Congress was right: The Iran deal is a travesty — and Obama is to blame

Congress was right: The Iran deal is a travesty — and Obama is to blame
The terrible Iran deal, complete with a $400M payment, is proving to be the disaster Republicans predicted

CARRIE SHEFFIELD

Onlookers concerned about a nuclear Iran shouldn’t be surprised by a report from The Wall Street Journal that the Obama administration secretly apparently airdropped $400 million in foreign currency in exchange for the release of four Americans, a move that breaches U.S. protocol and amounts to ransom. Even more troubling, yet not surprising: new reports that Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is publicly backpedalling from President Obama’s prized nuclear deal.

On state-affiliated media, Khamenei reportedly blasted “the futility of negotiations with the Americans” and said the United States wasn’t keeping its promises under the nuclear agreement. The deal itself was signed under constitutionally questionable circumstances — it essentially amounted to a treaty, which would have required congressional approval–over the protests of Congress, including many Democrats like Sen. Chuck Schumer.

These latest developments undoubtedly confirm what conservatives and other pro-Israel activists have been arguing throughout this entire episode. They’re yet another reason why people who don’t like flawed GOP nominee Donald Trump will still have a hard time voting for Hillary Clinton, given her prominent role in helping usher in this flawed deal. They also tarnish President Obama’s legacy, despite his brag last week at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia that he’d “shut down Iran’s nuclear weapons program.”

The State Department officially denied any explicit link between the $400 million payment and the release of prisoners, that this happened entirely coincidentally, not as a tit-for-tat. But it’s baffling why this administration continues to place its blind faith in a theocratic, authoritarian regime that bankrolls terror the world over, from Hamas to Hezbollah to the murderous Assad regime.

“It’s time the State Department stop trusting Iran more than the U.S. Congress,” Michael Rubin, a foreign policy expert at the American Enterprise Institute, told Salon. “The problem isn’t simply the timing of the ransom payment. Rather, it is the fact that Obama and Kerry are acting like gamblers who believe they can win big with just one more throw of the dice, and are willing to sacrifice increasingly more to do so. There simply is no introspection. The whole premise of the Iran deal was that they could work with Iranian reformers and moderates to defeat Iran’s hardliners at home and abroad. They never understood that Supreme Leader Khamenei and President Rouhani were playing an elaborate game of good cop-bad cop.”

Despite the administration’s official claim of an innocent confluence of events, Iranian Revolutionary Guard leaders claimed otherwise in state media that “Taking this much money back was in return for the release of the American spies.”

David Ibsen, president of United Against Nuclear Iran, told Salon that the recent detention of Robin Shahini, another U.S. citizen, is further evidence that Washington should be thwarting—not rewarding—Iran’s bad behavior.

“The secret airlifting of $400 million in cash to the Iranian regime is just another example of the United States enabling the nefarious activities of the Ayatollah and his proxies,” he said.

Tzvi Kahn, senior policy analyst at the Foreign Policy Initiative, also pointed out that what happens in Tehran doesn’t stay in Tehran. The ransom not only incentivizes Iran to take more Americans hostage, but it also effectively declared open season on Americans for every rogue regime and terrorist group around the world.

“The $400 million payment, which Tehran has transferred to its military, directly subsidizes Iran’s hegemonic ambitions,” Kahn told Salon. “It has led the regime to capture more hostages. And it demonstrates that the nuclear deal, far from moderating Iran, has merely emboldened it to further provoke America, secure in the knowledge that the White House will do almost anything to protect its signature foreign policy achievement.”

Kahn further said Khamenei’s threat to walk away from the deal is a patent effort to extract further economic concessions from the United States.

“Iran, after all, has only itself to blame for its continued economic travails,” he said. “Why would companies want to invest in a country that continues to sponsor terrorism across the globe, test ballistic missiles, repress its own people, and capture Western hostages? Washington should ignore the supreme leader’s blackmail and instead make clear that Iran will receive no additional economic benefits until it halts its aggression.”

While Trump continues to exhibit his reckless judgement on the campaign trail, Obama continues to exhibit his own, just with more flowery language. Though of a different sort, both seem detached from reality and utterly unconcerned about a robust American future abroad.

http://www.salon.com/2016/08/04/rep...ran_deal_is_a_travesty_and_obama_is_to_blame/
 
http://time.com/4441046/400-million-iran-hostage-history/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...flown-to-iran-back-in-january-was-that-wrong/

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/w...lion-to-iran-was-not-a-ransom-obama-says.html

that money was owed to the Islamic Republic since 1979, the year the U.S. froze all the Iranian funds in American banks as retribution for seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, as revolution swept that nation



It isn't all it seems at seventeen...

Growing up is hard. Keep trying.


 
Last edited:
Obama saw a non-nuclear Iran crippled in sanctions, move to a nuclear-capable Iran with a prosperous economy.

Iran is run by some of the biggest scum of the earth. I worked with Persians who all hated the Mullahs. They kill gays over there, on sight. It's not a nice place over there. The Mullahs are all fake fucks. They kidnap women off the street for sexual slavery. Not to mention financing terrorists all over the world.
 
Obama and the $400 million question

Inching toward normalization with Iran is such a fraught idea that Americans want to believe their president knows what he’s doing. This is a regime that hangs teenage homosexuals, incarcerates Christian converts, flogs citizens who criticize their government and finances suicide bombers. And not just the bombers who target U.S. troops in the Middle East, but also synagogues in South America.

