US says $400M to Iran was contingent on release of prisoners

[webfact]

US says $400M to Iran was contingent on release of prisoners

By BRADLEY KLAPPER

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration said Thursday that a $400 million cash payment to Iran seven months ago was contingent on the release of a group of American prisoners.

 

It is the first time the U.S. has so clearly linked the two events, which critics have painted as a hostage-ransom arrangement.

 

State Department spokesman John Kirby repeated the administration's line that the negotiations to return the Iranian money — from a military-equipment deal with the U.S.-backed shah in the 1970s — were conducted separately from the talks to free four U.S. citizens in Iran. But he said the U.S. withheld the delivery of the cash as leverage until Iran permitted the Americans to leave the country.

 

"We had concerns that Iran may renege on the prisoner release," Kirby said, citing delays and mutual mistrust between countries that severed diplomatic relations 36 years ago. As a result, he explained, the U.S. "of course sought to retain maximum leverage until after the American citizens were released. That was our top priority."

 

Both events occurred Jan. 17, fueling suspicions from Republican lawmakers and accusations from GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump of a quid pro quo that undermined America's longstanding opposition to ransom payments.

 

Kirby spoke a day after The Wall Street Journal reported new details of the crisscrossing planes on that day. U.S. officials wouldn't let Iran bring the cash home from a Geneva airport until a Swiss Air Force plane carrying three of the freed Americans departed from Tehran, the paper reported. The fourth American left on a commercial flight.

 

Earlier this month, after the revelation the U.S. delivered the money in pallets of cash, the administration flatly denied any connection between the payment and the prisoners.

 

"Reports of link between prisoner release & payment to Iran are completely false," Kirby tweeted at the time.

 

The money comes from an account used by the Iranian government to buy American military equipment in the days of the shah. The equipment was never delivered after the shah's government was overthrown in 1979 and revolutionaries took American hostages at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The two sides have wrangled over that account and numerous other financial claims ever since.

 

President Barack Obama has said his negotiators secured the U.S. a good deal on a busy diplomatic weekend that also included finalizing the seven-nation nuclear accord. But he and other officials have consistently denied any linkages.

 

"We actually had diplomatic negotiations and conversations with Iran for the first time in several decades," Obama said Aug. 5, meaning "our ability to clear accounts on a number of different issues at the same time converged."

 

"This wasn't some nefarious deal," he said.

 

The agreement was the return of the $400 million, plus an additional $1.3 billion in interest, terms that Obama described as favorable compared to what might have been expected from a tribunal set up in The Hague to rule on pending deals between the two countries. U.S. officials have said they expected an imminent ruling on the claim and settled with Tehran instead.

 

Some Iranian officials immediately linked the payment to the release of four Americans, including Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian, who had been held in Iranian prisons.

 

Another of the prisoners, pastor Saeed Abedini, also had linked the two events. He said that as the prisoners waited for hours at an airport to leave Iran, a senior Iranian intelligence official informed them their departure depended on the plane with the cash. U.S. officials had pinned the delays on difficulties finding Rezaian's wife and mother, and ensuring they could depart Iran with him.

 

House and Senate Republicans have peppered the administration for more details about the transaction.

 

"If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If a cash payment is contingent on a hostage release, it's a ransom. The truth matters and the president owes the American people an explanation," Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., said Thursday.

 

Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., the chairman of the Senate Banking national security subcommittee, said he sees congressional hearings as necessary for answering questions.

 

The House Financial Services Committee hasn't yet decided whether to hold hearings. Rep. Sean Duffy, R-Wis., who chairs the Financial Services oversight and investigations subcommittee, asked the Treasury and Justice departments and the Federal Reserve last week to provide all records related to the $400 million payment as well as the names of government officials who authorized the payment and those who objected to the cash transfer. Duffy wants responses by Aug. 24.

 

Congress returns from a lengthy recess after Labor Day.

 

-- © Associated Press 2016-08-19

___

Associated Press writer Richard Lardner contributed to this report.

[Ulysses G.]

The Obama administration gets caught in yet another lie.

 

State Dept.: Iran Cash Deal Was Contingent on Prisoner Release

 

According to the U.S. State Department, the $400 million cash payment sent to Iran’s government earlier this year was contingent upon the release of four American prisoners detained in the country.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/08/18/state-dept-iran-cash-deal-was-contingent-on-prisoner-release.html?via=desktop&source=copyurl

Edited August 18, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Somtamnication]

You are starting early, Ulysses. Forgetting the lies of the Bush administration? 

 

At the end of the day, four people have returned to their families. Glass half full, not half empty.

[Ulysses G.]

1 minute ago, Somtamnication said:

At the end of the day, four people have returned to their families. Glass half full, not half empty.

 

America claims not to pay bribes to get prisoners back. It is balderdash and now everyone know it.

