The $400 Million to Iran Was a Ransom, With a Bonus Voxsplanation
This is what I’d call an admission:
It’s about as clear an admission as you’ll ever get. We weren’t giving them the money until we got the prisoners.
Put that together with the Iranian government’s view — “Iranian press reports have quoted senior Iranian defense officials describing the cash as a ransom payment,” reported the Wall Street Journal — and you have a ransom payment.
But at Vox, Zack Beauchamp patiently explains to you dummies about how this wasn’t a ransom payment, no way, no how. His Voxsplainer is titled The US did not pay a $400 million “ransom” to Iran. Here’s what actually happened, you idiots. OK, I added the “you idiots” part, but it was implied.
“State Department spokesman John Kirby … said the U.S. withheld the delivery of the cash as leverage until Iran permitted the Americans to leave the country,” the AP’s Klepper reports.
This information, however, doesn’t amount to evidence of a ransom. Remember, the US had already agreed to pay Iran that money as part of the settlement. The only question was timing.
What happened is that the US chose to postpone the payment it had already promised to make until it was sure Iran was upholding the prisoner release deal. Iran wasn’t getting any additional money in exchange for prisoners (it actually got prisoners in exchange for prisoners). The US government just decided it couldn’t trust Iran, necessarily, so it withheld following through on the arms deal settlement until it was sure Iran was cooperating on the prisoner deal.
See, the not-ransom payers weren’t paying a ransom to the not-kidnappers. No, sir! All that happened was, the not-ransom payers withheld delivery of the not-ransom money until the not-kidnappers gave up their un-hostages. The ransom payers simply chose to postpone delivering the not-ransom money until it could be sure that the non-kidnappers gave up the un-hostages.
It’s all so simple when it’s Voxsplained.
Ding.
Patterico (bcf524) — 8/19/2016 @ 7:28 am“If you like your $400 million, you can keep your $400 million.”
PTS (ce7fc3) — 8/19/2016 @ 7:46 amB. Obama
Snicker. The accepted etymology for “diplomacy” is that diplomatic credentials were folded — “doubled”. Another just as good is “two-faced”. Diplomats speak with forked tongue. And so does Vox.
nk (dbc370) — 8/19/2016 @ 7:51 amI guess all the folks who wanted to impeach Reagan are now howling for Obama’s head.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 8/19/2016 @ 9:12 amNext stage:
“Hey, it was only $400 Million, with an M. Not a lot of money to the federal government. We piss away a LOT more than that every single day!”
Kevin M (25bbee) — 8/19/2016 @ 9:14 amBarack doesn’t believe in using American power to extricate hostages from a psychotic regime.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 8/19/2016 @ 9:24 amBut if you’re a Christian baker in Oregon who politely declines to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, then he’ll send in the Navy Seals to force his will upon you. (LOL)
burritos are still just getting more and more expensive
happyfeet (a037ad) — 8/19/2016 @ 9:40 amMr happyfeet, enjoy those burritos while you can, because we’re all going to be eating peanut butter and jelly sandwiches once the stinkypig occupies the Oval Office.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 8/19/2016 @ 9:45 amthat’s not going to happen
Mr. Trump’s got a plan to beat that pig and save America
This is why team piggy and the propaganda sluts are so scared
happyfeet (a037ad) — 8/19/2016 @ 9:48 amThe Brazililans forgot to “square” the 10,800 they got for that less-famous swimmer.
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 8/19/2016 @ 9:54 amWhen your mom doesn’t hand over the car keys until your room gets cleaned it wasn’t an exchange because you were always obligated to do your chores.
Pinandpuller (a12946) — 8/19/2016 @ 9:54 amAn it’s her car.
Rev. Hoagie® (0f4ef6) — 8/19/2016 @ 10:18 amLooks like another State Department spokesweasel will be out of a job soon. Just because everybody knows the truth does not mean that you are allowed to tell the truth.
The snarky Dana (f6a568) — 8/19/2016 @ 10:30 amEscorts circumvent the “quid pro quo” of receiving money for sex by characterizing the payment as compensation for their “time.”