Iran’s leaders still call the U.S. “the Great Satan,” spew anti-Jewish hate speech and fanaticize about destroying Israel, which is why Israeli leaders view the mullahs’ nuclear obsession with such alarm.

So I hope and pray that President Obama is right when he says that the deal he forged with Iran has slowed that nation’s rush to acquire nuclear weapons. But he didn’t help his own cause at Thursday’s news conference.

Obama being Obama, it took 20 minutes and 30 seconds to get to the second question Thursday. It came from Mary Bruce of ABC News and was prompted by a recent Wall Street Journal story revealing that the administration organized an airlift of $400 million in cash last January as four American hostages were being released.

“What is your response to critics who say the $400 million in cash that you sent to Iran was a ransom payment?” Bruce asked. “Was it really simply a pure coincidence that ... a payment that was held up for almost four decades was suddenly sent at the exact same time that the American prisoners were released? And can you assure the American people that none of that money went to support terrorism?”

Although prepared for this question, Obama greeted it with disdain. “As many of you know, we announced these payments in January, many months ago,” he began. “It was not a secret. We announced them to all of you.”

Obama expounded at some length, making four or five additional points. He noted that the $400 million was not our money – it belonged to Iran and was frozen in 1979 after the Iranian revolution. And coincidence, he added, was precisely the wrong word.

“We actually had diplomatic negotiations and conversations with Iran for the first time in several decades,” he said. “So the issue is not so much that it was a coincidence, as it is that we were able to have a direct discussion.”

Regarding the ransom angle, Obama simply re-asserted the official U.S. position that the American government does not make such payments; he chastised his critics for not acknowledging that the Iran deal “is working,” without amplifying on why he believes that’s true; and he concluded by saying that the only new bit of information in the Journal piece was the form of payment.

“It is not at all clear to me why it is that cash, as opposed to a check or a wire transfer, has made this into a new story,” he said. “The reason that we had to give them cash is precisely because we are so strict in maintaining sanctions, and we do not have a banking relationship with Iran, that we couldn’t send them a check, and we could not wire the money.”

“This wasn’t some nefarious deal,” he added.

These answers are so thin they should undermine, rather than bolster, confidence in the Iran deal. For starters, the administration didn’t “announce” the $400 million payment in January: White House press secretary Josh Earnest confirmed it when it was reported elsewhere.

Second, where would anyone get the idea that it was a ransom payment for hostages? How about from the Iranians themselves. Gen. Mohammad Reza Naghdi was quoted on Iranian state media as crowing, “Taking this much money back was in return for the release of the American spies.”

Finally, the $400 million being delivered in cash (mostly Swiss francs and Euros, apparently) is not a minor detail. It’s an alarming disclosure. The president’s explanation seems absurd. How does sending a cargo plane full of cash comply with existing sanctions while bank transfers do not? As far as not having “a banking relationship with Iran,” what does that even mean? Is the president really claiming that no bank in the world would have facilitated a legal transfer of funds – even if Obama had asked them directly?

As for why inquiring minds would be suspicious of a huge middle-of-the-night cash transfer of untraceable currency to avoid banking scrutiny, well, the answer is that such suspicion is built into federal law. Any bank doing business in this country is required to report to the federal government cash transactions in excess of $10,000.

Passed by Congress during the cocaine cowboy days of the 1980s, these statutes assumed that anybody moving that kind of cash around was trafficking drugs, running guns, laundering money for other vices such as gambling or prostitution – or at the very least, evading taxes. As an enhanced weapon, federal, state and local governments enacted civil forfeiture laws allowing them to seize the property of suspected drug dealers without charging them with a crime.

Some of these cases would shock Kafka. Take the Burmese refugee – an American citizen for 10 years – who manages a touring Christian rock band, raising money for a Burmese orphanage. He was stopped for a taillight violation by Oklahoma sheriff’s deputies, who sent him on his way after relieving him of the $53,000 he’d raised for charity. Could be drug money, they said.

Yet, some Americans still stubbornly cling to their old ways of paying cash, so the laws were refined even more. Even banking transactions under $10,000 – if they were done for the apparent reason of evading reporting requirements – became a felony. This crime is called “structuring.”

This law tripped up former Speaker of the House Denny Hastert – he’d paid hush money to a man he’d sexually abused many years earlier – but it’s an easy power to abuse.

Brothers David and Larry Vocatura learned this lesson when armed IRS agents came into their Connecticut shop demanding to know if they were dealing in drugs or prostitution. Actually, they were operating a bakery that had been in their family for nearly a century. The feds took $68,000 from their bank account anyway. When they tried to get it back, the government’s first response was to threaten criminal prosecution.

That’s how the U.S. government treats Americans who don’t keep perfect ledgers. When it comes to a brutal dictatorship that covets stockpiles of uranium and is infamous for funding state-sponsored terrorism, we’re a lot more trusting – and with vastly greater sums of money. At the risk of annoying our president, one should ask him how much of the $400 million might go to Hezbollah or the regime in Syria.

Oh, I almost forgot: Mary Bruce did ask Obama about that. It wasn’t a part of her question he chose to answer.

Carl M. Cannon is executive editor of RealClearPolitics.com.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/iran-724806-cash-obama.html
 
Back
Top