[Credo]

It was hardly a ransom if the money was owed, but the agreed situation for payment was contingent upon the release.

 

I had a broken pipe on the exterior of the house which required turning the water off at the street.   I talked to the landlord who said he would get it fixed.   He didn't.   I didn't pay the rent.   He came by and I said you fix the pipe, I pay the rent.   After two weeks of suffering with no water, he had a worker over to fix it within an hour.   I then paid the rent.   That was hardly a ransom.   He agreed to fix it, I agreed to pay.   

 

It was a fair condition for the terms of payment.   

[Ulysses G.]

Just now, Credo said:

It was hardly a ransom if the money was owed, but the agreed situation for payment was contingent upon the release.

 

 

A fine example of hair splitting.

 

Actually it was not owed to Iran at all. They reneged on a contract, and were not owed the money. We had a deal with the Shaw of Iran to supply some military weapons and when the Shaw was deposed, it violated the terms of the contract.

The Ayatollahs wanted us to complete the sale. When they didn't get their way they stole weapons from our inventory and demanded that we refund the money for the entire deal to them. They got the weapons and the spare parts  to keep their planes running and the US kept the money in return. We did not owe the Iranians spit.

[jaidam]

 It is worrying how effortlessly Obama lied to the public. It was only a couple of weeks ago since he did the interview where he was laughing at how preposterous the idea of the 400m being some sort of ransom was. An absolute scrote - albeit a finely polished one.

[tw25rw]

If it was extortion, it would be ransom and the criticism justified. However this was the reverse. Iran wanted their money back and the US said that if they release the prisoners, they can have it. Not splitting hairs at all. It was Iranian money and the US was in the stronger position.

[Credo]

28 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

A fine example of hair splitting.

 

Actually it was not owed to Iran at all. They reneged on a contract, and were not owed the money. We had a deal with the Shaw of Iran to supply some military weapons and when the Shaw was deposed, it violated the terms of the contract.

The Ayatollahs wanted us to complete the sale. When they didn't get their way they stole weapons from our inventory and demanded that we refund the money for the entire deal to them. They got the weapons and the spare parts  to keep their planes running and the US kept the money in return. We did not owe the Iranians spit.

......Talk about splitting hairs.

[Ulysses G.]

16 minutes ago, Credo said:

......Talk about splitting hairs.

 

Are you a native speaker of English? 

 

They violated terms of the contract and stole a bunch of our property. We owed them nothing.

[fresnoboy]

US says $400M to Iran was contingent on release of prisoners

 

Who did not know that ?!

[Buzzz]

2 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

America claims not to pay bribes to get prisoners back. It is balderdash and now everyone know it.

 

Sad how misinformed the right wing conspiracy types are. 

 

You do know that last February, Trump bragged that "as part of 'his' deal, I would have secured the return of the American prisoners that were being held in Iran."

 

Now you know, it was Trump willing to negotiate with terrorists. 

 

 

 

 

[SOTIRIOS]

...so Trump was right again...

[ClutchClark]

"Reports of link between prisoner release & payment to Iran are completely false," Kirby tweeted at the time."

 

Read it and weep boys. Any one could see they were linked except for the gullible obama crowd here at TVF.

 

Now all of you are trying to "clarify" your position for parroting such an obvious WH lie.

 

What has happened to America when its population has either lost or chosen to give up critical thinking skills and allow any politician to write every narrative wnd talking point for them? 

 

This whole thing stunk from the beginning and the stench is getting worse.

[Ulysses G.]

1 hour ago, Buzzz said:

 

You do know that last February, Trump bragged that "as part of 'his' deal, I would have secured the return of the American prisoners that were being held in Iran.

 

 

 

I have no idea what you are on about. Why don't you post a link from a credible source to explain your accusations. I am pretty sure that it will be very different from your version.

[Buzzz]

15 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

I have no idea what you are on about. Why don't you post a link from a credible source to explain your accusations. I am pretty sure that it will be very different from your version.

 

 

 

Of course I don't expect the fact deprived, faux noise watching conspiracy types to know these things. 

Trump repeated over and over again "he would have secured the release of these prisoners as part of the Iran Nuclear Treaty. "

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ulysses G.]

That has nothing to do with paying a bribe or negotiating with terrorists - just as I expected. 

Edited August 19, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

What does any of that have to do with your false assertion that Trump was willing to negotiate with terrorists? You are deflecting again. It is more and more obvious that you just make things up.

Edited August 19, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[umbanda]

The real history is:

Iran asked to get back the money blocked from them in its banks account many years ago....with interest.

Obama responded that the US will give back the money... without interest... and if Iran released the Americans..

If that was a Trump decision..he will say that he is the best world deal maker...

[williamgeorgeallen]

paying to release hostages is like paying your thai girlfriend to be happy. 

[ClutchClark]

4 minutes ago, umbanda said:

The real history is:

Iran asked to get back the money blocked from them in its banks account many years ago....with interest.