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 8/19/2016 @ 11:03 amSo does the Barack Administration denial of a quid pro quo mean that we can at least accuse them of being craiglist hookers?
The $400 million was not a ransom payment.
A ransom is when you pay money to kidnappers. or people holding prisoners and, in exchange, they release the prisoners.
This was just the opposite.
Iran released the prisoners, and in exchange they got the money. This is what I thought happened, based upon a too little noticed White House leak, and now they have confirmed it quite officially.
It was exactly the opposite of a ransom payment, because the money was only paid afterwards.
So why was the money paid to Iran?
There are two reasons, one ostensibke and legal, and the the real reason, which the White House does not ant to make clear.
The ostensible reason was to saettle a claim by Iran. The United states had sold military planes to Iran, and did not deleiver them when Khomeini took over. That meant the United states owed the money back. It was $400 million plus interest. The Iranians were claiming a higher interest rate than the U.s. had assigned to it, Secretary of State John Kerry said the advantage to the U.S. was that they got Iran to agree to interest rate the United states had set.
Of course theer was a reason during the whole 35 years the money was withheld taht this money was not returned to Iran. It was Iran’s support of terrorism and it’s whole “DSeath tp Ameriica” foreign policy. The reasons hadn’t changed.
The real reason the money was paid was to keep Iran from abandoning the nuclear agreement. The agreement called for Iran to disable a heavy water reactor in Arak. The Obama Administration was not sure Iran would actually do this. They gave Ian the money, but only after it was confirmed they had damaged the reactor.
The Administration calls this leverage. However, they threw away all their leverage.
There’s no more money Iran can claim it is owed.
Obama was criticized, when he made the original Iran deal, for not demanding that the prisoners be released first. Now he corrected his mistake, and he’s getting all criticized for it.
Sammy Finkelman (44f942) — 8/19/2016 @ 11:03 am#14
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 8/19/2016 @ 11:04 amI should have written craigslist, not craiglist.
* Of course there was a reason during the whole 37 years the money was withheld, that this money was not returned to Iran.
I don’t know why people persist in calling this a ransom payment when:
1) Obama was correcting a mistake he made last year.
2) The real reason they gave Iran the money was even worse. It was to make sure Iran did not declare the nuclear deal null and void.
To Obama’s credit he also extracted the U.S. prisoners.
Iran is lying when it says this was a ransom payment. What kind of kidnappers release the prisoners before getting a penny of the ransom? The Obama Administration is sort of hiding why they gave the money.
Sammy Finkelman (44f942) — 8/19/2016 @ 11:10 amSo we bribed them, and lost out by not bribing them too soon.
kishnevi (870883) — 8/19/2016 @ 11:10 amThat shows the administration has less intelligence than the ransom explanation.
In a way that means we are treating Iran like North Korea.
Sammy,
Didn’t you ever used to watch ‘Miami Vice’?
“Here’s the drugs, now show me the suitcase of money” is the same transaction as “Here’s the money, now show me the drugs.”
Iran wouldn’t even trade the hostages for NUKES!
They were holding out for money, delivered the way El Chiapo does his business — cash on a pallet in an airport hangar under cover of darkness.
That’s not how the world’s superpower conducts legitimate money transfers via international diplomacy.
Next thing we know, you’re going to be characterizing the hostages as having been long-term guests of the Islamic Republic of Iran. (LOL)
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 8/19/2016 @ 11:13 amI don’t understand something. Even if the money weren’t a ransom, how was the prisoner exchange (plus lifting the Interpol notices on about 15 notorious wanted Iranians, including the AMIA bombers) not a ransom payment? It’s not as if we exchanged spies for spies or criminals for criminals. We released (or agreed not to capture) seriously dangerous people in return for their release of innocent people they’d kidnapped. How’s that different from releasing the Blind Sheikh in return for hostages, which successive US governments have said they would never do.
