh Dollar bills sent from Obama with love.......so Americas Poodle should pay them also.

I was thinking the British SAS...

 

There are enough  Ex SAS in Pattaya to form a mercenary brigade 

[sanuk711]

1 minute ago, Basil B said:

There are enough  Ex SAS in Pattaya to form a mercenary brigade

I did forget about our sleeping forces in the bars......Basil B....yes ring the bell....that will round them up...........

[Basil B]

3 minutes ago, sanuk711 said:

I did forget about our sleeping forces in the bars......Basil B....yes ring the bell....that will round them up...........

Yes, the Iranians will soon surrender when they nuke them with a few WMD fart bombs... 

[david555]

Lucky for  the woman that Boris his position is worth that much..........say no more....?

[Proboscis]

7 hours ago, Basil B said:

Just send in the SAS.

 

Problem being if she is released they will just find more innocent victims to hold as hostages for ransom.

Sending in the SAS would just sacrifice a squad of your best trained men. Not clever. Remember that Iran trains Hezbollah and operates in Syria and Iraq and are very effective and would be on their home turf.

 

The problem here is not the Iranian state but an organization that is, in a sense, a parallel state, called the Revolutionary Guards. They control state owned enterprises and have an abundance of wealth at their disposal. They also control their own version of the military and police and cannot be dislodged. They answer to no one but the Supreme Leader and even he has by now realised that he does not rule without them. The president rules despite them and constantly looking over his shoulder.

 

It is they who control the prison where Mrs Ratcliffe is held. They were most likely the ones who took her prisoner, who masterminded the whole thing for their own ends. They will probably cloak the affair in a quasi-religious way and it is easy to claim that anyone from the West is a spy - I mean, prove that you are not a spy. You work in an office, well that could be a CIA cover. You work as a coal miner - oh, you work underground, that must mean that you really work on nuclear stuff and you are trying to steal Iran's nuclear secrets.

 

Despite all of this, I would say that the West should pay the Iranian state what is owed them so that this can no longer be used as some future bargaining chip. And that money should go to the funds controlled by the president, not the guard. But the pressure should be increased on the targetted sanctions - no one can trade with any Revolutionary Guard owned or managed outfit or a member of their organization. No movement of money for them either. Meanwhile continue to trade with bone fide elements in Iran. Not a perfect solution and one that has to be continuously monitored but hey we dont live in a perfect world.

 

[dunroaming]

7 hours ago, Happy enough said:

so if i am set up out here by some corrupt bib or army on false charges and am sent down for a few years they are gonna pay the thais a couple of hundred million to get me out? sweet, good to know

The money has been argued about for years and to be honest Britain did renege on the deal.  Still it does show how desperate Johnson is to get a result and not lose his job.

[Srikcir]

9 hours ago, Proboscis said:

that money should go to the funds controlled by the president, not the guard

Would only be symbolic as Supreme Leader (sic) of Iran, Ali Khamenei, controls both. 

[ExpatOilWorker]

11 hours ago, sanemax said:

No, Iran paid the UK 450 Million quid to buy some Cheifton tanks in the 1970s , then came the Iranian revolution and an arms embargo and the UK could not deliver the tanks .

  The UK didnt not either deliver the tanks or return the money , so, the UK should either deliver those tanks or return the money

 

Those pesky Brits want their cake and eat it also?

Iran should have the right to seize UK assets to recover their loss.

 

On top of that the UK made Libya pay $1.5 billion for the Lockerbie bombing. Something smell fishy here.

Edited November 17, 2017 by ExpatOilWorker

[sanemax]

Just now, ExpatOilWorker said:

Those pesky Brits want their cake and eat it also?

Iran should have the right to seize UK assets to recover their loss.

Its a difficult one , Iran signed the contract , but arms embargoes mean the UK can not deliver .

Although, the UK should sell the tanks to Israel and give Iran the money back

[Srikcir]

38 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Although, the UK should sell the tanks to Israel and give Iran the money back

... in Shekels!

[sanemax]

3 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

... in Shekels!

US $ . 

[sanuk711]

44 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Its a difficult one , Iran signed the contract , but arms embargoes mean the UK can not deliver .

 

sanemax--

1/ The arms embargo was started by the USA

2/ The USA have given them all their money back in cash

3/ The UK cant give them their money back because there's an arms embargo

.

Am I missing something here........Signed confused farang.........

.

