The overriding question is why pay ANY money to the #1 state sponsor or terror, either the $150B in the "awesome" nuke deal that gives Iran nukes in 10 years instead of 15, or the extra $400M, when you can't prevent it from being used to fund terror? Who cares what an international court says? If it was so important why didn't Carter or Bill Clinton pay it?
12
1) $400mm in 1979 is only worth $110mm today.
2) $400mm invested in 1979 in the S&P500 with dividends reinvested would be worth $23 billion today.
3) all in all a smart savvy deal that looks like "Winning" to me!
2) $400mm invested in 1979 in the S&P500 with dividends reinvested would be worth $23 billion today.
3) all in all a smart savvy deal that looks like "Winning" to me!
22
It's called "escrow", not "ransom".
It's called "smart", not "blowhard".
The continuously apoplectic Right in American politics is criticizing the Administration for making the smart move of withholding Iranian money as surety to the actual release of the hostages.
The only time I can recall that a money deal with Iran was underhanded and illegal was the Iran-Contra arms deal.
It's called "smart", not "blowhard".
The continuously apoplectic Right in American politics is criticizing the Administration for making the smart move of withholding Iranian money as surety to the actual release of the hostages.
The only time I can recall that a money deal with Iran was underhanded and illegal was the Iran-Contra arms deal.
45
So instead of paying $400M in ransom for the hostages, the administration held Iran's money ransom to ensure exchange of the hostages. That's brilliant, not weak… exactly what we've come to expect from the Obama administration.
38
In view of the facts, it is absurd to characterize this delayed payment as being "ransom".
The real problem here is that the ideological right does not have the word "diplomacy" in its lexicon -- at least not when judging the actions of the Obama administration. Moreover, the candidate who claims to be a master of "the deal" would not know a diplomatic deal if it hit him in his smirk.
The real problem here is that the ideological right does not have the word "diplomacy" in its lexicon -- at least not when judging the actions of the Obama administration. Moreover, the candidate who claims to be a master of "the deal" would not know a diplomatic deal if it hit him in his smirk.
31
Clearly not many people these days have faith in diplomacy--the art of getting both sides to feel they have won--when it comes to our government.
19
The State Department issued a new warning to Americans traveling to Iran Monday. Iran has been detaining too many Americans. Its a good business decision for them. They can make a lot of money by falsely detaining American citizens.
8
The Agreement only delays Iran's development of nuclear weapons; however, it's been documented, the Country continues development of ballistic missiles. The Administration essentially lied to the American people in order to glorify itself; what else is new with Mr. Obama?
It doesn't matter; Iran will control the Middle East. It's only a matter of time; Nuclear weapons, or not.
It doesn't matter; Iran will control the Middle East. It's only a matter of time; Nuclear weapons, or not.
5
Interest of $1.3 Billion?
Interest is forbidden in Islamic law - so refund or repayment cannot include any imputed compounding money, but must abide by the original contract [which should have included contingencies for non-performance by either party].
Has anyone produced (or read) the original documents?
Interest is forbidden in Islamic law - so refund or repayment cannot include any imputed compounding money, but must abide by the original contract [which should have included contingencies for non-performance by either party].
Has anyone produced (or read) the original documents?
10
Trump grew up protected from the perils of human existence and has never experienced the raw edge of life, so he thinks that he can say or do as he likes with no more consequences than a critical New York Times editorial. He fails to understand that his gross hyperbole and mendacity does real harm to this country, the country in which he and his family must live, and which no army of lawyers and monetary payoffs nor bankruptcy proceedings have the power to set right. I do think that he might succeed in becoming the next President, as slim as that possibility seems from the polls, and it will be a disaster if he does.
18
Yeah, sure. That's why one of the hostages testified when he asked the Iranians why it was taking hour after hour for them to be released as agreed the Iranians told him point blank they wouldn't let him go until a mysterious second plane arrived. Wonder what that plane was? Unmarked and flown in secretly in the dead of night. Sure, nothing abnormal here. Certainly Iranian officials openly described the payment as a ransom. Guess they don't read the NYT for the gospel truth -- or should the term be gospel spin?
And as for the separately agreed upon $1.5 billion previously settled in lieu of undelivered US weaponry to the defunct Shah, should we expect the remaining $1.1 billion to also be paid in unmarked cash, too (unmarked cash will certainly come in handy for the Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah), considering Obama/Kerry's excuse was there was no way to pay by check or wire transfer due to trade restrictions with Iran. Don't bet on it. Obama will suddenly find a more standard way to pay the balance.
And as for the separately agreed upon $1.5 billion previously settled in lieu of undelivered US weaponry to the defunct Shah, should we expect the remaining $1.1 billion to also be paid in unmarked cash, too (unmarked cash will certainly come in handy for the Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah), considering Obama/Kerry's excuse was there was no way to pay by check or wire transfer due to trade restrictions with Iran. Don't bet on it. Obama will suddenly find a more standard way to pay the balance.
7
Another example of Republicans ignoring the interests of the whole country in order to falsely frame the actions of our government to have been cowardly and disgraceful. The Republicans have become the party of people with no reason nor conscience, all id and no superego amongst most of them.
The Shah paid for an order of planes just before he was overthrown and the money was not returned to Iran because the revolutionary government were being nasty jerks, but it was Iran's money. The current regime accepted return of the funds without demanding the current value of the money, which was a pretty good deal arranged by our government. The return of the money while hostages were being released as part of a separate deal could give the appearance to the truly ignorant or the truly disingenuous that the money was ransom, despite the facts.
The Shah paid for an order of planes just before he was overthrown and the money was not returned to Iran because the revolutionary government were being nasty jerks, but it was Iran's money. The current regime accepted return of the funds without demanding the current value of the money, which was a pretty good deal arranged by our government. The return of the money while hostages were being released as part of a separate deal could give the appearance to the truly ignorant or the truly disingenuous that the money was ransom, despite the facts.
21
I just figured it out!
Obama liberals don't have a political problem, or even a legal problem.
When it comes to understanding the hostage release deal from the Obama WH, Obama liberals have a dictionary problem.
Webster's Collegiate Dictionary's definition of ransom makes NO mention of whose monies are being paid. Ransom is DEFINED as "a sum of money or other payment demanded or paid for the release of a prisoner."
Parsing words with a Harvard lawyer is about as practical as fighting Michelle Obama for the last donut. You can do it, but you're not going to win.
This entire editorial is precariously teetering on what the NYT Editorial Board has decided to define "ransom" as being. The Washington DC lawyer in me opts for the judicially noticed, dictionary definition.
Under the definition of ransom used by people who have at least completed high school, Obama paid ransom.
Worse news?
The State Department retracted its lie that it wasn't a ransom payment and admitted it was.
Obama liberals don't have a political problem, or even a legal problem.
When it comes to understanding the hostage release deal from the Obama WH, Obama liberals have a dictionary problem.
Webster's Collegiate Dictionary's definition of ransom makes NO mention of whose monies are being paid. Ransom is DEFINED as "a sum of money or other payment demanded or paid for the release of a prisoner."
Parsing words with a Harvard lawyer is about as practical as fighting Michelle Obama for the last donut. You can do it, but you're not going to win.
This entire editorial is precariously teetering on what the NYT Editorial Board has decided to define "ransom" as being. The Washington DC lawyer in me opts for the judicially noticed, dictionary definition.
Under the definition of ransom used by people who have at least completed high school, Obama paid ransom.
Worse news?
The State Department retracted its lie that it wasn't a ransom payment and admitted it was.
13
Thanks NYTimes for not allowing the Republican party to use yet another distraction to hide their own failures in governing.
25
Add the New York times to that list of media organizations with the ability to "mind meld”, and lip-sync government talking points. To explain the rise of Trump, look no further than editorials like this. See fourth paragraph down, "What really happened". LOL! What really happened is some Ben Rhodes type phoned it in for Obama, and told you want to print.
9
The $400M payment debacle is a news story that the NYT failed to cover until now as an editorial. Today, we have Reuters and the WSJ reporting that "Iraq massacres worse than U.S. acknowledged". This is also a dreadful news story. It'll be interesting to see when and how the NYT covers this event.
11
This is not, "giving Iran money". It is their money. I've brought this up before in comments on this topic but there is a 1991 NYT article about the first Bush administration denying that a payment to Iran was ransom for hostages in Lebanon. that payment was part of a previous round of claims settling. Most of the issue for people here seems to be that it is Iran and that's all. If I found out the dealership I bought my car from had a flagrant environment of sexual harassment or the owner killed somebody even, it wouldn't mean I'm off the hook for payments.
27
We released $400 million of their money ,timed to coincide with the release of Americans to ensure Iran kept to their promise.
Seems like a sensible way to achieve a huge deal.
I guess this is what they mean by the Art of the deal
Seems like a sensible way to achieve a huge deal.
I guess this is what they mean by the Art of the deal
26
I'm sorry, that doesn't fit my narrative.
6
This conveniently ignores the manner of payment. If this had simply been repayment of a debt, we should have waited until it could be done in a businesslike manner - a wire transfer with nothing kept secret. Paying this in cash was an incredibly irresponsible thing to do.
9
Call me dumb, but why in the world would we ever give Iran any money ?
Why not give some of the money to the Embassy hostages that were held
for over a year ?
Why not to the soldiers (and their families ) who have been fighting factions
paid for by Iran in the Mideast.
Why not to Americans who are homeless ?
Why not give some of the money to the Embassy hostages that were held
for over a year ?
Why not to the soldiers (and their families ) who have been fighting factions
paid for by Iran in the Mideast.
Why not to Americans who are homeless ?
13
It is called money laundering plain and simple. It is laughable for Obama to hide behind OFAC regulations as an excuse for the movement of hard currency. And then sneer at everyone who dare to question the matter at his press conference. The press conference attitude reminded me of the debate when Romney said he felt Russia posed a threat to the U.S. The so-called Smartest Person in the Room dismissed those comments in a similar matter. Who is laughing now?
12
Lets see, if the $400 million had not been released, would the hostages been released?
25
Obama and Kerry are a gift to iran. LOL about them getting that $1.1 billion from Israel as ordered by Switzerland, a corrupt country that held and holds more Nazi money than any other place in the world including Argentina.
7
The big lie that most Americans believe, because they rarely are told the truth by the media, is the charge you repeat that "he Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s brutal civil war" was started by him rather than by radical Sunnis, Wahhabis, Saudi Arabia, religious fanatic like ISIS and Al Quaeda, and our ownCIA and external regime change fanatics. The irresponsible attempt to overthrow Assad is one of the bloodiest, worst, most terrible events of the 21st century and it was totally needless.D elve deeply into the start of this Civil War and you'll find the dirty hands of fascist Saudi Arabia, radical Sunnis, and American ideologues who hadn't the conscience or responsibility to understand what their passion for this external regime change would mean--rivers of blood, millions of wrecked lives, a nation in ruin, destruction everywhere and--if these ideologues have their way--a new cold war.
4
What would have happened if Iran did not release the hostages that were kidnapped or being held against their will? It appears that we would have given them the money regardless because it was Iran's money that we were merely returning to them according to the NYT doctrine of Obama can do no wrong and anything he does is good. If that is true it means the hostages had nothing to do with this transaction and it just looked like the money paid was ransom. If I owe someone money I have to try that approach. Just tell them I will not pay them unless they do something for me. I'm sure with this transaction as a precedent it will be fine with our courts..
2
Let me rephrase your last paragraph:
There are many reasons to fault the USA, including its role in the destruction of Syria and Iraq, support for brutal civil wars in the Middle East and South America, aid to AlQaeda/AlNusra/etc. mercenaries to destabilize the Syrian government, aid to KSArabia for its destruction of Yemen; aid to Israel; hatred of Iran; and its abysmal human rights record with respect to black Americans.
There are many reasons to fault the USA, including its role in the destruction of Syria and Iraq, support for brutal civil wars in the Middle East and South America, aid to AlQaeda/AlNusra/etc. mercenaries to destabilize the Syrian government, aid to KSArabia for its destruction of Yemen; aid to Israel; hatred of Iran; and its abysmal human rights record with respect to black Americans.
5
It cannot be a ransom payment if we owed them THEIR money. It would only be ransom if it was OUR money.
14
In any other time or context this deal would be praised for maxing out the benefits. A legitimate debt -- $400M needed to be paid. And the US says "we're ready to pay up but not until you release these three prisoners." Sweet. You tie two unrelated issues; legitimate debt and illegitimate prisoners, together for a win win outcome. Even The Donald would be proud!
7
The critics seem to have it completely backwards. We didn't pay them ransom for our hostages; we held their money (settled in a separate deal) hostage to make sure they gave us our citizens.
89
What about the hundreds of millions Iran owes the families of dead Americans? When do they get their money?
6
Short of daily giant headlines the effect of a NYTs editorial are minimal. Just last night Fox News had a panel discussion discussing the ransom. They do it every night.
4
For Obama, no good deed goes unpunished, truly! Beyond the nasty politics of it all, there's just the character issue. This ugly desire to taint all that forthright and good in what Obama does and aims to achieve shows us how morally degraded the opposition has become.
45
Wait.
Obama's been forthright?
Obama's been forthright?
9
In order for the $400 Million to be ransom paid by the US, it would have to have been paid with US assets -- not money we'd already agreed to pay back to Iran, as part of its agreement to halt its nuclear program. It's not surprising that the deceitful and unhinged wing nuts in the GOP would take a shrewd political move by Obama and twist it into something nefarious. And yet, somehow they refuse to admit that W. actually fabricated evidence to embroil us in the costliest war in this nation's history. More hypocrisy, and more of the same, from the GOP. Have they no shame?
39
Correction.
In order for the $400 million to be ransom paid by the US, Iran would have to demand payment in exchange for releasing the hostages.
Which is exactly what happened.
To make something Obama did nefarious, there's no twisting necessary.
In order for the $400 million to be ransom paid by the US, Iran would have to demand payment in exchange for releasing the hostages.
Which is exactly what happened.
To make something Obama did nefarious, there's no twisting necessary.
4
Why did the state dept say they would not pay the money until the hostages were released? Because it was ransom. Now all Americans have a price on our heads. Thanks Mr. President.
4
Giving Iran any money is and was a stupid decision. It will be used to further their nuclear weapons development and to sponsor even more radical Islamic terrorism world wide. But the obvious did not stop the Obama administration from making the stupid happen.
11
Paul, do you grasp the concept that the money belonged to Iran, and NOT to the US, in the first place? Are you suggesting that the US keep money that does not belong to us, even though an international court has determined that we owe that money to Iran, plus billions in interest? Do you understand that by refusing to repay the money would further escalate hostilities with a country that might otherwise wish to end hostilities? After all these years, the younger citizens of Iran have expressed the desire to restore relations with the rest of the world. Are you suggesting that being on better terms with Iran be off the table?
And you think that the remarkable deal the Obama administration has made to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons that would impact the entire world is stupid? Think again!
And you think that the remarkable deal the Obama administration has made to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons that would impact the entire world is stupid? Think again!
14
Nice try but there's a small problem.
Two weeks ago the State Department said it wasn't a ransom payment.
Last week the State Department admitted that it was.
Either Obama was lying then, or now.