Milhouse (5a188d) — 8/19/2016 @ 11:17 amIt’s all so simple when it’s Voxsplained.
And so simply Reaganesque.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 8/19/2016 @ 11:31 amOliver North and John Poindexter probably want to go back in time so they can be a fly on the wall of Barack’s apartment circa 1987 when Iran-Contra was a favorite topic of sanctimonious left wingers. (LOL)
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 8/19/2016 @ 11:32 am22. Obama probably mostly kept his opinions to himself, and was noncommittal. Maybe cautioned people about being too vehemently against Reagan.
Sammy Finkelman (44f942) — 8/19/2016 @ 11:39 am#23 Sammy,
Yeah, right. Did you ever read his autobiography that Bill Ayers wrote for him?
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 8/19/2016 @ 11:44 amMr Supporter wrote:
Are you kidding? All they’d get to see and hear were guys passing around a doobie and saying, “Oh, wow, man.”
The snarky Dana (f6a568) — 8/19/2016 @ 11:44 am#25 The Witty Dana,
I stand corrected.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 8/19/2016 @ 11:57 amWe’d probably have to consult with Bill Ayers if we want to find out what Barack “thought” about subjects during all those years! (LOL)
As much as I disagree with your political views, I actually respect this blog – you have your values and viewpoints, and you stick to them. Additionally, you’re obviously smart, and you back-up your arguments with facts.
But I think that this attempt to define the payment to Iran as “ransom” is really weak. What other actions could have been taken that you wouldn’t have attempted to define as “ransom”? If we had released the money before the sailors were released, you would have said that was ransom. If we had waited several weeks to release the money, you still would have said the payment was ransom.
And please don’t say we simply shouldn’t have made the payment. I get that you don’t like the Iran agreement, but that’s not relevant to whether the release of funds was a “ransom” payment.
Jonny Scrum-half (b3dcc5) — 8/19/2016 @ 12:05 pmAmericans for sale – $400B down $1.3T after delivery.
crazy (d3b449) — 8/19/2016 @ 12:07 pmJonny Scrum-half (b3dcc5) — 8/19/2016 @ 12:05 pm And please don’t say we simply shouldn’t have made the payment. I get that you don’t like the Iran agreement, but that’s not relevant to whether the release of funds was a “ransom” payment. Releasing the money (or resolving the claim) wasn’t part of the JCPOA of 2015.
This was something new, given to Iran to help them decide to stay on track and not back out of it. Neither Iran nor the Obama Administration wants to say that. Iran wants to say it was ransom, and the Obama Administration has lots of words.
Sammy Finkelman (44f942) — 8/19/2016 @ 12:13 pmCruz Supporter (102c9a) — 8/19/2016 @ 11:44 am
Bits and pieces of it. You shouldn’t assume Ayers ghostwrite it, although it was written by someone that a few ideas in it seem to come from him. A lot of the autobiograhy isn’t true. He leaves out all his white girlfriends (which was all of them I think) for one thing. Michelle was probably the first black female he dated. He had to mary somebody black to be politically viable – so he was already calculating in 1989. He probably kept an comments he made about Iran contra very noncomittal in 1987.
Look, he was the compromise choice between the radicals and the conservatives for head of the Harvard Law Review in 1990, winning the position on the upteenth ballot. He was a person who knew how to get along with everyone.
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html
Because he was black, he won the votes of some of the radicals. Because he was not really a radical, he won the votes of the conservatives.
Iran contra became public in November, 1986, right after the November election, just three years and three months before.
Sammy Finkelman (44f942) — 8/19/2016 @ 12:23 pmSammy,
Bill Ayers ghostwrote Dreams.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 8/19/2016 @ 12:30 pmAll you have to do is go and compare the writing style and vocabulary that Ayers uses in his own work. It’s the same person.
north, who was naive at that time, wouldn’t have dreamed of ponying 100 million per hostage,
narciso (732bc0) — 8/19/2016 @ 12:33 pmMr Scrum-half wrote:
Kind of like “arms for hostages” wasn’t really ransom, but just the good-hearted attempt by President Reagan to find him some moderate Iranians, right?