Following the Iranian Revolution of 1979, the United States imposed economic sanctions ... Imposed an arms embargo and expanded the freeze on Iranian assets. --Wikipedia

[zydeco]

okay, go ahead and settle it. Send Iran some old tanks made in the 70s. Fair deal.

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed along with replies, also one violating Fair Use Policy.  

[sanuk711]

16 minutes ago, sanemax said:

This is about the U.K. and Iran

Honestly sanemax ,, do you really think that the UK imposed an arms embargo all by itself ?

I did give you the link-- The USA imposed an arms embargo on Iran-then went to the UN and asked the world to follow. The EU did follow.

 

"In December 2006 the UNSC imposed a partial embargo on the export of technology related to nuclear weapon delivery systems to Iran, which includes certain technologies which can be used in conventional military applications. In March 2007 the UNSC added an embargo on arms exports from Iran. This was followed in June 2010 by a UN embargo on the export of most major conventional weapons to Iran. These UN restrictions on arms supplies to Iran remain in place. They were amended in October 2015 allowing supplies of major arms and related components and services with the specific approval from the Security Council."

Last year--The USA  (Obama) then broke the embargo SECRETLY to pay Iran back for the Arms deal it had in place that didn't honer.

.

Where does that leave the UK..or any of America's allies ??

 

"The Obama administration has maintained that the $400 million was the first part of $1.7 billion sum it had agreed to pay Iran to resolve a failed decades-old arms deal made with the government"

http://fortune.com/2016/09/07/us-iran-billion-hostages-arms-deal/

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.  

[sanuk711]

13 minutes ago, sanemax said:

This is between the UK and Iran .

Nothing to do with the USA

Britain did not --repeat did not impose unilateral sanctions on Iran --but with the EU it followed -the UNSC proposal sponsored by the USA to impose sanctions and not send tanks that had been paid for.

 

But I wont cloud the issue with facts sanemax......so lets just.

 

You Win…......

 

 

 

[sanemax]

32 minutes ago, sanuk711 said:

Honestly sanemax ,, do you really think that the UK imposed an arms embargo all by itself ?

I did give you the link-- The USA imposed an arms embargo on Iran-then went to the UN and asked the world to follow. The EU did follow.

 

"In December 2006 the UNSC imposed a partial embargo on the export of technology related to nuclear weapon delivery systems to Iran, which includes certain technologies which can be used in conventional military applications. In March 2007 the UNSC added an embargo on arms exports from Iran. This was followed in June 2010 by a UN embargo on the export of most major conventional weapons to Iran. These UN restrictions on arms supplies to Iran remain in place. They were amended in October 2015 allowing supplies of major arms and related components and services with the specific approval from the Security Council."

 

 

Last year--The USA  (Obama) then broke the embargo SECRETLY to pay Iran back for the Arms deal it had in place that didn't honer.

.

Where does that leave the UK..or any of America's allies ??

 

"The Obama administration has maintained that the $400 million was the first part of $1.7 billion sum it had agreed to pay Iran to resolve a failed decades-old arms deal made with the government"

http://fortune.com/2016/09/07/us-iran-billion-hostages-arms-deal/

That money that Obama gave to Iran was in relation to USA/Iranian issue , it was in relation to an arms deal between the USA and Iran , I believe that Iran bought some U.S warplanes and didnt deliver them .

    The issue between the UK and Iran, which this thread is about , is a completely different matter and the payment the USA made to Iran did not cover the money that the UK owes Iran .

   Iran paid for some UK tanks and the UK didnt deliver those tanks and Iran wants it money back

Iran has taken legal action and they sided with Iran , stating that the UK should pay the money back to Iran

[sanemax]

8 minutes ago, sanuk711 said:

Britain did not --repeat did not impose unilateral sanctions on Iran --but with the EU it followed -the UNSC proposal sponsored by the USA to impose sanctions and not send tanks that had been paid for.

 

But I wont cloud the issue with facts sanemax......so lets just.

 

I did not mean that the USA didnt impose any sanctions or that the UK were the only ones to impose sanctions on Iran .

    What I meant was that this particular story is between the UK and Iran .

The money that the UK owes Iran for tanks , is a matter between the UK and Iran

The USA also had a similar situation with Iran, where Iran paid for some warplanes, that the USA didnt deliver

   The UK /Iran tank situation is unrelated to the USA/Iran warplane situation .