Two weeks ago the State Department said it wasn't a ransom payment.
Last week the State Department admitted that it was.
Either Obama was lying then, or now.
16
Right. He withheld money from the Iranians for an unrelated issue. A more righteous leader would have made the payment as soon as he took office.
1
Actually, the State Department never called it a ransom payment. The State Department clarified that the payment was used as leverage to ensure that Iran didn't reneg on its agreement to return the prisoners. As many have already commented, this is more like Iran paying ransom (the prisoners) to get its money back -- the money we'd already agreed to pay them, as consideration for their agreement to halt their nuclear program, and money we'd likely have been ordered to pay, if the proceedings at the Hague had continued.
4
The State Department did not "admit" that the money paid was ransom, no matter how much you wish that it had.
5
A lot of semantics here. I would like to cut through. It's a binary solution set.
IF the $400m would NOT have been paid, would the hostages then been:
a.) released; or
b.) not released?
If a), then it was not a ransom. IF b) then it was.
See? Simple.
WR
IF the $400m would NOT have been paid, would the hostages then been:
a.) released; or
b.) not released?
If a), then it was not a ransom. IF b) then it was.
See? Simple.
WR
11
Hardly.
6
Oh please, another Liberal fairy tale in favor of Obama. To take money from different countries, put it on a pallet and deliver it as 'payment owed' to obtain release of hostages is ransom. If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck it is a duck. Yes, we owned them the money, but as our "new friends" now in Iran well know, this was ransom for the hostages.
To try to spin it as 'simply moneyed owed and paid' to assure release is another lie and another pathetic attempt to apply what Obama believer, that "what I say is what is the truth" no matter what. I guess ol' Hillary learned a lot about lying and obfuscating from the master, Obama.
Truly, truly disgusting watching the Liberal press led by the democratic sycophant the NY Times, ball all over themselves to add to the spin.
Every American knows a 'snow job' when they see it, and this is just a blatant example. My goodness a pallet of untraceable money send child up my spine as it would for any nefarious transfer of funds.
To try to spin it as 'simply moneyed owed and paid' to assure release is another lie and another pathetic attempt to apply what Obama believer, that "what I say is what is the truth" no matter what. I guess ol' Hillary learned a lot about lying and obfuscating from the master, Obama.
Truly, truly disgusting watching the Liberal press led by the democratic sycophant the NY Times, ball all over themselves to add to the spin.
Every American knows a 'snow job' when they see it, and this is just a blatant example. My goodness a pallet of untraceable money send child up my spine as it would for any nefarious transfer of funds.
14
Better to be snowed by the lies pedaled by Faux Infotainment, and Rush Limbaugh, the addict who criticizes other addicts. I see that logic. Why let the facts get in the way of a good story?
2
Having just returned from Iran, I am pleased that the truth is being revealed in the NY Times since so much of the media (and Donald Trump) have distorted the truth for political gains. It does us no good to escalate tensions with Iran after Obama has negotiated a sensible plan to benefit both countries.
25
the republican't party of the last 60-years or more,
has established itself in a perverted universe supported
by Ayn Rand,
with selective excerpts from Orwell's 1984
and Lewis' Into the Looking Glass.
they have become more and more adept at turning
language-usage on its head/a$$ for their sole benefit.
down is up, west is east, night is day, war is peace,
racism is patriotism, greed is good, selfishness is rugged individualism,
closed and manipulated markets are free, hate is love,
i am correct and you are not, fear is source food,
shouting wins discussions, thinking is old fashioned, science is not,
truth is solely by our definitions,
and, and ...
strong shades of Brave New World inhabit their realm.
grrrrr
thanks for attempting to set-these-episodes into their proper summaries...
a labor that never ends.
12
I dunno which I adore more: the crazy guy who said, "perception is reality," or the Barcalounger Patriot who yelled that we shoulda said, "we're keeping your money, and if you don't hop to it, the bombs fall in five minutes."
Dumb doesn't cover it. What that is, is people who never knew much about reality getting upset at occasionally being forced to notice that sometimes, things are actually a little more complicated than green eggs and ham.
Sorry, guys. Oh, and also this just in: bargaining is almost always better than war (sorry, sorry, sorry about the nuance there) and the President's still black. Sorry about that, too.
Dumb doesn't cover it. What that is, is people who never knew much about reality getting upset at occasionally being forced to notice that sometimes, things are actually a little more complicated than green eggs and ham.
Sorry, guys. Oh, and also this just in: bargaining is almost always better than war (sorry, sorry, sorry about the nuance there) and the President's still black. Sorry about that, too.
9
It's only the fake conservative Vichy Republicans who controlled the RNC convention and gotten aboard the Trump Titanic who can't mount an issues-based campaign (esp since their candidate doesn't understand the issues enough to realize when he's contradicting himself). I hope they keep fantasizing that Benghazi, the emails, Iran "ransom" and other nonsense will stop Hillary. Meantime, share this documented list of reasons to vote for her with the coalition of the sane, read by 12,300: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/open-letter-sanders-supporters-scott-s-sm...
5
Be all that as it may, the key question is, if the US refused to cough up the dough, would the hostages have been freed? I'm an Obama supporter and would vote for him, again and again, pretty much no matter what. But it still quacks like ransom to me.
3
I know it's a lie because that's how I feel. And don't give me any of that reason and logic stuff.
12
Both are true, depending on which side of the cash register one is standing....
The Administration made the payment in good faith (if that really applies to anything regarding Iran)..
The Iranians definitely won't argue, that they're enjoying a victory against the Great Satan.
So.....that's that.
The Administration made the payment in good faith (if that really applies to anything regarding Iran)..
The Iranians definitely won't argue, that they're enjoying a victory against the Great Satan.
So.....that's that.
Honestly, it is time to grow up and accept that the Obama administration is not colluding with anybody, didn't pay ransoms and isn't to blame for everything that has gone wrong since Nixon was president.
For those who thought the Iran deal was the worst thing ever, where's the beef? The fact that three hostages were released along with the payment that had been negotiated and owed isn't a grand conspiracy of high crimes.
It was smart negotiation to make sure these people were released.
In an age where this country has consistently made deals with devils to achieve something no one should be surprised. I've got a few names for you: Saddam, El Salvador, Quaddafi. We have a history of leaving people in power to gain something from them. We have started wars, sided with enemies to get resources and propped up dictators.
This is much ado about nothing with Iran. It was something for something already in the works going back years and three families were the winners.
For those who thought the Iran deal was the worst thing ever, where's the beef? The fact that three hostages were released along with the payment that had been negotiated and owed isn't a grand conspiracy of high crimes.
It was smart negotiation to make sure these people were released.
In an age where this country has consistently made deals with devils to achieve something no one should be surprised. I've got a few names for you: Saddam, El Salvador, Quaddafi. We have a history of leaving people in power to gain something from them. We have started wars, sided with enemies to get resources and propped up dictators.
This is much ado about nothing with Iran. It was something for something already in the works going back years and three families were the winners.
17
Our withholding the owed money was extortion to get our prisoners back. A wise move by the administration.
6
"...the administration concluded it would lose at The Hague" which is something of a "duh" statement. It is highly unlikely that it would have concluded otherwise if it had decided a priori that the $400 million was negotiable. Iranian assets were frozen after the U.S. embassy staff was taken hostage, not before. It was a direct consequence of the revolutionary government's illegal action in doing so that gave rise to Carter's botched 1980 rescue operation which likely cost U.S. taxpayers at least that much. Besides which, Iran never brought up the alleged "debt" when she bought weapons from Ronald Reagan and Oliver North in 85' and 86'. Who says we would have "lost"?
Nevertheless, the administration is telling the truth that the payment's timing was only "leverage". That's because the ransom was already paid back in 2015 in the form of a 'prisoner swap'. We incarcerated a few Iranian nationals for knowingly violating a Federal trade ban. They incarcerated ours for, well, reporting the news from Tehran and building an orphanage. Only difference between Obama and Reagan is the former ransomed in the form of flesh, the latter, cash.
Nevertheless, the administration is telling the truth that the payment's timing was only "leverage". That's because the ransom was already paid back in 2015 in the form of a 'prisoner swap'. We incarcerated a few Iranian nationals for knowingly violating a Federal trade ban. They incarcerated ours for, well, reporting the news from Tehran and building an orphanage. Only difference between Obama and Reagan is the former ransomed in the form of flesh, the latter, cash.
1
WHERE DOES LEGITIMATE CRITICISM LEAVE-OFF & BAD FAITH BEGIN?
Anti-Obama criticisms are nasty, including of the Bergdahl exchange for the several Gitmo Al Quedae prisoners' release.
A Democrat voter, I'll slough-off rhetorical manure, realizing the attacks are partisan propaganda--perhaps revenge for Iran-Contra if not Watergate.
The GOP intends to demoralize Democrats, and such partisanship intention is tragic-comic mutual.
Yet, isn't "crying wolf" self-diminishing?
And, heck fire, I suppose that these putrid phenomena are what vicious politics are much about, as thus we are so dis-united in lose-lose-lose.
When you vote this November, you are probably voting for further paralysis when you conscientiously-intelligently split your vote.
Anti-Obama criticisms are nasty, including of the Bergdahl exchange for the several Gitmo Al Quedae prisoners' release.
A Democrat voter, I'll slough-off rhetorical manure, realizing the attacks are partisan propaganda--perhaps revenge for Iran-Contra if not Watergate.
The GOP intends to demoralize Democrats, and such partisanship intention is tragic-comic mutual.
Yet, isn't "crying wolf" self-diminishing?
And, heck fire, I suppose that these putrid phenomena are what vicious politics are much about, as thus we are so dis-united in lose-lose-lose.
When you vote this November, you are probably voting for further paralysis when you conscientiously-intelligently split your vote.
6
"But the money was part of a separate negotiation over funds the United States has owed Iran since its 1979 Islamic Revolution."
We didn't owe them anything. They took hundreds of our citizens hostages. In retaliation, we confiscated their money. They money became our money. That's why it's been sitting in our bank account and under our control, not theirs, for the last 30+ years.
We didn't owe them anything. They took hundreds of our citizens hostages. In retaliation, we confiscated their money. They money became our money. That's why it's been sitting in our bank account and under our control, not theirs, for the last 30+ years.
5
we froze not confiscated. we never regarded that money as ours. under your theory other countries could keep our money for a host of reasons.
4
Here's the bottom line regarding linking money to releasing hostages...straight from the State Dept:
https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/alertswarnings/iran-travel...
https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/alertswarnings/iran-travel...
As “Rose by any other name will smell as sweet,” so does “Ransom” by any other term stink as bad!
2
Thank you for straitening me out NYT!
I was confused by Iran claiming it was indeed a ransom.
I was also confused by the use of Swiss Francs instead of dollars by the Obama administration. This was not to hide the ransom!
I was also confused by the use of cash payment, and the withholding of the hostages released until the second flight of cash was delivered and counted.
I originally thought it was a humiliation to the USA the way the BBC, Sky News, Washington Post and others (and the rest of the world) have described this as ransom. Luckily we have the NYT to explain how our eyes and brains have deceived us again. Must be those "right wing" types.
I was confused by Iran claiming it was indeed a ransom.
I was also confused by the use of Swiss Francs instead of dollars by the Obama administration. This was not to hide the ransom!
I was also confused by the use of cash payment, and the withholding of the hostages released until the second flight of cash was delivered and counted.
I originally thought it was a humiliation to the USA the way the BBC, Sky News, Washington Post and others (and the rest of the world) have described this as ransom. Luckily we have the NYT to explain how our eyes and brains have deceived us again. Must be those "right wing" types.
7
I'm surprised the administration didn't use bit coins.
2
Is it ransom if I refuse to pay a contractor what I agreed until he fixes the door he broke while working here?
6
Even the Chris Mathews could not understand that ransom is not giving back something that is owed is not ransom. Yes it was owed for all of the conspiracy believers but they will not believe it.
OMG it was linkage are the screams. Yes you do not get YOUR money back until we get the hostages. If Mr. Trump had done that it would be evidence of The Art of the Deal.
OMG it was linkage are the screams. Yes you do not get YOUR money back until we get the hostages. If Mr. Trump had done that it would be evidence of The Art of the Deal.
1
So did we earn interest on this money since 1979? No that would be "art of the deal"
1
One good point , in the event of Trump or any other renutlican becoming president , is that we might not have to hear , every day , all the conspiracy tales and dreamed up Mission Impossible like scenarios that the freedom and God loving renutlican voters devour endlessly . Only the devious and underhanded could come up with all the criminal and insane scenarios they believe .
3
Interesting that the Wall St. Journal ran the story as a news article. And the NYT said nothing, until it's own public editor felt compelled to mention that it's absence on the NYT's news side was worth noting.
So now the NYT does weigh-in, but only on the editorial side.
Could the message be any clearer? This is actually is a news story, and a big one. It's just that the Times can't spin it in a way that suits their preferred narrative, so they bury it until they have to print something, and when they do print something it's a column - where it's okay to distort and slant things in order to promote an opinion. I suppose the Times still has some journalistic integrity though, because at least they kept this piece in the editorial section where it belongs.
So now the NYT does weigh-in, but only on the editorial side.
Could the message be any clearer? This is actually is a news story, and a big one. It's just that the Times can't spin it in a way that suits their preferred narrative, so they bury it until they have to print something, and when they do print something it's a column - where it's okay to distort and slant things in order to promote an opinion. I suppose the Times still has some journalistic integrity though, because at least they kept this piece in the editorial section where it belongs.
6
If this whole thing is fake, why did:
1) The State Department lie to us two weeks ago?
2) WH Spokesliar Josh Earnest repeat the lie?
3) Obama exacerbate the lie by holding his own press conference to mock and laugh at the press over this?
If there was nothing to see, there should have been even less to say.
Or at least that's what Harvard law trained me to know.
1) The State Department lie to us two weeks ago?
2) WH Spokesliar Josh Earnest repeat the lie?
3) Obama exacerbate the lie by holding his own press conference to mock and laugh at the press over this?
If there was nothing to see, there should have been even less to say.
Or at least that's what Harvard law trained me to know.
6
One would have thought Harvard Law moght have taught you better English and logical skills.
After all, it did the President.
After all, it did the President.
4
It's just another conspiracy theory by the Republicans and Trump. The same as the Clinton emails - the FBI was bullied in to keepinb the story alive. They should be investigating the NSA and other hacks.
6
" an agreement that has done something remarkable — halted a program that had put Iran within striking distance of producing a nuclear weapon.".
The White House itself acknowledged that the Iran Deal was a "bill of goods" that was "successfully" sold to a bunch of naïve, wet behind the ears, unknowledgeable 27 years old journalists avid to swallow any story coming from the W.H.
We will see in the very next few years that the deal has only put Iran even closer to build the nuclear weapon which they are dedicated to build.
You also "fail" to explain why the $ 400 Mils were delivered to Iran in the form of stacks of Swiss Francs on wooden planks.
When I settle a debt with my bank or my mortgage holder : I send them a check or a money wire.
If this transaction had been "clean" and "explainable" so would the US government have done ..
Transparency is absolutely the WRONG word in this matter ..