Well we all know what happened: some of the hostages were released following the arms deal, but, in events that simply no one could have foreseen, the Lebanese minions of the Iranians simply seized replacement hostages. How soon will it be before we hear of some other Americans somehow running afoul of the Iranians, now that President Obama has pegged a monetary value on them?
The realistic Dana (f6a568) — 8/19/2016 @ 12:35 pm#27 Johnny Water Carrier,
A legit money transfer by the world’s superpower does not get transferred in cash on wooden pallets under cover of darkness as if it’s an episode of ‘Miami Vice.’
You only transfer money that way if you’re trying to fly beneath the radar.
Consider if that plane had crashed and all that cash got “drowned” in the ocean. You think Iran would have been cool with losing $400 million in the ocean? That’s why electronic money transfers exist — to limit the risk of disaster in transit that otherwise exists when dealing with cash.
When Wells Fargo’s stagecoaches got robbed by highway bandits during the 1800s, that money (or gold) was GONE.
Look at it this way, a hooker can tell the police officer that the john was only paying her for her “time,” but she was actually taking money for sex. You can SAY it was for her “time,” but we know otherwise.
This was a ransom payment. You can call it whatever you want. But it’s still a ransom payment.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 8/19/2016 @ 12:49 pmSammy Finkelman – you’re right about it not being part of the Iran agreement. I misunderstood the facts. In fact, I even misunderstood the identities of the prisoners that were being released, so at this point my credibility is completely shot.
But the truth still remains that the payment was independent of the release of prisoners. I’m going to leave it at that; there are explanations that you can find that will do a better job than me. I’m guessing that you and everyone else here is going to continue to define it as ransom. So be it.
Jonny Scrum-half (b3dcc5) — 8/19/2016 @ 12:54 pmyou can tell it’s a ransom cause of the iranians already stocked up on more failmerican hostages
that’s how it works
happyfeet (a037ad) — 8/19/2016 @ 12:55 pmiran contra reagan “I did not trade arms for hostages though they tell me I did.” obama I did not pay ransom for hostages. thogh they tell me I did. some things never change!
then and now (0c7feb) — 8/19/2016 @ 1:03 pm#35 Johnny Water Carrier,
You can’t articulate it any better because Barack didn’t give you very good material to work with.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 8/19/2016 @ 1:11 pmIt was ransom. You know it. You’re just a shill for The Left, and so you’ll say whatever.
The administration insists that the settlement of this claim was not part of the agreement, but a completely separate negotiation that happened to be resolved at the same time. Ifthat’s so, then criticism of this disastrous payment is unrelated to criticism of the disastrous nuclear agreement. Paying the Iranians this money was wrong, for all the same reasons we didn’t pay them for all those years — because they will spend it on killing people and harming us.
Milhouse (5a188d) — 8/19/2016 @ 1:20 pmRE: 36 – mark your calender’s – I’m agreeing with ‘feets.
This happens at most once a decade.
Steve Malynn (b5f891) — 8/19/2016 @ 3:17 pmIran’s version:
http://nypost.com/2016/08/05/iranian-propaganda-video-claims-to-show-us-400m-cash-drop
What currency and what denominations cannot be determined from the video, which is of very poor quality.
Sammy Finkelman (44f942) — 8/19/2016 @ 4:10 pmhf got this one right (#36). If this wasn’t ransom, there would be no need to restock the holding cell. But as soon as this was paid, the Iranians grabbed replacements.
This will only get worse.
Meanwhile, just east of the Ukraine, the Russians have massed 40,000 armored troops on the border. The date is about right for a lightning campaign in Europe that should reach its goal in five or six weeks … WWI, early August (Paris in eight weeks, fail), WWII early September (Poland in four weeks, success.) I doubt you’ll find Kerry flying anywhere near what will soon be the front line. I see him falling off his bicycle in Geneva in the next few weeks breaking his other leg.