Obama responded that the US will give back the money... without interest... and if Iran released the Americans..

If that was a Trump decision..he will say that he is the best world deal maker...

 

Quite possibly but it was not trump and it was not Trump who assured the American public with his Opie Taylor "aw shawks" playbook that the money - hostages were unrelated.

 

Obie owns this one.

[Emster23]

6 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

A fine example of hair splitting.

 

Actually it was not owed to Iran at all. They reneged on a contract, and were not owed the money. We had a deal with the Shaw of Iran to supply some military weapons and when the Shaw was deposed, it violated the terms of the contract.

The Ayatollahs wanted us to complete the sale. When they didn't get their way they stole weapons from our inventory and demanded that we refund the money for the entire deal to them. They got the weapons and the spare parts  to keep their planes running and the US kept the money in return. We did not owe the Iranians spit.

"they stole weapons from our inventory" oh really? And just how could they do that? The fact is Reagan made a deal with them before the election: parts for hostages, as long as Iran didn't release them before election. It is not coincidence they released them as Reagan was being sworn in. It wasn't fear of Reagan, it was them making sure he didn't get charged for treason before being sworn in.

BTW it is "Shah" not Shaw, who was government of Iran. Iran made payment but got nothing. Contracts 101 would tell you US should have returned the money, which we eventually did, but used leverage at no additional cost to get prisoners out this time.

[chilli42]

Reading all of this I am left wondering what the alternatives would have been:

 

1. Keep the Iranian money, pass on the nuke deal and tell the Iranian's to get stuffed (thereby weakening the US position in the ME).
2. Give the Iranians back their money as part of the nuke deal ... and tell the US hostages/prisoners to get stuffed.
3. Sign the nuke deal, give the Iranian's back their money as an act of good faith and toss in the hostages/prisoners as part of the deal.

I tend to lean toward #3 just because it seems the most practical of the three options (ie "the better deal".  Seems to me that there is never a black and white (we never this or we never that) as in all things it depends on the circumstances.

[Chicog]

10 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

America claims not to pay bribes to get prisoners back. It is balderdash and now everyone know it.

 

Actually this simply proves it was "You're not getting the money we owe you until you release our prisoners".

 

Don't see the problem.

Iran might have waved it around on Press TV and said that the Americans paid for the hostages, but it's THEIR Money.

 

 

 

Added: Now we just have to wait for the GOP to start accusing Obama of blackmail.

 

Edited August 19, 2016 by Chicog

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, Somtamnication said:

You are starting early, Ulysses. Forgetting the lies of the Bush administration? 

 

At the end of the day, four people have returned to their families. Glass half full, not half empty.

and more Americans already being held hostage. What about them?

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, chilli42 said:

Reading all of this I am left wondering what the alternatives would have been:

 

1. Keep the Iranian money, pass on the nuke deal and tell the Iranian's to get stuffed (thereby weakening the US position in the ME).
2. Give the Iranians back their money as part of the nuke deal ... and tell the US hostages/prisoners to get stuffed.
3. Sign the nuke deal, give the Iranian's back their money as an act of good faith and toss in the hostages/prisoners as part of the deal.

I tend to lean toward #3 just because it seems the most practical of the three options (ie "the better deal".  Seems to me that there is never a black and white (we never this or we never that) as in all things it depends on the circumstances.

thereby weakening the US position in the ME

 

Since Obama reneged on his threat to remove Assad if he used gas on civilians, abandoned Iraq and is doing sod all about IS, The US IS weak in the ME. I doubt they could get even weaker.

[ilostmypassword]

10 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

A fine example of hair splitting.

 

Actually it was not owed to Iran at all. They reneged on a contract, and were not owed the money. We had a deal with the Shaw of Iran to supply some military weapons and when the Shaw was deposed, it violated the terms of the contract.

The Ayatollahs wanted us to complete the sale. When they didn't get their way they stole weapons from our inventory and demanded that we refund the money for the entire deal to them. They got the weapons and the spare parts  to keep their planes running and the US kept the money in return. We did not owe the Iranians spit.

"Actually it was not owed to Iran at all." I'd love to see your source for this piece of nonsense.

[Boon Mee]

So Barry was caught out in another lie, eh?

Claimed it wasn't ransom...

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

"Actually it was not owed to Iran at all." I'd love to see your source for this piece of nonsense.

Of course he's right. When the mullahs deposed the Shah and declared war on the US by invading US territory ( the embassy ) they lost any right to the money.

Anyway, as it concerned the Shah, it was probably US money in the first place.

[NickJ]

Well....I was hoping that in the election of Trump that a Big Stick was waiting to hit rogue nations. No matter the outcome of the coming election, anticipate continuing world wide upheaval. The time to just continue to do what I have been doing for a quarter of a century living here is at hand.

Unplug the media and live.