The White House itself acknowledged that the Iran Deal was a "bill of goods" that was "successfully" sold to a bunch of naïve, wet behind the ears, unknowledgeable 27 years old journalists avid to swallow any story coming from the W.H.
We will see in the very next few years that the deal has only put Iran even closer to build the nuclear weapon which they are dedicated to build.
You also "fail" to explain why the $ 400 Mils were delivered to Iran in the form of stacks of Swiss Francs on wooden planks.
When I settle a debt with my bank or my mortgage holder : I send them a check or a money wire.
If this transaction had been "clean" and "explainable" so would the US government have done ..
Transparency is absolutely the WRONG word in this matter ..
2
Wire it where? we didn't and don't have a banking relationship with Iran.
4
Sure, it was a long overdue payback for money frozen by the U.S. government over thirty years ago. Simple. In plain English. Not hard to understand. Yet every time I hear this situation described in the media, I am always frustrated, because it is NEVER explained with any simplicity---if they were teachers, they'd have to be removed from the classroom. But then again, thanks to these "teachers" in the media, our history with Iran seems to BEGIN in 1979---not even 10% of the U.S. population, I'll bet, is aware that in the 1950s the United States helped engineer the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Iran that left the Iranians with 25 years of the Shah's brutal dictatorship. Hardly anyone here knows anything about that! Weird, to say the least. Or maybe this situation would be more appropriately described as "disgraceful".
11
1. The post-event communication regarding the release of funds was simply poorly handled. 2. The fact that The Donald (and others) would pounce on this is built into our two party adversarial system .. so why the surprise? 3. I don't think this meets the bar for something that should trigger an editorial from a publication as influential as the NY Times.
1
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe a "ransom" must be paid PRYOR to getting hostages released. Right? I don't ever recall hearing hostage takers say "Ok, listen carefully. We willl release the hostages first and then you better send us the money that we sent to you 35 years ago."
Regardless to the fact that Iran didnt have hostages and the money sent to them was theirs to begin with, could someone please explain to the right wing constituency how the hostage/ransome scenario plays out so they can stop foaming at the mouth?
Regardless to the fact that Iran didnt have hostages and the money sent to them was theirs to begin with, could someone please explain to the right wing constituency how the hostage/ransome scenario plays out so they can stop foaming at the mouth?
3
The president's meshing of legal realities and immediate practicality in this particular 'controversy' was tactically brilliant. Think about it: he actually managed to get American prisoners back for absolutely nothing. For free! The so called 400 million was already contractually owed. It was easy to manipulate the Iranians to convince themselves it was a ransom in order to let them save face. The only other group of idiots ( other than the Iranians themselves) who believe that the US government was out-maneuvered are the handful of republicans (desperate to find anything to attack Obama in order to draw attention away from the orangutang who likely could not find Iran on a map).
The republicans should be ashamed of themselves for being on the same page as the Iranians in feeding a propaganda machine that anybody with a IQ above 10 can plainly see is an obvious US diplomatic victory.
The republicans should be ashamed of themselves for being on the same page as the Iranians in feeding a propaganda machine that anybody with a IQ above 10 can plainly see is an obvious US diplomatic victory.
6
Spin, spin, spin. The editorial is right, of course. There was no ransom paid here. But the Administration did set itself up for the spin. And that poor thinking allowed the 'loyal opposition' to turn a good thing (it's-your-money-but-you-can't-have-it-while-holding-innocent-US citizens) into a bad thing.
Fine. And let's not forget that Donald Trump is the only man alive who saw film of the cash being off-loaded in Tehran. So there's that.
Fine. And let's not forget that Donald Trump is the only man alive who saw film of the cash being off-loaded in Tehran. So there's that.
1
For the n-th time: ransom implies OUR money being paid in return for something. In this case, the money was clearly Iran's and they would have gotten it anyway, maybe a bit later. In essence, it was a way to assure some leverage, and regretfully but realistically, excessive transparency would not have helped. So, really, the WSJ and our GOP compatriots should curb their enthusiasm.
3
If it was so "clearly Iran's" then why did it take 40+ years for them to get the money? Would? Could? Should?
1
Hmm..if we didn't pay them the cash until the hostages were wheels up, it sure is ransom.
What does the NYT think about Iran's ongoing restocking of U.S. hostages? What is motivating the restocking?
What does the NYT think Iran is going to do with those ballistic missiles its testing? Is Iran going to use them to send us flowers for Valentine's Day?
Iran has played Obama like a fiddle.
What does the NYT think about Iran's ongoing restocking of U.S. hostages? What is motivating the restocking?
What does the NYT think Iran is going to do with those ballistic missiles its testing? Is Iran going to use them to send us flowers for Valentine's Day?
Iran has played Obama like a fiddle.
7
It's really rich to read all the comments here about the "right wing," "faux news" and the like. The NY Tass, er Times, has gone out of their way to ignore this story, along with others like the Soros leak, but now finds itself in the uncomfortable position of having to cover up (yet again) another foreign policy mess by the Obama administration. When we have the State Department issuing new alerts about travel by US Citizens to Iran on the heels of an "historic nuclear agreement," it's clear this isn't a level playing field. Rather, Obama, Kerry and their minions are being schooled in reality. The fact that we've decided to make good on a 40 year old "debt" serendipitously on the same date hostages were being released by the Iranians strains credulity. Mr. Obama is looking to build up his legacy - this sordid deal with Iran will affect his legacy, but not in the way he imagines.
For the rest of the Times readers, you might also be interested to know there was a severe flood in Louisiana in the past week. Donald Trump managed to make it down. President Obama and Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, couldn't pull themselves away from vacation and fundraising, respectively, to find time to visit. If a Republican president was late in visiting with victims of floods in Louisiana on account of a vacation, I suspect that would be front page news in this "newspaper." Or, perhaps it already was.
For the rest of the Times readers, you might also be interested to know there was a severe flood in Louisiana in the past week. Donald Trump managed to make it down. President Obama and Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, couldn't pull themselves away from vacation and fundraising, respectively, to find time to visit. If a Republican president was late in visiting with victims of floods in Louisiana on account of a vacation, I suspect that would be front page news in this "newspaper." Or, perhaps it already was.
6
Oh the Trump Play-Doh moment gets a mention.
2
I guess Obama did the right thing, after the deal they had show that they were loyal to the deal so they paid the their dept to Iran to show that, but not until they were certain that Iran would release the USA's detainees! smart political move! but they really failed to show this move to the public. Obama is really bad at this job. I see that he can not just deal with this job about his policies in Syria either. he really do not tell the public what's going on at the right time and always after some kind of disaster. maybe he does not trust the public so much.
I am sure the $490 mil wasn't a bribe, just like I am sure the Clinton Family Foundation $100k donation to the New York Times Neediest Cases Fund back in 2008 wasn't a bribe for the Times early Clinton endorsement.
6
Algiers accord was negotiated in 1981, subsequently President Reagan provided arms and ammunition to the Iranians to fend off our friend Saddam who had invaded Iran.
We live in a 24/7 cable make belief news world. There are people in this country who believe the Republican propaganda that President Obama is a secret Muslim, he was not a US born citizen (the nominee of the Republicans for Presidency has taken that stand).
We are a moral country and we honor agreements and treaties; mostly these are done to avoid conflicts. In case of Iran right after the hostage crises SOS Warren Christopher negotiated the deal between Iran, US, and Algeria to resolve the hostage crises resulting in the Algiers declaration.
"Point 1. The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs."
The other points deal with money & any disputes between the parties call for BINDING ARBITRATION. For details here is a link: http://bit.ly/2beYPpT
President Obama used what was legally Iran's to put the screws to ensure the release of US Nationals out of Iran and for Republicans and Faux news it is ransom, I wonder how they define 'ransom'?
We live in a 24/7 cable make belief news world. There are people in this country who believe the Republican propaganda that President Obama is a secret Muslim, he was not a US born citizen (the nominee of the Republicans for Presidency has taken that stand).
We are a moral country and we honor agreements and treaties; mostly these are done to avoid conflicts. In case of Iran right after the hostage crises SOS Warren Christopher negotiated the deal between Iran, US, and Algeria to resolve the hostage crises resulting in the Algiers declaration.
"Point 1. The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs."
The other points deal with money & any disputes between the parties call for BINDING ARBITRATION. For details here is a link: http://bit.ly/2beYPpT
President Obama used what was legally Iran's to put the screws to ensure the release of US Nationals out of Iran and for Republicans and Faux news it is ransom, I wonder how they define 'ransom'?
1
The Only reason such Brazen Lies flourish in Public Space & Fool ordinary Citizens is because the Liars face No Painful Consequences for their Lies. When Donald Trump Publicly Announced in his Rally that the Obama Administration had paid Ransom to Terrorists, the Media avidly multiplied the National Exposure of this Sensational 'News'. When Donald Trump's announcement was proved to be a Lie, the Media merely moved on !! As a Presidential Nominee of a Major Party, Donald Trump telling a Defamatory Public Lie is OK !! Tomorrow, President Trump telling Public Lies on the National & World Stage will be Officially OK !
What if the headlines had been thus:
“Obama Strikes Deal with Iran Eliminating Their Pursuit of Nuclear Weapons Capability!”
Lead line:
“Concurrent US payment of $400 million owed for 1976 failed delivery of American weapons to the overthrown Shah’s regime, while American prisoners still remain captive in Iran.“
“Obama Strikes Deal with Iran Eliminating Their Pursuit of Nuclear Weapons Capability!”
Lead line:
“Concurrent US payment of $400 million owed for 1976 failed delivery of American weapons to the overthrown Shah’s regime, while American prisoners still remain captive in Iran.“
This story gets so much play by the right wing news sights and - by extension - my Republican friends. I try to refute it with the facts, but most people call me a liar. At least the nice people merely say I'm stupid ;)
1
What gets lost in history is we started our problems with Iran in the 1950's. Wh is it we forget sme small facts. ... There was no ransom paid and do not forget who overthrew the only democratically elected President of Iran. ... http://lstrn.us/1EnHgyR
1
Now that you've put this issue to rest, can you please return to the ever-important non-scandal of Clinton's e-mails?
The only reason these issues are in the news is to provide some semblance of "balance." With so much wrong with Trump, the media seems to be searching for something (anything) that will throw some shade on Clinton and Obama.
The only reason these issues are in the news is to provide some semblance of "balance." With so much wrong with Trump, the media seems to be searching for something (anything) that will throw some shade on Clinton and Obama.
Once again, the explainers for the left to the rescue with the "Official" story to be put out.
Do you folks have no integrity at all?
Do you folks have no integrity at all?
4
Complexity, subtly, diplomacy- too hard in the headline zinger world. Who wants to read the fine print?
4
This definitely WAS a ransom payment, but the ignorant American people believe anything their favorite President tells them, no matter how openly he lies. If the President was a Republican, those very same people would be screaming it was a ransom.
3
Since 1979 it is owed to Iran, the question begs why did no other President find it necessary to repay in the Department of State's words,"State Sponsor of Terrorism."Knowing full well that $400 Million in cash goes directly to sponsor and perpetrate terrorism throughout the world, for instance paying Hezbollah's fighters in Syria that are fighting against American interests and American Soldiers.My next question for the Obama administration is when a government agencies one day comes across hundreds of Millions of Dollars in American banks or invested in some kind of Wall St. fund, say from daesh, belonging to Omar al-Bashir of Sudan,will it be returned in cash because it belongs to them? Ransom or not what we do know is this was and is a victory for terrorism throughout the world paid for in cash by the American government.
3
What the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, the Iranians and the North Korean News Agency don't tell you is that the Iranian negotiators on the prisoner exchange were not the same negotiators involved in the weapons deal
settlement. Therefore, they couldn't make demands of the U.S.team negotiating the weapons deal settlement, which means they couldn't negotiate a quid pro quo of money for hostage release, the definition of a ransom.
settlement. Therefore, they couldn't make demands of the U.S.team negotiating the weapons deal settlement, which means they couldn't negotiate a quid pro quo of money for hostage release, the definition of a ransom.
1
Truth is that if the payment had not been used as leverage, when the Republicans found out about that, they would have criticized the administration for failure to take advantage of the opportunity; they would been all over it like a cheap suit!
1
This morning the US issued a travel warning against Americans going to Iran because of the risk of being kidnapped for ransom. This is obviously a consequence of Obama having payed 400 million ransom in unmarked bills in the dead of night to Iran. Yet you idiots fall all over yourselves to defend the dimwitted idiot occupying the White House. The Iranians know an easy mark, a sucker, when they see one, and Obama's the big enchilada among suckers.
5
It's wonderful that the New York Times editorial board claims to knows the "real story" of what happened. Actually that matters little because the appearance was clearly that of paying a ransom. The Iranians treated it as such and they reported it as a ransom proving how we were outmaneuvered in the negotiations. And the rest of the world sees it the same way. Thank goodness we have John Kerry explaining it was "leverage", Obama to declare that "the US doesn't pay ransom" and the Editorial Board to reassure us about the truth. The truth is actually that we were outmaneuvered in a way far beyond the simplistic understanding of our leaders.
For any practical purposes this was indeed a ransom. I guess the recent State Dept warning that Iran is looking to kidnap Americans is unrelated. I'm sure when they read the NY Times article they will cancel that plan because they will understand that "it wasn't really a ransom".
For any practical purposes this was indeed a ransom. I guess the recent State Dept warning that Iran is looking to kidnap Americans is unrelated. I'm sure when they read the NY Times article they will cancel that plan because they will understand that "it wasn't really a ransom".
4
"We cannot let Barack Obama's legacy fall into Donald Trump's hands."
Sorry, but I just don't see President Trump paying ransom money. If that legacy is important to you, vote for the candidate who will preserve it.
Sorry, but I just don't see President Trump paying ransom money. If that legacy is important to you, vote for the candidate who will preserve it.
But this is the truth, and it appears of no use to Repbulicans
1
I'm amazed what people who seem intelligent are willing to believe. No matter how many times it's pointed out how this money was owed to Iran and how it was paid back, people will be paid back.
I saw Rudolph Giuliani on tv stating that Mrs Clinton has an undisclosed illness.
Is abandonment of rational thinking and common sense a requirement for being a member of the Republican Party? They seem to have a monopoly on over there
I saw Rudolph Giuliani on tv stating that Mrs Clinton has an undisclosed illness.
Is abandonment of rational thinking and common sense a requirement for being a member of the Republican Party? They seem to have a monopoly on over there
4
How the mainstream media white-washes the Obama administration weaknesses and failings is what this story is about.
2
True.
These fake scandal stories propagated by republicans are designed to distract voters from the incompetence of their presidential candidate.
"The truth is that the administration withheld the payment to ensure Iran didn’t renege on its promise to free three detainees"
And yet we are confident that Iran wont renege on its agreement to halt its nuclear weapons program?
And yet we are confident that Iran wont renege on its agreement to halt its nuclear weapons program?
3
All of this is evidence that points to one blatant and astonishing fact:
The post-Reagan GOP is utterly clueless when it comes to foreign policy and the tactics of diplomacy. No wonder Clown Trump and his legions of the illiterate eschew America's position as a leader of the free WORLD for a sick and fearful nativism. Even Nixon was able to hold his weight globally. That Kissinger would go to Clinton is even more evidence.