BobStewartatHome (f2b3a5) — 8/19/2016 @ 5:50 pmransom: “a sum of money or other payment demanded or paid for the release of a prisoner.”
If you don’t see this is ransom, nothing more I can say will convince you.
Patterico (bcf524) — 8/19/2016 @ 6:06 pmof course, the leverage is on the side with the hostages, ‘english do they speak it’
narciso (732bc0) — 8/19/2016 @ 6:08 pmI get a kick out of all these pretzel-like explanations about how the hostages were released ten minutes before the money got there or whatever so that means it’s not a quid-pro-quo. What a joke.
That’s like saying that you didn’t actually have a quid-pro-quo money exchange money for the mattress you bought at the mattress warehouse since you weren’t required to make your first payment for 60 days due to the terms of the Labor Day Clearance Sale!
The fact they have to try to convince everyone it’s NOT as quid-pro-quo as it appears is proof that it was a ransom payment. If it were a legit payment for some negotiations worked out above board, there would have been a wire transfer rather than a Mexican drug cartel drug deal re-enactment in the middle of the night.
When teenagers get caught in the backseat of a car at Lookout Point on Saturday night, the police officer doesn’t believe that they were “just talking” — no matter how sincere their explanation is. (LOL)
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 8/19/2016 @ 6:40 pmthe police officer doesn’t believe that they were “just talking” — no matter how sincere their explanation is. (LOL)
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 8/19/2016 @ 6:40 pm
Depends if clothes are on or off it does! (lol)
Yoda (e6eca8) — 8/19/2016 @ 8:46 pmHmmmmmm? Maybe 😆
Yoda (e6eca8) — 8/19/2016 @ 8:46 pmYep, that one it is 😆
Yoda (e6eca8) — 8/19/2016 @ 8:47 pmSo a cop shines his flashlight into a car parked at Lover’s Lane. In the driver’s seat, there’s a young man playing a game on a Gameboy. In the back seat, there’s a young woman knitting. The cop asks the boy for his driver’s license. He looks at it and says, “I see you’re nineteen. And the young lady? How old is she?” The boy looks at his watch and says, “In twelve minutes, she’ll be eighteen”.
nk (dbc370) — 8/19/2016 @ 8:51 pmYoda,
You old fool, the inference is that their clothes are already OFF.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 8/19/2016 @ 9:11 pmThat’s why it’s so funny when they claim to have been “just talking.”
(DUH!)
Yoda,
You old fool, the inference is that their clothes are already OFF.
That’s why it’s so funny when they claim to have been “just talking.”
(DUH!)
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 8/19/2016 @ 9:11 pm
Seems like the one calling me a fool is the fool himself! Did you not see the (lol) or the 😆 , or do you need me to type slowerrrrrrr….?
Yoda (e6eca8) — 8/19/2016 @ 9:24 pmMan, (sighs) all of these Trump worshippers need to take a chill pill they do!
Yoda (e6eca8) — 8/19/2016 @ 9:28 pmYoda,
You’re the stand-up comedian who thinks that repeating the punch line will make it funnier the second time around.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 8/19/2016 @ 9:39 pmNot so much.
In Vermont, full public nudity is legal. Not possible, seeing as Vermont only has two seasons, winter and mosquito, but legal.
nk (dbc370) — 8/19/2016 @ 9:47 pmNot so much.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 8/19/2016 @ 9:39 pm
Trump worshipper:
Yoda (e6eca8) — 8/19/2016 @ 10:29 pmRead last word @ https://patterico.com/2016/08/19/manafort-out/#comment-1919111
“Voxplaining” … isn’t this just a new word for “Newspeak”?
IGotBupkis, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses." (225d0d) — 8/20/2016 @ 4:51 amJus’ Sayin’…
I suspect that our esteemed host doesn’t believe the prostitute and the john when they say that the sex was free, and the money that changed hands, why that was just to help buy her daughter braces.
The Dana who isn't an attorney (f6a568) — 8/20/2016 @ 6:32 amMr Supporter wrote:
P’raps their clothes were off because they had been listening to that song, “Look for the union label.” They could have been discussing how upset they were that her shocking pink thong panties had been Made in China.
The textile manufacturer Dana (f6a568) — 8/20/2016 @ 6:35 amPatronizing a prostitute is rarely prosecuted because they’re not worth the trouble to prove. The charge is usually public indecency for doing it in the car or in an alley. That one can put the john on a registered sex offender list. The run of the mill cases are for solicitation and even then the “prostitute” is an undercover cop.
nk (dbc370) — 8/20/2016 @ 6:49 amOn the topic of whether America does or doesn’t pay ransom, and has or hasn’t since before there was an America, I highly recommend Michael B. Oren’s “Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present,” which (despite the title) traces the bribes and ransoms paid by or on behalf of the United States to various Muslim pirates and petty despots. There’s a pretty consistent pattern, from the British crown to Jefferson to TR to Reagan. Usually the payoffs can at least be justified as being cheaper in lives and treasure, net in the short term, than the military response; whether that’s the correct long-run calculation is of course another story. The book suggests it’s not — which is kinda what you might expect from a Netanyahu selection to be Israel’s ambassador to the U.S. The Israelis can’t afford to send many mixed signals.
But by any measure, Barack Obama’s acquiescence in Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons is far and away the biggest and most catastrophically craven ransom/bribe ever. If he were an Islamic mole, it’s hard to guess what else he, Clinton, or Kerry could have done to please the mullahs.
The cover-up is unraveling, but Trump’s too scattered and ineffective to make any political hay from it. And that’s the result to be expected when a national election offers a choice between two New York limousine liberals, as does this one. But hey, why expect a real and vigorous debate over matters of foreign policy substance, when we can have so much more fun with Trump firing last month’s campaign savior to bring aboard this month’s campaign savior, preparatory to Presidential Pivot #1923.
[Cue: Those who’ve been suckered ought bark now: “But we believe Trump will make America great again and Beldar loves Hillary.” Quick, don’t miss your chance!]
Beldar (fa637a) — 8/20/2016 @ 8:06 am#59 Beldar,
Michael Oren’s a really impressive guy. I’ve heard him on the radio a number of times with Hugh Hewitt and Dennis Prager. And Michael Medved, too, I think.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 8/20/2016 @ 9:45 amApparently, Hillary trashed him in emails that were revealed among her trove, so he must be good people! (LOL)
I’ll have to check out that book you recommend.
He is still an official in netanyahu’s govt, the head of the kaluna party. Of memory serves.
narciso (b863a7) — 8/20/2016 @ 10:10 amKulanu is the name of the party. In Israeli terms Kulanu is centrist/moderate.
kishnevi (c91988) — 8/20/2016 @ 10:47 amAs of August 1, he is a deputy minister. Before that, he was an individual MK on the Kulanu list.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/michael-oren-named-deputy-minister-in-reshuffle/
45. Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 8/19/2016 @ 6:40 pm
Q. If someone holds someonew or something, even computer files, for ransom, do they first release their prisoners, unencrypt the files, and WAIT for the money? What kind of a criminal organization does that?
That’s for something legal.
It was a quid-pro-quo, but the prisoners were not the quo. Iran not walking away from the nuclear agreement was the quo for the quid. That’s what the Administration doesn’t want to say, and neither does Iran.
The money wasn’t PAID for the prisoners. The money was WITHHELD until the prisoners were freed. A very important distinction.
It’s the exact opposite of ransom. Money was not paid for the prisoners, but rather, the prisoners were released to get money, which was given to Iran for other reasons.
For the prisoners, who were innocent of working for the United States, they got other prisoners, who were guilty of working for Iran, or Iran wanted to pretend that they were. They money was paid to keep Iran on track with the nuclear agreement. But, still, they made sure the reactor at Arak was disabled before they proceeded.
They don’t want to admit what the quid was: something Iran already agreed to do.
The Administration said it couldn’t do that because that would have violated U.S. sanctions on Iran, which President Obama was not about to lift.