The Senators that wrote the letter to Iran are like children at an adult dinner party. Send them to a small island where they can throw food at each other.
Pathetic.
The post-Reagan GOP is utterly clueless when it comes to foreign policy and the tactics of diplomacy. No wonder Clown Trump and his legions of the illiterate eschew America's position as a leader of the free WORLD for a sick and fearful nativism. Even Nixon was able to hold his weight globally. That Kissinger would go to Clinton is even more evidence.
The Senators that wrote the letter to Iran are like children at an adult dinner party. Send them to a small island where they can throw food at each other.
Pathetic.
1
Ok, not ransom. But then why the statements that they weren't connected? Clearly, they were. And clearly, the Obama administration lied about that.
2
Is this really that difficult to comprehend? It was our LEGAL obligation. And yes, Iran cannot wire transfers from the US and they held our people hostage. Diplomacy is a dirty business.
Trump and his cohorts simply don't understand either the nuance involved in negotiations or the global consequences. This isn't Atlantic City.
Sad.
Trump and his cohorts simply don't understand either the nuance involved in negotiations or the global consequences. This isn't Atlantic City.
Sad.
2
Have you no shame whatsoever? Iran declares itself to be an enemy of the US and takes great pride in humiliating us as a powerless giant. One wonders how much Iran's leaders relished watching Kerry and Obama chase after that shameful nuclear agreement, conceding important ground at every turn. Then, to add insult to injury, Iran showed its allies that it could still rub our noses in it by scaring our sailors into committing televised treason at a time when Obama was still supporting the deal. So what you call the "fake" ransom story is an exclamation point on American humiliation. The Iranians pushed around the Obama administration like a schoolyard coward, afraid to draw any line based upon principle and willing to do concede anything.
For the NYT to defend this as a means of bolstering the Democrat political fortunes shows how little American patriotism we have left.
For the NYT to defend this as a means of bolstering the Democrat political fortunes shows how little American patriotism we have left.
1
Saudi Arabia, the so-called "friend" in the region has far abysmal record on human rights. Just look at the non-stop bombing of Yemen that killed thousands of innocents and destroyed that country.
The "ransom" went the other way. We have to pay you money we froze, but not until you do something for us.
1
Pointing out history and nuance does not obviate the fact that the timing of the payment clearly made it a bribe. But I guess the president is used to being bribed and bribing others.
1
Explaining this is a waste of breath. Those who wish to understand the nuances already do. Those who wish to believe the Obama administration is a corrupt, America-hating cabinet of sellouts and traitors likewise, do. After eight years there is no in between.
American victims of Iranian terrorism previously won judgments against the Islamic Republic in U.S. courts and the Clinton administration allotted that the settlements would be paid out of the aforementioned $400 million. This money was not "owed" to Iran but instead to American families devastated by the state run terrorist activities of the Iranian government.
1
No--$1,400,000,000 was paid as tribute--sad
Republicans have gone to the sewer and are throwing as much muck as they can to mask what a poor candidate they have. Reporters, instead of using critical thinking, just keep repeating whatever they hear. None other than Andrea Mitchell asked HRC about her health even though the idiots who went on tv to discuss the issue were not qualified to do so.
What more can be said?
What more can be said?
1
But The Donald actually saw the jet off-loading the $400,000,000 in one-dollar bills to the gleeful Iranians in Tehran. HE SAW THE JET! (Oops, no, it was some other jet. Not sorry!)
Fueled by Trump, the entire right-wing has abandoned substance for urban legend. Conspiracies are everywhere. Not long ago, it was the presidential birther bull. More recently, it was Obama's hidden sympathy for ISIS violence. Now it's "crooked" Hillary's election rigging. But the "Second Amendment people" can take care of that. He dunno. Just sayin'.
These are the tactics of classic losers. Spread blatant falsehoods; blame the refs; complain about how opponents are not "being nice" to him while he flings ad hominem insults serially in the pathetic hope they will stick.
According to the US Constitution, no person not having attained the age of thirty-five years shall be eligible for the presidency. Donald Trump is a seven-year-old. He is ineligible. That, I can tell you! Believe me!!
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Fueled by Trump, the entire right-wing has abandoned substance for urban legend. Conspiracies are everywhere. Not long ago, it was the presidential birther bull. More recently, it was Obama's hidden sympathy for ISIS violence. Now it's "crooked" Hillary's election rigging. But the "Second Amendment people" can take care of that. He dunno. Just sayin'.
These are the tactics of classic losers. Spread blatant falsehoods; blame the refs; complain about how opponents are not "being nice" to him while he flings ad hominem insults serially in the pathetic hope they will stick.
According to the US Constitution, no person not having attained the age of thirty-five years shall be eligible for the presidency. Donald Trump is a seven-year-old. He is ineligible. That, I can tell you! Believe me!!
www.endthemadnessnow.org
2
The very title of the editorial suggests that a neutral treatment of a story can not be expected from the NYT Editorial Board. It, however, acknowledges that there was lack of transparency --"Where the administration went wrong was in not being more transparent sooner about how the detainees’ release unfolded." That's however very small, tiny, tiny, thing to be important--after all, when was something called transparency a part and parcel of democratic norms?
1
Barack Obama willl reap millions from corporate interests that are boosting his Trans-Pacific Partnership. He's just as crooked as the rest.
1
When Trump stiffed the State of New Jersey for $.19 on the dollar for hundreds of millions in casino debt, it's a shrewd business move. When the US pays what is legally owed to another country and used that payment as leverage to assure that US Citizens, wrongly imprisoned, are set free, that's a problem? Hmmm...
6
For me this was the smartest deal WH has stuck. Think about it, money was always Iran's. We held all the money for decades; when the Iran nuclear deal was signed, we were obligated to pay the money back to Iran. So WH uses the same to get our citizens back. I am not what is the problem here. How come this is ransom. Shame on you GOP. Try to get something better to corner WH. It is ridiculous claim and shameful rhetoric.
6
I guess the same could be said of the release of hostages? Is that in accord with the Hague, also?
The question being what entity is compelling the foreign interest to comply with US demands for release of its citizens?
Or is it all about the money?
The question being what entity is compelling the foreign interest to comply with US demands for release of its citizens?
Or is it all about the money?
1
"Where the administration went wrong was in not being more transparent sooner about how the detainees’ release unfolded."
Yep, wish they had been more truthful.
Yep, wish they had been more truthful.
2
Great editorial that clarifies the facts and the sequence of events. But this line is the rub for me: "Tribunal decisions are binding, and the administration concluded it would lose at The Hague." The GOP has made it clear that they do not believe in the rule of law. International law? Binding? On US? When we don't want it to be? Don't be ridiculous!
4
Yet it was Obama who did all this without informing a SINGLE member of GOP leadership or the Speaker of the House.
I find it hilarious that after 8 years of Obama, his supporters are lecturing us on lawlessness?
What's next? Kanye West lecturing on restraint and class?
I find it hilarious that after 8 years of Obama, his supporters are lecturing us on lawlessness?
What's next? Kanye West lecturing on restraint and class?
3
In our ideologically-divided society, many people hear what they wish to hear. Democrats and Republicans (think Pro and Con) will believe what they choose to believe. The real problem in swaying the middle-ground is that Americans gain their knowledge of "current events" in TV sound-bites and digital hyperlinks. Who actually reads anymore? Or considers the historical context.
When the Shah of Iran was overthrown, the U. S. froze funds, which his government had paid us for weapons. Should we have delivered those fighter jets and missiles to Ayatollah Khomeini?
We are just now working through similar claims with Cuba, funds assets they confiscated, from individuals and corporations. And the Castro Regime has claims regarding cash we froze in banks.
The delayed transfer, in order to get some additional "juice"--the hostages, is just a much shrewder "Deal"!
When the Shah of Iran was overthrown, the U. S. froze funds, which his government had paid us for weapons. Should we have delivered those fighter jets and missiles to Ayatollah Khomeini?
We are just now working through similar claims with Cuba, funds assets they confiscated, from individuals and corporations. And the Castro Regime has claims regarding cash we froze in banks.
The delayed transfer, in order to get some additional "juice"--the hostages, is just a much shrewder "Deal"!
3
Seems like this is what Trump's Art of The Deal would recommend. Blind hate trumps everything else.
2
Give us back the hostages or we won't give you the 400 million - The Art of the Deal - not ransom.
3
"There are many reasons to fault Israel too, including for its role in the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s brutal civil war; aid to Egypt's brutal dictator, Sisi; hatred and constant threatening of Iran; and an abysmal human rights record."
Switched around a few words for effect.
Switched around a few words for effect.
The payment got our citizens returned, call it what you will. This is the typical two-definition interpretation presented by the Republicans and the Democrats.
I say, "Welcome home guys!"
I say, "Welcome home guys!"
1
Thank you, NYT. For a while there, I thought the barbarians were going to storm the gate with their non-stop propaganda machine painting Obama & Co. as some sort of anti-American, weak kneed, conciliators.
The truth, of course, will never change the opinions of people who are emotional wrecks when it comes to politics.
The truth, of course, will never change the opinions of people who are emotional wrecks when it comes to politics.
2
These twisted new definitions are amusing. When the US swimmers were held at gunpoint in Brazil, the new definitions say they had been taken hostage. They subsequently paid a ransom and were released.
When the Brazilian police removed two swimmers from a plane, it took them hostage until they paid a ransom.
When the Brazilian police removed two swimmers from a plane, it took them hostage until they paid a ransom.
Paying "ransom" with using money you already owe stretches the definition of ransom beyond the breaking point.
4
One can only imagine the howling from the other side of the aisle if we had paid the $400MM we owed (based on international law) and the hostages remained in captivity. He would have been called "soft", "naive", "Muslim terrorist sympathizer" etc, etc. Business and politics are always about leverage, and he used it quietly, efficiently and effectively.
If President Obama developed a cure for cancer, the far right would be railing at him for putting cancer researchers out of work. It never ends . . . the beat goes on . . . and on . . . and on . . .
If President Obama developed a cure for cancer, the far right would be railing at him for putting cancer researchers out of work. It never ends . . . the beat goes on . . . and on . . . and on . . .
7
This "story" is another republican dead horse. As ever, they have nothing else. Are they really the people you want in your government? Not me.
7
The assumption that we owed Iran this money, let alone interest on it, is absurd, Hague or no Hague. It's not so much that we paid an incredible amount of money for 3 hostages ("detainees" doesn't change the fact) but that we actually concede some sort of debt to a nation that kidnaps and holds Americans hostage whenever they please. Why isn't there a penalty for the criminal act in the first place? Or is kidnapping now an acceptable tactic at the Hague? Keeping the money as payment/penalty/fine for their criminality should have been the least of Iran's punishments. Wonder what the NYT would have said had it been GWBush who paid ransom money to Iran. There's nothing "fake" about the story except its explanation by Liberal sycophants.
1
Ransom, no. Contingency, yes. To me, the asset settlement was analogous to a contingent contract. When Iran detained the ten sailors, the message they got from the US was "you just earned yourself another contingency, because the plane with your $400M will sit on the runway until our sailors are returned."
1
This is a 35 years old debt! It was about time the US paid it up. And Kerry and Obama did a fantastic job getting maximum political cooperation from Iran for basically giving them their money back. Plus it is likely they won respect from Teheran political elite excelling at the favorite Persian game of hustling over the price.
4
This is the truth - it makes sense, fits the facts and shows an Administration working within international law to advance the interests of our country and its people.
2
How very dare they!
When is Iran going to compensate the US taxpayers. I believe the US taxpayers, through an act of Congress, compensated US hostages that the Iranian government illegally kidnapped from our embassy.
2
If this was legitimately owed to the Iranians, why not just wire the money to a bank in Iran? Sure, there are certain restrictions on this type of transaction, but Obama could have waived those and proceeded in a normal manner. By shipping hard currency, under the cover of night, this looks pretty shady. The money can't be tracked, after the Iranians unload it. That cash will certainly find its way to factions fighting and killing US soldiers. Poor optics and poor execution. Typical Obama...
3
Senators, like Senator Kirk, should be careful with his words. To inflame, to imply race has something to do with President Obama's decision, is despicable. I hope he loses his contested race.
3
I think most informed people know what happened. I look at the payment as some combination of debt payment AND ransom. However I also believe it was done in a covert way. My understanding is follows. If I got something wrong, please point it out.
* There was a claimed monetary debt of the U. S. to Iran
* A standard wire transfer was NOT used.
* Pallets of foreign currency were flown in the dark of night on an unmarked plane.
* A "prisoner" is on video indicating IRAN said they could not leave until a plane landed.
* A condition of the delivery of the money was the release of the "prisoners"
* Searching for a defintion of Ransom on google, the first hit is as follows:
"a sum of money or other payment demanded or paid for the release of a prisoner."
* There was a claimed monetary debt of the U. S. to Iran
* A standard wire transfer was NOT used.
* Pallets of foreign currency were flown in the dark of night on an unmarked plane.
* A "prisoner" is on video indicating IRAN said they could not leave until a plane landed.
* A condition of the delivery of the money was the release of the "prisoners"
* Searching for a defintion of Ransom on google, the first hit is as follows:
"a sum of money or other payment demanded or paid for the release of a prisoner."
2
Do you think that it was handled that way because Iran wanted it that way? This was not your standard commercial transaction.
From the editorial about the "Fake Iran Ransom" story: "If the administration had handed over the funds and not brought the detainees home, what would the critics be saying now?"
That's easy; Republicans have a clear "heads-we-win-tails-you-lose" pattern: They'd be huffing indignantly that this was another instance of wobbly, weak-willed Liberalism. "You gave them back $400M when they were holding Americans? Why didn't you demand their release before handing over the money?!"
That's approximately what they'd be saying now, if their Obama-is-invariably-wrong behavior in the past 8 years is anything to go by.
(The most telling example of this double standard is the Right's forgiving W. for letting the WTC be knocked down, then bungling the subsequent war into which he led the nation on dodgy pretexts, leaving an unfixable regional mess - yet roaring with righteous outrage at Hilary's quasi-involvement in the Benghazi attack, and sloppy email usage. The passage of 15 years since 9-11 does not make such cynicism any less relevant to current political discourse.)
Do Republicans really imagine their low expectations for their friends' actions, but high ones for opponents', pass unnoticed? Evidently.
But not to anyone with eyes open, not blinkered with ideology, they don't. They shine a stark, revealing light on the GOP's true motivations and honesty - and about a lot more issues than this (Iranian reimbursement) episode.
Bryan Gaul
Chicago
That's easy; Republicans have a clear "heads-we-win-tails-you-lose" pattern: They'd be huffing indignantly that this was another instance of wobbly, weak-willed Liberalism. "You gave them back $400M when they were holding Americans? Why didn't you demand their release before handing over the money?!"
That's approximately what they'd be saying now, if their Obama-is-invariably-wrong behavior in the past 8 years is anything to go by.
(The most telling example of this double standard is the Right's forgiving W. for letting the WTC be knocked down, then bungling the subsequent war into which he led the nation on dodgy pretexts, leaving an unfixable regional mess - yet roaring with righteous outrage at Hilary's quasi-involvement in the Benghazi attack, and sloppy email usage. The passage of 15 years since 9-11 does not make such cynicism any less relevant to current political discourse.)
Do Republicans really imagine their low expectations for their friends' actions, but high ones for opponents', pass unnoticed? Evidently.
But not to anyone with eyes open, not blinkered with ideology, they don't. They shine a stark, revealing light on the GOP's true motivations and honesty - and about a lot more issues than this (Iranian reimbursement) episode.
Bryan Gaul
Chicago
7
Just one more reason to oppose the other side. And anyone who says otherwise is one of them. Which scapegoat are you voting for President?
2
This was smart deal making by the US, utilizing leverage to assure the desirable outcome. I am sure that he who cannot be named recognizes this, but cannot acknowledge it because he did not do it and it is not about him.
2
The most incredible part of this story is that somehow the group of people responsible for the greatest marketing campaign ever exectuted - the 2008 election - was unable to anticipate just how poorly this would be perceived by the electorate. The far right outrage machine doesn't care about the facts, just the optics, and the optics here are terrible even if the diplomacy isn't.
You can blame Rush and Fox News all you want for manufacturing a scandal here, but that's like blaming a fish for swimming. That's just what they do. That's their job. And the Obama administration's handling of this made their job so much easier.
You can blame Rush and Fox News all you want for manufacturing a scandal here, but that's like blaming a fish for swimming. That's just what they do. That's their job. And the Obama administration's handling of this made their job so much easier.
This is yet another fake outrage from the Republicans in the hope of securing some political mileage and creating a fake scandal.
They'd been screaming all along the Iranian nuclear debate last year: You can't trust the Iranians.
Well, when the Obama administration follows through with that principle and decides to extract maximum leverage out of the already agreed upon and announced earlier payment to be made to the Iranians, and use the payment as leverage to ensure that the Iranians followed through with the prisoner release, they are now being accused of paying ransom.
What's happened is plain and simple: lack of trust in the Iranians, and exercise of our leverage to make them deliver.
It's a commonly used negotiation strategy, and is disingenuous from the self proclaimed master of negotiation Trump to be critical of it.
Let's look at the flip side: had we released the earlier agreed upon payment and expected the Iranians to comply with the prisoner release and they hadn't, Trump would have been making a scandal of the whole process by saying: we should not have paid them the money till we had secured the prisoners' release. As to how incompetent the administration is and how he would have handled it.
It's pure hypocrisy on the part of Trump and the Republicans. Any thing to create a scandal and extract votes.
They'd been screaming all along the Iranian nuclear debate last year: You can't trust the Iranians.
Well, when the Obama administration follows through with that principle and decides to extract maximum leverage out of the already agreed upon and announced earlier payment to be made to the Iranians, and use the payment as leverage to ensure that the Iranians followed through with the prisoner release, they are now being accused of paying ransom.
What's happened is plain and simple: lack of trust in the Iranians, and exercise of our leverage to make them deliver.
It's a commonly used negotiation strategy, and is disingenuous from the self proclaimed master of negotiation Trump to be critical of it.
Let's look at the flip side: had we released the earlier agreed upon payment and expected the Iranians to comply with the prisoner release and they hadn't, Trump would have been making a scandal of the whole process by saying: we should not have paid them the money till we had secured the prisoners' release. As to how incompetent the administration is and how he would have handled it.
It's pure hypocrisy on the part of Trump and the Republicans. Any thing to create a scandal and extract votes.
3
If the release of the hostages had been delayed and it was discovered that Obama had paid the $400 million on time. We would all be discussing how the administration was at fault for not using the payment as leverage.
Since the GOP vowed to obstruct the Obama administration, everything they do and say isn't about governing, it is about politics and the next election.
Since the GOP vowed to obstruct the Obama administration, everything they do and say isn't about governing, it is about politics and the next election.
3
I clearly remember every major Republican TV pundit and politician claiming the original signing of the nuclear deal with Iran should include release of hostages. One, Donald Trump, on Hannity's show, insisted on this release: "It's a simple thing, we want our prisoners back," Trump stated. "These are four people who shouldn't be there anyway."
4
Fake news story from a Rupert owned product how typical and yet there are people who don't know what paying a debt owed is the right thing to do.
Call a news conference every day the WS Journal for fake news is a waste of the tax payers money but yet Republicans love wasting the tax payers money and calling it tax relief.
Call a news conference every day the WS Journal for fake news is a waste of the tax payers money but yet Republicans love wasting the tax payers money and calling it tax relief.
And if the Iranians did a last minute "no deal", the plane takes off with the cash. Right? The State Department stated yes, it was a ransom.
Was it a reward for good behavior? We "owed" the money because the Shah was overthrown?
They took our people, and the President lied about paying a ransom.
The NYT can write and spin anyway they want,
Was it a reward for good behavior? We "owed" the money because the Shah was overthrown?
They took our people, and the President lied about paying a ransom.
The NYT can write and spin anyway they want,
1
hawk honey,
Iran wasn't asking for ransom payment. They wanted the money the Shah paid us back in the late 70's for arms we didn't deliver, in addition to billions more in frozen assets, interest, and fines.
We wanted some guys they had put in jail. Not hostages. Guys arrested.
We did a deal. Got the guys first. Then paid the down-payment on the settlement we'd agreed to over the frozen money. No spin.
Iran wasn't asking for ransom payment. They wanted the money the Shah paid us back in the late 70's for arms we didn't deliver, in addition to billions more in frozen assets, interest, and fines.
We wanted some guys they had put in jail. Not hostages. Guys arrested.
We did a deal. Got the guys first. Then paid the down-payment on the settlement we'd agreed to over the frozen money. No spin.
1
Let's suppose you owe money to Al Capone. Since you haven't paid up for years, he decides to kidnap your brother and demand that you pay up now. So you pay the old debt and declare it wasn't ransom, even though Capone considers it to be. So was it ransom or paying an old debt? The answer is that it is both, and the NYT should stop creating a false dilemma between the two options to protect Obama from criticism.
5
Thank you.
An incredibly dishonest story by the nyt. The us did not owe Iran anything at that time. It's status was still a claim. N debt is owed until final adjudication. Now, perhaps an independent reading of the situation would suggest that it was probable that the us would lose a court case and that a negotiated settlement would be in our best note rests. But Obama falsely claimed that there was no linkage. The republicans would never admit that the trad was a good deal.
If we lost such a case, Obama could still refuse to pay. He is indifferent to domestic law, so here is no reason for him to be sensitive to international law.
If we lost such a case, Obama could still refuse to pay. He is indifferent to domestic law, so here is no reason for him to be sensitive to international law.
2
Given the state of the ignorant electorate and highly politicized cable news, we can't very well expect people to understand nuance, can we? My very favorite part of this tempest in a teapot is the commentary--presented wholly without irony--by conservatives like Oliver North. THE Ollie North, for goodness sake.
4
Gee this newspaper isn't politicized at all is it? And the people that read it are all fair minded nonjudgmental paragons of fairness and accuracy in media and smart too! What a tragic joke.
1
Actually, it was really smart of the Obama Admin. The debt was hostage the US held, and the US hostages were the ransom, the US demanded, and Iran paid.
Good.
Good.
1
So hostage taking, usually the refuge of criminals, is a now a policy of the U.S. government? Really honorable solution. When this country was young and strong and common sense ruled there was a slogan "millions for defense, not one cent in tribute". When they get their nukes and threaten NYC as a hostage and no leader stands up remember this sad episode.
In justifying the US decision to pay Iran $400m to settle Iran's claims before the Hague you cite the recent decision of Switzerland’s highest court ordering Israel to pay Iran around $1.1 billion plus interest in a dispute over an oil pipeline company. What you conveniently left out is that the Israeli government announced that it has no intention of paying any monies to Iran regardless of the Swiss court decision because Iran is its enemy. Why aren't Iran's role in the brutal civl war in Syria, its "aid to Hezbollah" its "hatred of Israel" and its "abysmal human rights record" sufficient reasons for the US to withhold all payments to Iran regardless of the legal merits of Iran's claim?
2
Forget reason Jay, they don't care just so long as Obama/Clinton is not embarrassed. They are all brainwashed robots, conditioned to respond to a NYT stimulus which precludes all thought.
Better to return the money to Iran than to use it to compensate Iran's hostages or the families of Marines killed in the Beirut barracks bombing.
1
The GOP response to this is just another example of the politics that has led to the rise of Trump. For almost a decade the GOP has never let up a chance to bash the current administration even at the expense of the truth. The Iran deal is far from perfect. The GOP did not have an alternative apart from war. A nuclear armed Iran has been prevented for now and Americans are home safe. Move on!!
2
Ask the families of the hostages if withholding the money until the hostages were released was a good idea...
1
Ask the families of the six hostages taken by Iran since the ransom was paid.
1
Obama's State Dept. paid the $400MM in cash and did not disclose it...over the objections of the Justice Department. Everything was totally normal. Nothing to see here.
Iran paid the Jimmy Carter era hostages , how much? Couldn't they have been paid from this pile of the Shah's money.
Iran has taken 6 new hostages since they got the first ransom. No doubt unrelated. Obama's efforts to free or at least locate Robert Levinson consist of what...
Iran paid the Jimmy Carter era hostages , how much? Couldn't they have been paid from this pile of the Shah's money.
Iran has taken 6 new hostages since they got the first ransom. No doubt unrelated. Obama's efforts to free or at least locate Robert Levinson consist of what...
1
Very disappointed to see that my Congressman, Rep. Bob Dold (R-10th, Ilinois), misrepresented this issue to constituents in an email this morning, calling the payment a "ransom." I wouldn't be surprised if other politicians are doing the same. What a shame.
4
Gabby Giffords, the hypocrite, has endorsed Mark Kirk for Senate in IL. Kirk has been spreading this story about the payment to Iran by referring to Pres Obama as "drug dealer in chief." As far as I'm concerned, by endorsing Kirk, she's endorsing a GOP Senate that will NEVER pass any kind of gun control laws at all, and will obstruct Pres Clinton's efforts to appoint a Supreme Court justice that might more favorably view overturning the Heller Decision.
I can't think of any reason to vote for any Republican, anywhere, for anything. I wouldn't even vote for a Republican for dog-catcher.
http://cltv.com/2016/08/22/mark-kirk-on-iran-payment-obama-acting-like-d...
I can't think of any reason to vote for any Republican, anywhere, for anything. I wouldn't even vote for a Republican for dog-catcher.
http://cltv.com/2016/08/22/mark-kirk-on-iran-payment-obama-acting-like-d...
3
The White House paid the 'bill' in cash...foreign cash. That was to avoid trouble with American law, and Congress. However, the fungible cash also allows Iran to funnel the cash however it may please, whether to terrorists residing in Iran, or, IRGC operations targeted at American interests, or, purchasing technology that can be used to improve their offensive ballistic missile capabilities, prohibited nuclear technology or for any other nefarious act.
An American citizen would be guilty of providing material support for a US designated terrorist organization had they done it. But, then again, this is the Obama administration, which has been funding jihadists in Syria to support Obama's proxy war there.
An American citizen would be guilty of providing material support for a US designated terrorist organization had they done it. But, then again, this is the Obama administration, which has been funding jihadists in Syria to support Obama's proxy war there.
1
The money was owed to the Shah's regime, not to the mullahs. There was no other reason for sending it than ransom, pure and simple.
2
"Where the administration went wrong was in not being more transparent sooner . . . ". Boy, it seems I've heard this sentence about the Obama administration an awful lot. Maybe even as many times as I've heard it about Hillary Clinton's campaign.
1
GOP nonsense as usual. Apparently the GOP has forgotten words of wisdom from one of their Gods, Ronnie Regan: "trust but verify." As usually, whatever any Democrat does gets twisted into whatever the GOP wants it to be; apparently Humpty Dumpty now runs the GOP: "Whenever I use a word, HD snarled, it means whatever I want it to mean; nothing more and nothing less." American needs thinking humans running the government at all levels, not fictional cartoon characters.
2
"... money paid by Tehran for military hardware that the United States never delivered ..."
"The $400 million plus interest, totaling $1.7 billion, that the United States agreed to pay ..."
The Iranians got the better part of the deal, because "military hardware" does not collect interest.
The Times should have noted that Iran under the Shah was criticized in 1977 for its oil-financed military-spending spree:
Irans Vast Purchases of Weaponry Strain Ability of Country to Absorb It All
By ERIC PACE
JAN. 5, 1977
http://www.nytimes.com/1977/01/05/archives/irans-vast-purchases-of-weapo...
"The $400 million plus interest, totaling $1.7 billion, that the United States agreed to pay ..."
The Iranians got the better part of the deal, because "military hardware" does not collect interest.
The Times should have noted that Iran under the Shah was criticized in 1977 for its oil-financed military-spending spree:
Irans Vast Purchases of Weaponry Strain Ability of Country to Absorb It All
By ERIC PACE
JAN. 5, 1977
http://www.nytimes.com/1977/01/05/archives/irans-vast-purchases-of-weapo...
The repub 'ransom story' makes as much sense as saying that ...
... the US held Iran's $400M hostages and the US ransom demands were to release the US prisoners (=ransom payment).
... the US held Iran's $400M hostages and the US ransom demands were to release the US prisoners (=ransom payment).
The most important word in this editorial is "transparency". The current administration at nearly every level lacks transparency.
2
The duplicity of judgement is amazing. The amount of apologists confound me. it wasn't right during Iran Contra, it is not right today. Period.
2
Thank you, New York Times! There is too much obfuscation during an election season for my taste, and I think for the health of our country.
1
This sounds like a lesson that President Obama could give to "the negotiator" Trump. The $400M was Iran's money in the first place. The US would have been on the hook for $1.7B (that's billion), if we didn't do this deal. Who knows more about the "art of the deal?" I would say President Obama and the US State Department.
1
Sophistry. Pure sophistry.
We had the money. We could hold it as long as we liked. We paid it to secure the release.
No matter "whose" money it was: We had it. We paid it. That's ransom.
We had the money. We could hold it as long as we liked. We paid it to secure the release.
No matter "whose" money it was: We had it. We paid it. That's ransom.
4
As reported here in the times back in April, Iran's central bank has to pay nearly $2 billion in restitution to victims of Iranian sponsred terror attacks on US citizens. Those court cases have been decided, the Iranian bank accounts were supposed to have been used to pay the victims relatives.
The US didnt owe Iran $400 million, rather Iran still owes the US.
The US didnt owe Iran $400 million, rather Iran still owes the US.
3
People who are convinced that Secretary Clinton "murdered" Vince Foster will not let reason or evidence cloud their opinion of this matter. They want the US to go to war with Iran, so that they can feel tough and righteous.
2
You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig. This was a payoff. I am not saying that it was wrong to do but let's not delude ourselves. Frankly, if there were justice in the world, the US government should have allowed the people kidnapped by Iran back in the 70's to sue and then used the money to pay them damages. But our government, in their wisdom, decided that such a suit was improper.
Pointing out the perfidy of Mr. Obama (and Hillary) is hardly something that should be criticized.
Pointing out the perfidy of Mr. Obama (and Hillary) is hardly something that should be criticized.