By the way, some people suing Iran had expected to be able to attach some of that money.
Sammy Finkelman (44f942) — 8/21/2016 @ 4:36 pmthree guesses,
http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-ayatollah-thinks-he-won-1471627970
narciso (732bc0) — 8/21/2016 @ 4:40 pmnarciso @64. Yes, I read that.
And thisd is why they gave tem the $1.7 billion.
And look at what Kerry said:
In other words, according to him, it would not have been possible to bomb Iran, or impose stronger sanctions, without Iran starting a war.
The deal could still fall apart, but now they gave them all the money they were entitled to give.
By the way, this article seems to say, Iran waited till the deal was done, to start the operation with Russia in Syria.
Sammy Finkelman (44f942) — 8/21/2016 @ 5:46 pmthis is what you have to understand about iran,
http://www.irantracker.org/basics/velayat-e-faqih
narciso (732bc0) — 8/21/2016 @ 5:55 pmsince 1979, under king fahd and now under salman, that is increasingly what dominates in the kingdom
narciso (732bc0) — 8/21/2016 @ 6:01 pmMilhouse (5a188d) — 8/19/2016 @ 1:20 pm
The only thing is, it didn’t happen to be resolved at the same time. Kerry resolved it, which he shouldn’t have, both because they will spend it on killing people and harming us, and because it is most of the money held against a possible lawsuit payout. He resolved it because it was a way he could give Iran money. But he didn’t gve Iran money to gte the prisoners freed – he and Obama are not that crazy to spend half a billion dollars per hostage – but to help persuade Iran to follow through on the next step in the nuclear deal – disabling the Arak heavy water reactor, which they’d already agreed to do, but Iran was complaining that U.S. sanctions were still having too strong an effect. They also separartely negotiated a prisoner swap.
This seems to be the timeline of the deal:
1) Iran had to prove it had filled the nuclear reactor core with concrete.
2) Iran got its prisoners freed.
3) Then they release their prisoners – let them leave Iranian airspace.
4) Iran gets $400 million in cash – mostly in Euros and Swiss francs. They officially hate America, so very few, if any, Federal Reserve notes. (ISIS isn’t so choosy)
Note: Nobody wants gold. Gold is not money.
Subsequently, Iran got an additional $1.3 billion. Also probably in cash.
Sammy Finkelman (44f942) — 8/21/2016 @ 6:03 pmnarciso @66. Yes, very interesting.
That means this is novel and very problematic.
As it says, there’s a theological problem here, and if you were to say the chief Shi’a cleric should be the ruler, that is Sistani in Iraq.
Sammy Finkelman (882d94) — 8/21/2016 @ 6:09 pmnot necessarily, they would prefer muqtada sadr, since he’s more amenable to their influence, in lebanon, his uncle musa sadr was the moderate, so according to andrew cooper’s recent bio, khomeini found a way for him to dissapear in libya, hezbollah sprung from a splinter of his amal movement, cultivated by the sepah, with known “moderates” like mohashtemi-pur, the ambassador to damascus, and rayshiri, then at interior,
narciso (732bc0) — 8/21/2016 @ 6:15 pmThere’s nobody recognized as the greatest Shi’a cleric other than Sistani.
Sadr’s father was somebody big.
It seems to be all here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqtada_al-Sadr
Didn’t Iran make the person who disappeared in Libya into a big cause? Or who did that?
Sammy Finkelman (882d94) — 8/21/2016 @ 6:43 pmnot really,
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4757777,00.html
the late fouad adjami was the one who did the first major scholarship on the matter,
narciso (732bc0) — 8/21/2016 @ 6:50 pmas this rather dyspectic review suggests,
http://www.merip.org/mer/mer144/ajami-vanished-imam
narciso (732bc0) — 8/21/2016 @ 7:00 pmWe have been paid off. Don’t you know? What is the word?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSR6ZzjDZ94
Yes, that.
Steve57 (41f53d) — 8/22/2016 @ 3:43 pm