1
Obama's explanation of paying $400 million in cash to Iran reminds me of Ryan Lochte's explanation of being robbed by Rio cops.
4
Unlike Trump, Obama does not like to brag. If anything Trump and the GOP cannot stand to have Obama and the American people get any victory - at all - ever. Trump is upset that he won't get his hands on the $400 million for himself.
In Trump's world the hostages are losers for getting "captured" by the Iranians and we should take Iran's money just like we should take Iraq's oil. Yes, his perverse business philosophy of stealing taken to the diplomatic world.
In Trump's world, all Olympic Silver and Bronze medalists are losers.
In Trump's world the hostages are losers for getting "captured" by the Iranians and we should take Iran's money just like we should take Iraq's oil. Yes, his perverse business philosophy of stealing taken to the diplomatic world.
In Trump's world, all Olympic Silver and Bronze medalists are losers.
2
Thank you for poijnting this out NYT. I had been skeptical.
5
The NY Times will jump through hoops to protect Barry.
When $400 million in cash (not an electronic transfer) drops in Iran's lap concurrent with the release of American prisoners -- that's ransom.
Wonder how much of the cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation.
When $400 million in cash (not an electronic transfer) drops in Iran's lap concurrent with the release of American prisoners -- that's ransom.
Wonder how much of the cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation.
6
"Barry"
Is that you, Maureen?
How much of the cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation? None.
Is that you, Maureen?
How much of the cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation? None.
1
Thanks but republicans will not let facts get in the way of their public insinuations. I just wish they would know when to stop, but they dont mind hurting our country if they can get a few last jabs in at Obama. This was not ransom, we do not pay ransom, that is our mantra, it was their money all along.
5
Obama could cure cancer and the GOP would still find a reason to criticize him. Let's be honest. The GOP- an all white and mainly Southern party doesn't believe that a black man should have ever been President. Their criticism of Obama is not rooted in policy but rather in the racism that has a death grip of the party.
9
"The GOP- an all white and mainly Southern party ..."
Herman Cain is not "white", so you are wrong.
Herman Cain is not "white", so you are wrong.
1
Look under your bed, I'm sure you'll see more racism.
1
Had the administration left the hostages to languish in Iran and released the money owed to Iran without using it as leverage to ensure the release of the imprisoned Americans, the headlines trumpeted by the Wall Street Journal and the right would have (rightly) excoriated the administration for feckless and incompetent diplomacy.
Even when the administration clearly does something smart and rational, the media (including the so-called "liberal media") just can't help twisting it into a stick with which to bash the president.
The whole point of a ransom is to get money that doesn't belong to you in return for something that belongs to the party being extorted. Ransom isn't getting money that you were already going to get by prior arrangement.
Initially the president probably didn't want to crow about using Iran's own money as leverage to get the hostages back but perhaps he should have to quell the nonsense from his critics.
Even when the administration clearly does something smart and rational, the media (including the so-called "liberal media") just can't help twisting it into a stick with which to bash the president.
The whole point of a ransom is to get money that doesn't belong to you in return for something that belongs to the party being extorted. Ransom isn't getting money that you were already going to get by prior arrangement.
Initially the president probably didn't want to crow about using Iran's own money as leverage to get the hostages back but perhaps he should have to quell the nonsense from his critics.
7
Let's see. If we were holding back their money to insure the release of our people, isn't it the U.S. holding the money for ransom instead of the reverse? It's good we don't just trust those guys to release our people. The Republicans, as usual, are shocked that there is gambling going on.
3
You'll never convince those who want to believe it was quid pro quo.
2
There is an old saying on wall St. Don't buy anything that has a story attached to it. Anyone dumb enough to cross hostages and money on a runway deserved to be criticized.
2
No good deed goes unpunished.
7
Pragmatic diplomacy? With a world pariah? A state sponsor of terrorism actively seeking atomic weapons who repeatedly denies the existence of the Holocaust and repeatedly threatens to wipe our closest ally off the face of the earth? One who regularly organizes huge rallies of frothing people chanting "Death To America?" Who humiliated our sailors on their own public tv?
We have been hurting their sensibilities all these years since the hostage crises...WE created this problem. Let's give them back a billion dollars to buy weapons of war. Pragmatic Diplomacy? Or wishful thinking? How many ballistic missle tests have they conducted since Obama made his "deal?" Maybe the NYT should have demanded to see his college transcripts after all.
We have been hurting their sensibilities all these years since the hostage crises...WE created this problem. Let's give them back a billion dollars to buy weapons of war. Pragmatic Diplomacy? Or wishful thinking? How many ballistic missle tests have they conducted since Obama made his "deal?" Maybe the NYT should have demanded to see his college transcripts after all.
4
The GOP and Obama Haters did not 'break' this story. It was broken by the Wall Street Journal. Every other media organization in the country covered it. Quite simply, our President lied to us and fourteen days later his lie was proven. He told us the 400 million payment was not in any way tied to the hostage release. And... it was. Anyone that does not see this as being a 'bad thing' really needs to look up the term 'cognitive dissonance'. Just because he is a Democrat and just because you think Democrat's are inherently good does not mean he does not do bad things. For further research on this topic, I suggest you look up the term 'Hillary Clinton'.
1
When's the last time Republicans did something good or even remotely positive for this country? I've been thinking and cannot come up with a good example.
6
Nixon?
1
This administration has never been transparent about anything. Why start now?
5
"If the administration had handed over the funds and not brought the detainees home, what would the critics be saying now?"
One thing I've learned after watching the GOP demonize this President for the last 8 years is, no matter how anything the Obama administration transpires, they will cook up a phony "scandal", and try to paint even the most routine transaction into some sort of "failed", "illegal", or "unconstitutional" act of treason.
The GOP knows no bottom to their hatred of Obama, apparently.
One thing I've learned after watching the GOP demonize this President for the last 8 years is, no matter how anything the Obama administration transpires, they will cook up a phony "scandal", and try to paint even the most routine transaction into some sort of "failed", "illegal", or "unconstitutional" act of treason.
The GOP knows no bottom to their hatred of Obama, apparently.
4
The Republicans show their international naivete once again.
The Iranians have their own internal battles and the hostage exchange and the nuclear deal were not supported by the hardliners within the country. Much of the news out of Iran once the deal was signed including using the word "ransom" for a debt repayment was created to give the impression that Iran had not become too cozy with the US.
instead of seeing that Iran was trying to cover up their weakness in doing the deals, the Republicans and their media make the US look weak.
When they negotiate, the country comes out a loser and they crow about their great deal like a shopper who believes the compare at price on a sticker.
The Iranians have their own internal battles and the hostage exchange and the nuclear deal were not supported by the hardliners within the country. Much of the news out of Iran once the deal was signed including using the word "ransom" for a debt repayment was created to give the impression that Iran had not become too cozy with the US.
instead of seeing that Iran was trying to cover up their weakness in doing the deals, the Republicans and their media make the US look weak.
When they negotiate, the country comes out a loser and they crow about their great deal like a shopper who believes the compare at price on a sticker.
same here when my neighbor decided to hang on to my lawnmover until the check for the money i owed him cleared...
3
I see, so it was actually Iran's money that we owed them. Uh huh. One wonders why we didn't pay them sooner, unconditionally, if it was theirs to begin with?
1
Why bother with facts when baloney is every so much more fun?
Really, the money belonged to Iran. If you read the newspapers at the time the nuke deal was inked, you _knew_ the frozen funds for purchases never completed would be returned. You would expect the same from Macy's.
But this was an inconvenient truth for a party that prides itself on obstructing all aspects of President Obama's administration just because it can.
I can't speak for anyone by myself, but I am sick to death of this infantile behavior.
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
Really, the money belonged to Iran. If you read the newspapers at the time the nuke deal was inked, you _knew_ the frozen funds for purchases never completed would be returned. You would expect the same from Macy's.
But this was an inconvenient truth for a party that prides itself on obstructing all aspects of President Obama's administration just because it can.
I can't speak for anyone by myself, but I am sick to death of this infantile behavior.
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
7
Perception is reality; the deal smells.
4
Refusing to give someone money unless they do something you want them to do is not paying a ransom in any sense of the word.
4
It is amusing how the NYT and its fans believe that of course we had an obligation to give up the $400 million with interest (at what rate?) because it was money that Iran paid for arms that were not delivered? But what about the tort claim that we surely had against Iran for them taking over our embassy and holding our people against their will for how many days? 300 plus? Surely that claim was worth at least $400 million. Where did it go? We should have told them from the beginning that they can forget about the $400 million. We are keeping it and if and when you take some more Americans hostages, the bombs are going to start falling in 5 minutes.
3
Well victims of state sponsored terror acts have revved money from Iran through court judgements. As far as the embassy, not suing Iran was a condition of the captives release.
They New York Times can parse words any way they want, but it doesn't hide the fact that not giving the money until the Americans were released, is just plain and simple a ransom. Period!
3
Credibility died for Mr. Obama long ago. You can't lie to the nation, face to face, and expect the people to believe and trust you. Oh there are some, of course, that will never understand the danger of when a leader lies to his people, but for most the awakening has or is occurring. Mr. Obama is liar, untrustworthy, and not fit of character to lead the nation. His problems have become our problems. This is why the threat of terrorism is growing and not permanently checked. This is why our standing in the world has sunk. This is why our economy, for so many of us, is still severely crippled. This is why we as a people are so horribly divided and against each other.
4
2 sayings appear apropos:
"If it Looks Like a Duck, Walks Like a Duck, Quacks Like a Duck - It is a duck."
"Justice Always Must be Done, but Also Seen".
Makes me positive the 400M was a duck, certainly seen this way. What a faux pas!
"If it Looks Like a Duck, Walks Like a Duck, Quacks Like a Duck - It is a duck."
"Justice Always Must be Done, but Also Seen".
Makes me positive the 400M was a duck, certainly seen this way. What a faux pas!
3
This really needed to be explained clearly. And you did.
But what took so long?
But what took so long?
3
Think of the justifiable screams of "incompetent" had the US released the money and Iran had not released the prisoners.
1
Iran and the United States took the case to The Hague in 1981, and the Obama Administration cut a deal because - in 2015 - it "concluded it would lose at The Hague." How long does the international tribunal take to decide things? Does any human being with a natural life span survive to see the outcome?
1
A sure sign your position is weak is resorting to defensive phrases like "the truth is." And so it is here. Facts are stubborn things, as John Adams once said. And the facts show the Times' apologia for yet another White House misinformation campaign doesn't add up. The $400 million, we now learn, was delivered as dictated by the Iranians, in shrink wrapped bundles of unmarked, easily laundered cash from a variety of countries to allow for easy laundering. In other words, a ransom payment you'd make to gangsters. The Times conveniently fails to mention the balance of the 1.7 billion was paid in a more pedestrian, assumedly electronic way. And Iran's nuclear program has not been "halted" but only delayed for another 8 - 9 years. Meanwhile, since our ransom, or leverage, payment Iran has increased its practice of snatching Americans from the streets of Tehran to hold as hostages. And the Iranians continue to make military moves against the US, while taking every chance to humiliate The Great Satan, as with their capture and open mockery of American sailors in January. So much for warming relations. Sorry, Times, but when it comes to defending the truthfulness of this administration, you have a losing hand.
6
"And Iran's nuclear program has not been "halted" but only delayed for another 8 - 9 years."
It is surprising that the editorial did not choose to mention that, especially when there was an article printed about that a few months ago.
It is surprising that the editorial did not choose to mention that, especially when there was an article printed about that a few months ago.
2
"... their [Iran's] capture and open mockery of American sailors in January."
The US Navy was at fault, so that example is useless for supporting your "case".
9 in Navy Disciplined Over Iran’s Capture of Sailors
By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT
JUNE 30, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/world/middleeast/us-navy-iran.html
The US Navy was at fault, so that example is useless for supporting your "case".
9 in Navy Disciplined Over Iran’s Capture of Sailors
By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT
JUNE 30, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/world/middleeast/us-navy-iran.html
For someone who trumpets facts, you seem unaware of many. For one, we aren't legally allowed to give Iran is currency, so it had to be in foreign bundles cobbled together.
1
Republicans are the guilty ones here. By falsely suggesting that the U.S. paid ransom, and a huge one at that, Republicans are encouraging others to kidnap Americans for ransom. If they were clear thinking patriots, Republicans would join the chorus that this was not a ransom and send the message that the U.S. stands by its principled stand that it doesn't accede to kidnappers' demands. This is just another mindless attack by an opposition party that puts its own political interests ahead of the nation's interests.
5
The desperation of the GOP propaganda machine is on full display. The rest of the World stares in disbelief that this is happening in America. Our enemies love it and our allies wonder if half the Country has lost its mind.
4
The Obama administration played a little hardball with Iran. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with the rest of the U.S. media always looking for a scandal.
Thanks for this editorial, clearly laying out the facts.
Thanks for this editorial, clearly laying out the facts.
5
Well Gee we did not "have" to pay any money. Sure we agreed and an international court decided, but we could have withheld it topay potential claims like some other money. Now the money was used as leverage and it took some time for the administration to admit it. Lack of transparency and dodging as usual.
2
After reading the various comments - I wonder if people are actually able to comprehend what they read. I am reminded of a quote by Anais Nin "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." I see this as smart and savvy dealing by the administration bring American citizens home. Kudos to Obama and team.
Jerry
Jerry
7
This is why doing the right thing rather than doing things right is difficult. I am sure someone around the President noted that this payment would be viewed as ransom. Yet, the President, instead of doing things right, did the right thing.
4
The US used Iran's own money (which we did owe them) to influence Iran's behavior. Randsoming prisoners with the holder's own money! I don't think any definition of randsoming includes paying with the holder's own money. My reaction to the president's and diplomat who came up with this, ( after I stopped laughing) was 'Man, what a horse trader!'
5
This is the absolute reverse of the Iran-Contra scandal. In 1980 Casey and Reagan conspired to signal Iran NOT to free U.S. hostages until after the election in return for more generous terms and missiles. That's called traitorous behavior. Trump soliciting Russian hackers and signalling he would break with NATO on Russia's invasion of Ukraine- also traitorous behavior.
The real double standard is that Republicans are allowed to make a false idol out of Reagan who was a phony patriot and traitor, and defame Jimmy Carter - one of our most able presidents - often betrayed by the ambitions within his own party.
The real double standard is that Donald Trump and Paul Manafort haven't been hauled in front of a congressional hearing and questioned on Crimea - while Republicans were permitted to waste millions of dollars and hours on our State Department conducting foreign business in a hostile environment in Benghazi.
The real double standard is that Republicans are allowed to make a false idol out of Reagan who was a phony patriot and traitor, and defame Jimmy Carter - one of our most able presidents - often betrayed by the ambitions within his own party.
The real double standard is that Donald Trump and Paul Manafort haven't been hauled in front of a congressional hearing and questioned on Crimea - while Republicans were permitted to waste millions of dollars and hours on our State Department conducting foreign business in a hostile environment in Benghazi.
8
"The $400 million plus interest, totaling $1.7 billion, that the United States agreed to pay was far less than what Iran was demanding."
The problem for some of us is that the above sentence sounds like a payoff, and in cash no less. Not a ransom, but a shadowy payoff between 2 govts at the most expedient time.
The press can call it "diplomacy", but it would be more accurate to call it "expedient diplomacy." If we were to get Kerry off camera, he would likely agree.
One's opinion of this whole matter hinges one one's view of that sentence I quoted above.
The problem for some of us is that the above sentence sounds like a payoff, and in cash no less. Not a ransom, but a shadowy payoff between 2 govts at the most expedient time.
The press can call it "diplomacy", but it would be more accurate to call it "expedient diplomacy." If we were to get Kerry off camera, he would likely agree.
One's opinion of this whole matter hinges one one's view of that sentence I quoted above.
3
It would be better if I had confidence in the current secretary of state Kerry. He doesn't strike me as bright or guided by anything.
But the optics are so obvious and the response so predictable one has to wonder if anyone was paying attention. And the politics matter here to future policy flexibility. Not that the Republicans aren't reprehensible.
But the optics are so obvious and the response so predictable one has to wonder if anyone was paying attention. And the politics matter here to future policy flexibility. Not that the Republicans aren't reprehensible.
1
Kerry: The Cuba and the Iran "successes" were Kerry's last opportunity to show himself as a grand diplomat before Obama's 2nd term ended. That was the hard spin in the press at least.
1
In most situations,it is a moral, ethical and legal obligation to pay your debt or pay the money for the goods you are supposed to deliver but did not deliver. This is what happened with the 400 million dollars that US Government gave the Iranians. The US Government owed this money to the Iranian Government.The Iranian Government was not sure if they will get their money unless a deal was made in relation to the hostages. It was a good timing for both the Governments. This was no ransom. The politicians and journalists certainly have twisted the facts of the case. Shame on them
6
Sorry but no -- Historically the "debts" that large sovereign govts owe each other are far more fluid than you suggest. Nothing like owing someone other person for a couch they bought at a store.
A better analogy would be the $$ that large banks can owe each other, sometimes on a daily basis. Very liquid and open to compromise about what exactly is owed and when.
A better analogy would be the $$ that large banks can owe each other, sometimes on a daily basis. Very liquid and open to compromise about what exactly is owed and when.
The fact that this story continues to have legs even after the facts were made clear is pretty telling about how twisted the conservative news machine is in this country. If there is any potential for embarrassing a Democratic president, there seems to be no limit to the fabrication they must do to make a benign story into a zinger.
6
I never understand why a newspaper does not have to retract a false story like this. Nor do I understand why people are allowed to invent lies that hurt people and our nation (such as that President Obama doesn't have an American birth certificate) without being prosecuted or sued for liable.
Free speech should mean sharing our opinions, not spreading falsehoods that impugn our leadership and demoralize the American people.
Free speech should mean sharing our opinions, not spreading falsehoods that impugn our leadership and demoralize the American people.
1
So why was the payment made in specie? Who wants $400 million in cash? Only people who need untraceable money to fund terrorist operations. Why did the US accede to the demand for cash? There's no good answer to this question.
4
No good answer?
Iran has been locked out of the international banking system, it's not like we could just wire them the money.
Additionally, you can be sure that every note's serial number was retained for tracking. Wherever the money pops up and enters the international banking system, we'll know.
I don't know why there's an implication of malevolence when it's simply practical.
Iran has been locked out of the international banking system, it's not like we could just wire them the money.
Additionally, you can be sure that every note's serial number was retained for tracking. Wherever the money pops up and enters the international banking system, we'll know.
I don't know why there's an implication of malevolence when it's simply practical.
5
I am tierd of hearing the same questions again and again. Apparently some here ask the questions, but never want to know the answer.The reason the money was given in cash is because no Banks and financial institutions are willing to transfer money as they are afraid of falling foul of US sanctions.They are afraid of having to pay billions of dollars on fine to the US government.So the only way to pay to Iran was by cash
2
Douglas & Jason, What part of ..we do not have banking relationships with Iran"..don't you understand?
What would you suggest 400 goats?
What would you suggest 400 goats?
3
One would think that with so much time to establish legitimate channels to transfer funds to Iran, the U.S would not have had to resort to paying the debt using various hard foreign currencies and risk the appearance of impropriety.
3
Actually, the situation should be looked at in reverse... Iran ransomed 3 prisoners for their $400 million.
Yesterday I heard some Louisiana Republican Congressman dig the President tying the $400 million sent to Iran to lack of funding from Washington to alleviate some of the pain due to the flooding in Louisiana.
Yesterday I heard some Louisiana Republican Congressman dig the President tying the $400 million sent to Iran to lack of funding from Washington to alleviate some of the pain due to the flooding in Louisiana.
2
I have no problem with us returning money we owed, but I still think that sending a boatload of *cash* was totally insane. The only time one uses cash is when it's an illegal transaction or to avoid taxes, or possibly so the recipient gets a horde or untraceable money to pay off friends, operatives, etc. So, Iran didn't have quite the right banking connections for us to transfer the money through normal means? Sorry, that seems like a fourth-grader's argument! And this was from an administration I respect a lot, but what a two-bit transaction this was.
4
You forgot to mention that financial institutions are not dealing with Iran because if US sanctions.
This entire matter is just another non issue, political posturing by the Republicans, Trump and the Alt Right. The money was legally owed to Iran. The United States was eventually going to pay Iran.
If Trump were “President” and he were in the exact same situation and he had taken the exact same actions as President Obama, Trump, his supporters, the Republicans, Fox News, Breitbart and even the Wall Street Journal would all be celebrating that Trump had acted “Shrewdly” and used the money to obtain the “Best Deal” in pressuring Iran to get our people back safely.
If Trump were “President” and he were in the exact same situation and he had taken the exact same actions as President Obama, Trump, his supporters, the Republicans, Fox News, Breitbart and even the Wall Street Journal would all be celebrating that Trump had acted “Shrewdly” and used the money to obtain the “Best Deal” in pressuring Iran to get our people back safely.
7
If only the American negotiators had studied Economics at Trump University, they would have known that one should never pay off a legally owed debt.
6
Peddling fake stories and then feigning outrage about them is standard operating procedure for Republicans. It's what they do.
In 2004, syndicated columnist Tom Teepen noted the following about George W. Bush:
“…the president's reelection campaign is extending the family's skill at first creating phony versions of its opponents and then running against the fake.”
In 2004, syndicated columnist Tom Teepen noted the following about George W. Bush:
“…the president's reelection campaign is extending the family's skill at first creating phony versions of its opponents and then running against the fake.”
3
I think when Iran took over our embassy and held our hostages for 444 days, they forfeited their 400 million. Not to mention the weekly Death to America message. How those facts can turn partisan is really against our own self interest. It was a ransom payment sure as Olllie North traded arms for hostages.
2
Truth, justice and the American Way are meaninglessly Comic Book concepts to the Republicans in Congress and elsewhere. The Super PACs keep spewing this stuff out.
It doesn't matter whether there is actual concern on consequence. What we see are headline grabbing chumps who hurl out invective and the same old, same old.
This is all that is left of the party of Lincoln that has gradually been killing itself.
They have a poisonous presidential candidate and what do they do, poison the well some more.
It doesn't matter whether there is actual concern on consequence. What we see are headline grabbing chumps who hurl out invective and the same old, same old.
This is all that is left of the party of Lincoln that has gradually been killing itself.
They have a poisonous presidential candidate and what do they do, poison the well some more.
4
If we used the payment assure that Iran did not back off on its agreement to free three detainees, why did we not go a step further to assure compliance with the nuclear deal? Obviously years of sanctions did little to stop them in the first place so why not try something else.
Part for the detainees now. Another part some years in. After the agreement ends, wait again for the next.
Leverage works both ways.
Part for the detainees now. Another part some years in. After the agreement ends, wait again for the next.
Leverage works both ways.
Thanks to the Editors for the definitive truth. There was no ransom. The money was a legal debt. There were no hostages. They were detainees.
Just a few minor points. First, the total debt was $1.7 Billion, not $400 Million. Second, five detainees were involved, not three. Third, President Obama could not have been "more transparent". That is the equivalent of saying the glass could have been more empty.
Otherwise, stellar job!
Just a few minor points. First, the total debt was $1.7 Billion, not $400 Million. Second, five detainees were involved, not three. Third, President Obama could not have been "more transparent". That is the equivalent of saying the glass could have been more empty.
Otherwise, stellar job!
1
Nice mental gymnastics. The Times' ability to excuse any lie/backsliding (choose one) by the Administration remains unequaled. Obama's golf game was not disturbed by deadly floods, and his sleep is certain not to be bothered by a prevarications covering a reversal of long-standing US policy to not pay kidnappers for hostages. Now the State Department is warning citizens that Iran is likely to take more Americans prisoner on trumped up charges. Gee, I wonder why that new development in Iranian relations is so recent.
The administration and President Obama did not play and convey what you are saying well. Any one who looks at facts will come to the conclusion that what happen was a success of the hard work of the State Department and John Kerry. Iran would have got its 400 million dollars with or without release of the three Americans. The way State Department played this ensured that these people were released while Iran was desperate it to get the its money.
3
" If the administration had handed over the funds and not brought the detainees home, what would the critics be saying now?"
The question, of course, is rhetorical.
Sadly, this is another example of how Democrats fail to get their message out while Republicans always get their message out even after that message has been debunked. The WSJ, Fox, right wing talk radio and right wing blogs will continue to insist that the Obama administration paid a bribe and countless people will believe this to be true.
The account of this event as a "bribe" will join the Vince Foster conspiracy theory, Benghazi and other all too well known events as "truth" in the minds of many on the right.
The question, of course, is rhetorical.
Sadly, this is another example of how Democrats fail to get their message out while Republicans always get their message out even after that message has been debunked. The WSJ, Fox, right wing talk radio and right wing blogs will continue to insist that the Obama administration paid a bribe and countless people will believe this to be true.
The account of this event as a "bribe" will join the Vince Foster conspiracy theory, Benghazi and other all too well known events as "truth" in the minds of many on the right.
3
I think the Editorial Board is right on this.
It was a "carefully choreographed push" that used “maximum leverage" to get the deal done. Nothing wrong with that and about time.
The lack of transparency, however, has created a perception of ransom and the Obama Administration has none to blame but themselves for that perception, which is particularly troubling since they had promised to be 'the most transparent administration in history'.
It was a "carefully choreographed push" that used “maximum leverage" to get the deal done. Nothing wrong with that and about time.
The lack of transparency, however, has created a perception of ransom and the Obama Administration has none to blame but themselves for that perception, which is particularly troubling since they had promised to be 'the most transparent administration in history'.
1
Despite my agreement with the Adminstration's actions, the notion that the United States was really subject to the Hague's decisions is a little rich. The U.S. has frequently ignored decisions of international courts on the basis of "American exceptionalism." Given that, giving the current Iranian regime money "owed" to the Shah's was a policy decision to induce the current regime to agree to American demands which included signing the nuclear agreement and freeing the hostages. Call it anything you like, but that's the physics of the decision.
3
It is still a crime. The transfer of any rescources is still illegal under U.S. law. Second, the release of the prisoners was delayed to coincide with the actual transfer of funds.
Stop holding back the truth and making claims off old inaccurate facts
Stop holding back the truth and making claims off old inaccurate facts
4
We live in such a polarized country now, facts and the truth get lost in the muck. There is a certain segment of our population (Trump supporters) where facts and truth have fallen into the great abyss of ignorance.
7
Once again, the Obama administration invites criticism by not being more open and making a clear explanation to the public. The irony is that Obama was criticized harshly for not obtaining the release of the these prisoners in the nuclear deal, while he did, in fact, do so, by withholding the return of Iran's money until the prisoners were released. He may not have been able to reveal that at the time, but it should have been explained later. What he did is, in fact, what his critics lambasted him for not doing earlier. Now the attack him for having done it!
4
It's not quite as black-and-white as this editorial is written. When the Obama administration decided to temporarily withhold the money to ensure the hostages' timely release, the money temporarily became a somewhat like a ransom. No hostages, no money. So the money was both a debt and a temporary ransom. If the hostages had been further detained, would the U.S. have detained the money?
I agree with the administration's actions, by the way. But let's be careful with the spin.
I agree with the administration's actions, by the way. But let's be careful with the spin.
2
As long as we're trying to be honest here, let's talk about the motivations of those that oppose the deal. First off any opportunity to hand President Obama a defeat is a motivation. Second perpetual conflict with Muslim nations serves their interests to fund the military industrial complex.
3
More hallucinatory nonsense from the NYTimes editorial board.
1) The money was not "theirs", as so many keep screaming. These funds have been held for over 36 years! Why? Because they belonged to an overthrown former government. The USA had no obligation to release these funds to those who overthrew the government who held the financial contracts.
2) Iran is a major exporter of terrorism, a horrific abuser of basic human rights that we hold dear in the civilized world, actively calls for the destruction of our country, and has repeatedly shown its leaders are not to be trusted.
3) If you pay for the release of hostages, that's called paying a ransom. Why call them "detainees" over and over?
4) The Iran "deal" foisted on the American people is disgraceful. There is no dealing with these people, as time has shown over and over. They do not keep their word and are not to be trusted.
1) The money was not "theirs", as so many keep screaming. These funds have been held for over 36 years! Why? Because they belonged to an overthrown former government. The USA had no obligation to release these funds to those who overthrew the government who held the financial contracts.
2) Iran is a major exporter of terrorism, a horrific abuser of basic human rights that we hold dear in the civilized world, actively calls for the destruction of our country, and has repeatedly shown its leaders are not to be trusted.
3) If you pay for the release of hostages, that's called paying a ransom. Why call them "detainees" over and over?
4) The Iran "deal" foisted on the American people is disgraceful. There is no dealing with these people, as time has shown over and over. They do not keep their word and are not to be trusted.
4
You are correct about the critics. If the money had be returned while the detainee's were not, we would have heard plenty from the critics.
As we have learned, when it comes to President Obama, that the "vast right wing conspiracy" will find some way to criticize his every move. And if something he's done cannot be criticized, then they will invent something. The same, by the way, is true with Hillary Clinton. The Republicans are already busily working to de-legitimize her election before it has actually happened. How might these Republicans going to act once she's the President? I predict they will use their Obama playbook. After all, look at how well it's worked for all these years? Look at all the issues they have left festering.
The Republicans refuse to let the Democrats govern when they were in the minority and refuse to govern when they themselves are in the majority.
As we have learned, when it comes to President Obama, that the "vast right wing conspiracy" will find some way to criticize his every move. And if something he's done cannot be criticized, then they will invent something. The same, by the way, is true with Hillary Clinton. The Republicans are already busily working to de-legitimize her election before it has actually happened. How might these Republicans going to act once she's the President? I predict they will use their Obama playbook. After all, look at how well it's worked for all these years? Look at all the issues they have left festering.
The Republicans refuse to let the Democrats govern when they were in the minority and refuse to govern when they themselves are in the majority.
4
What a fortuitous convergence of events! A 37 year old financial dispute is finally resolved right at the same time our nuclear agreement with Iran is announced; but wait a minute, the money won't be delivered until our hostages are released. They are and the money is delivered, in cash and in a variety of currencies. I could hardly believe my eyes, but I am relieved to learn that this wasn't ransom. Can't be, the best President ever said it wasn't.
3
This is exactly the kind of sharp tactic that Mr. Trump would try, if he is truly as sharp as he claims he is. We owed Iran the $400 million and had agreed to pay it separately from any discussion about the U.S. prisoners. Then, when that deal was set, we sat on the delivery of the cash to prevent any second-thoughts by the Ayatollah's about releasing the prisoners. Obviously, the product of a calm, rational approach to negotiation. Bravo.
2
"The truth is that the administration withheld the payment to ensure Iran didn’t renege on its promise to free three detainees."
The quoted language above is the kind of parsing of words that causes problems. The GOP, at least as it has existed during my lifetime, will never get my vote. That said, the suspicion surrounding this issue is NOT merely the result of the GOP reflexively pouncing on the President (although they do... all the time). That's a cop out.
First, the White House declared that the payments were unrelated. Their spokesperson jumped through awkward hoops to try to say that although the timing was odd, the $400M delivery had nothing to do with the hostage release. Then a simple question was asked: Would the money have been paid if the hostages weren't released? And the dancing began.
Second, and more importantly, the story has now changed. It turns out that the $400M IS RELATED to the hostage release, just perhaps not in the way it immediately appeared. That's fine as far as it goes, but it flies in the face of the previous statements. At the end of the day, the $400M became a negotiating point in the release of hostages (i.e, "leverage"). Is that "ransom" in the strictest sense? Highly debatable. What's not debatable is that the original explanation was essentially nonsense. It took near constant badgering to get a statement that was at least plausible. That's a problem. Honest answers should be the first option, not the last resort.
The quoted language above is the kind of parsing of words that causes problems. The GOP, at least as it has existed during my lifetime, will never get my vote. That said, the suspicion surrounding this issue is NOT merely the result of the GOP reflexively pouncing on the President (although they do... all the time). That's a cop out.
First, the White House declared that the payments were unrelated. Their spokesperson jumped through awkward hoops to try to say that although the timing was odd, the $400M delivery had nothing to do with the hostage release. Then a simple question was asked: Would the money have been paid if the hostages weren't released? And the dancing began.
Second, and more importantly, the story has now changed. It turns out that the $400M IS RELATED to the hostage release, just perhaps not in the way it immediately appeared. That's fine as far as it goes, but it flies in the face of the previous statements. At the end of the day, the $400M became a negotiating point in the release of hostages (i.e, "leverage"). Is that "ransom" in the strictest sense? Highly debatable. What's not debatable is that the original explanation was essentially nonsense. It took near constant badgering to get a statement that was at least plausible. That's a problem. Honest answers should be the first option, not the last resort.
3
Nearly everything the Right now says is pure nonsense. Real red state policies resulting in gun deaths, rising maternal death rates, illness and death from no health insurance, voter restrictions, and perpetual poverty are the real controversies.
3
Republicans will manufacture any tale to get Donald Trump elected.
Many of them are holding their noses at the thought of Donald redecorating the White House, but they'll work for him anyway because it's all good for them: perks, jobs, the Supreme Court, the end of a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy, the nullification of marriage equality, the despoliation and plundering of our environment.
I am no fan of the Iran agreement. But pretending that the money owed was ransom for hostages is just politicking.
Many of them are holding their noses at the thought of Donald redecorating the White House, but they'll work for him anyway because it's all good for them: perks, jobs, the Supreme Court, the end of a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy, the nullification of marriage equality, the despoliation and plundering of our environment.
I am no fan of the Iran agreement. But pretending that the money owed was ransom for hostages is just politicking.
7
Truth, that the administration withheld payment to ensure Iran didn't renege on its promise to free detainees? How does giving Iran the money first ensure that? The detainees stated they were stuck on the tarmac for over a day waiting for the money to arrive, and were only released after Iran had the money. Where was the "truth" when Obama said that there was no connection? Oh, that was a lie, but this new concoction obviously couldn't be.
So Obama's claim is that he was holding Iran's money hostage for prisoners. Even if that were true, which according to the actual prisoners it wasn't, then that's different from negotiating with terrorists how?
The State Dept. issued a warning yesterday that Iran is looking to take Americans prisoner there. Gee, wonder why that is? Maybe to pry loose more of Iran's money Obama is holding hostage. Just more Americans that will die because of this foreign policy lightweight.
So Obama's claim is that he was holding Iran's money hostage for prisoners. Even if that were true, which according to the actual prisoners it wasn't, then that's different from negotiating with terrorists how?
The State Dept. issued a warning yesterday that Iran is looking to take Americans prisoner there. Gee, wonder why that is? Maybe to pry loose more of Iran's money Obama is holding hostage. Just more Americans that will die because of this foreign policy lightweight.
2
Returning money belonging to Iran and getting something worthwhile in return on behalf of the United States, and beyond, was good strategy. I suggest two reasons transparency was lacking; keeping it as low key as possible to keep the Iranians on track, and anticipation that critics of the Obama administration would play it out exactly as they did.
Yes, the optics are not the most favorable, but the President did the right thing knowing he would still face criticism. As a citizen, I have grown so weary of the polarization of our political system. I am seeking leaders who have political courage to do what is best for the nation as a whole.
Yes, the optics are not the most favorable, but the President did the right thing knowing he would still face criticism. As a citizen, I have grown so weary of the polarization of our political system. I am seeking leaders who have political courage to do what is best for the nation as a whole.
166
Obama didn't return money belonging to Iran.
That's simply a fabrication.
Iran sued the US government in a civil action and was on the verge of winning these funds. Instead of waiting for the legal process to run its course, Iran demanded this money in exchange for hostages. Obama complied, Obama lied and the State Department denied.
De-facto vs. Dejure, a very old lawyer trick.
Unfortunately it's really hard to fool lawyers with our own tricks.
That's simply a fabrication.
Iran sued the US government in a civil action and was on the verge of winning these funds. Instead of waiting for the legal process to run its course, Iran demanded this money in exchange for hostages. Obama complied, Obama lied and the State Department denied.
De-facto vs. Dejure, a very old lawyer trick.
Unfortunately it's really hard to fool lawyers with our own tricks.
5
And for the last 8 years, we have had a leader with such political courage and who has consistently done what is best for the nation as a whole. Those who say he has acted without the cooperation of Congress fail to realize that this Congress has deliberately failed to cooperate in a scorched-earth policy of petulant refusal to do anything positive at all. Here's hoping we can make this Congress go away for a while.
1
Sadly the Republican Party is incapable of putting the country first. Just look at the last 6 years. They are a rabid bunch of hypocrites who use racism and divisiveness to get their politicians elected because their policies favor the 0.01 percent.
1
I’m not so certain I agree with editors. Won’t this payment tempt other countries to hold democratic elections, then have their elected leaders overthrown in a CIA sponsored coup d’état, install a brutal dictatorship, have that dictator buy boatloads of weapons from the United States, then overthrow the dictator before the weapons are delivered, seek the return of money paid out for those weapons, win lawsuit in an international tribunal, enter a 30-year protracted diplomatic dispute to enforce that judgment and then tie the release of that money judgment to an exchange of prisoners? Isn’t the risk just too great?
4
Thank you for this clear presentation of the facts in the return of the $400 million. Missing is the fact that because of U.S. banking sanctions against Iran, there was no other way under current U.S. policy for there to be any kind of funds transfer except in cash, and the cash had to be something other than U.S. Dollars (it was Euros and Swiss Francs).
Those who see the spectacle of pallets of cash as proof of some kind of skulduggery or as demonstrable "ransom" should understand that it is our own laws that caused this scenario.
It is absurd that we maintain no diplomatic relations with Iran and that one year after the JCPOA these financial transactions still remain blocked by the passive-aggressive Treasury Department mid-level minions who refuse to issue clarification on banking and financial transfers.
The US Congress and politicians in general continually go back to the well on Iran-bashing, realizing that no one ever lost a vote in the last 40 years by excoriating Iran--even when Iran is absolutely right and correct. The idea that the United States should not pay its clear and acknowledged debts just because there is political profit in the demonization of Iran is yet another disgusting feature of the current political climate.
Those who see the spectacle of pallets of cash as proof of some kind of skulduggery or as demonstrable "ransom" should understand that it is our own laws that caused this scenario.
It is absurd that we maintain no diplomatic relations with Iran and that one year after the JCPOA these financial transactions still remain blocked by the passive-aggressive Treasury Department mid-level minions who refuse to issue clarification on banking and financial transfers.
The US Congress and politicians in general continually go back to the well on Iran-bashing, realizing that no one ever lost a vote in the last 40 years by excoriating Iran--even when Iran is absolutely right and correct. The idea that the United States should not pay its clear and acknowledged debts just because there is political profit in the demonization of Iran is yet another disgusting feature of the current political climate.
8
Aside from questionable facts and neglect of other payment options, this story represents an accurate statement of the Obama Administration defense. The inclusion of Israel in this story, another salutory slam, is part and parcel of the Administration enmity towards an American ally in favor of an American adversary.
The withholding of funds from Iran was in response to Iran's violation of international law by taking diplomatic hostages and sacking the embassy. This is, in fact, a causus belli. The money not paid was intended to go to the victims of this illegal act of war. For the Administration (it is arguable that the Times is part of the Administration de facto even if not de jure), America is always in the wrong.
Moreover, there are at least a dozen legal ways to transfer funds between to entities whether or not they have diplomatic relations, It happens every day. The method and the timing are too suspect, self-serving and coincidental. Even the Administration admits the release and the payment of money were coupled.
The Iranians now hold another three hostages. Would anyone be surprised if Iran increased the ransom demands to $400 million, to which Obama bargains them down to $350 million, and the outcome announced as a great negotiation victory for the President and cheered by the Times and the rest of the media? Would anyone be surprised if such payments were baked into the annual budget, as a repayment option for Americans held overseas?
The withholding of funds from Iran was in response to Iran's violation of international law by taking diplomatic hostages and sacking the embassy. This is, in fact, a causus belli. The money not paid was intended to go to the victims of this illegal act of war. For the Administration (it is arguable that the Times is part of the Administration de facto even if not de jure), America is always in the wrong.
Moreover, there are at least a dozen legal ways to transfer funds between to entities whether or not they have diplomatic relations, It happens every day. The method and the timing are too suspect, self-serving and coincidental. Even the Administration admits the release and the payment of money were coupled.
The Iranians now hold another three hostages. Would anyone be surprised if Iran increased the ransom demands to $400 million, to which Obama bargains them down to $350 million, and the outcome announced as a great negotiation victory for the President and cheered by the Times and the rest of the media? Would anyone be surprised if such payments were baked into the annual budget, as a repayment option for Americans held overseas?
4
That $400,000,000 was frozen in 1979, because Iran took 52 Americans hostage and held them for 444 days. It's the height of irony that the payment of the $400,000,000 was made contingent on the release of yet more American hostages 37 years later.
The idea that America "owed" Iran anything after a 444 day hostage crisis - and the subsequent taking of even more hostages - is ridiculous on its face.
America "owes" nothing to any country that takes our citizens - and military personnel, for that matter - hostage. Nothing. Period.
The so-called "Iran deal" has only delayed Iran's acquiring a nuclear weapon for roughly ten years, during which they will continue research that will allow them to produce that weapon the day the "agreement" expires.
This was a bad deal and egregious handling of a situation with a country that is sworn to remain our enemy. We can offer all the olive branches we want. At best, we are delaying the inevitable. Iran will acquire bomb and the entire balance of power in the Middle East will shift. They will become the dominant power and we will be at a decided disadvantage in dealing with them.
What will the US do, once Iran has the bomb? Will we just roll over and let them have and do whatever they want in the region?
Oh, that's right -- As evidenced by this ridiculous ransom payment, we're doing that already!
The idea that America "owed" Iran anything after a 444 day hostage crisis - and the subsequent taking of even more hostages - is ridiculous on its face.
America "owes" nothing to any country that takes our citizens - and military personnel, for that matter - hostage. Nothing. Period.
The so-called "Iran deal" has only delayed Iran's acquiring a nuclear weapon for roughly ten years, during which they will continue research that will allow them to produce that weapon the day the "agreement" expires.
This was a bad deal and egregious handling of a situation with a country that is sworn to remain our enemy. We can offer all the olive branches we want. At best, we are delaying the inevitable. Iran will acquire bomb and the entire balance of power in the Middle East will shift. They will become the dominant power and we will be at a decided disadvantage in dealing with them.
What will the US do, once Iran has the bomb? Will we just roll over and let them have and do whatever they want in the region?
Oh, that's right -- As evidenced by this ridiculous ransom payment, we're doing that already!
5
These were not hostages. Read.
And it is not ransom if it's a return of their own money. Read.
Read!
And it is not ransom if it's a return of their own money. Read.
Read!
1
@R Money was owed to the our ally Iran under the shah. Is he still in charge? READ.
We owed nothing to Iran following the revolution and their declaration of America as "the devil" and their sworn enemy. READ.
Money was paid and people who were not allowed to leave, i.e. "hostages," were subsequently allowed to leave. That's called "ransom." READ.
You can play with definitions all you want. No amount of semantic argument will change the fact that we paid a country, whose slogan is "Death to America!", $400,000,000 to get back people who never should have been held in the first place.
To sum up: Not their money. Yes, hostages. Therefore, ransom.
READ!
We owed nothing to Iran following the revolution and their declaration of America as "the devil" and their sworn enemy. READ.
Money was paid and people who were not allowed to leave, i.e. "hostages," were subsequently allowed to leave. That's called "ransom." READ.
You can play with definitions all you want. No amount of semantic argument will change the fact that we paid a country, whose slogan is "Death to America!", $400,000,000 to get back people who never should have been held in the first place.
To sum up: Not their money. Yes, hostages. Therefore, ransom.
READ!
1
Thank you, New York Times. It's unfortunate the truth about this brilliant show of diplomatic statesmanship by Secretary Kerry, with President Obama's approval, is not getting the credit it deserves. Lies-fear-hate-anger-war seem to be better tweet fodder for the democracy-destroying media.
10
If the Republicans insist on tying the release of the prisoners and the payment of money owed, then, at least, get the story right.
Since the $400 million provided was significantly less than owed, by accepting less than owed, Iran actually paid the US to take the prisoners back. Maybe Sec. Kerry should write, "The Art of the Deal".
Since the $400 million provided was significantly less than owed, by accepting less than owed, Iran actually paid the US to take the prisoners back. Maybe Sec. Kerry should write, "The Art of the Deal".
18
Here we go again. The NYT boring and burdening its readers with data and facts. Unfortunately, those who need to read this analysis, won't.
For eight years, most of the Republican Party has sought to discredit everything, and I do mean everything, that this President has done. Simple statistical analysis suggests that no one can be wrong that often.
Why don't members of the right come out and admit it? They hate this President because he's a Democrat , and, more importantly, because he's Black. Of course that will never happen and not because they're ashamed of their bias. It's because the Republican Party now views honesty as a weakness rather than a virtue.
We now likely face another eight years of the same because our next president is a Democrat and because that person is a woman. The only thing worse in the collective mind of the GOP would be if Hillary were Black.
For eight years, most of the Republican Party has sought to discredit everything, and I do mean everything, that this President has done. Simple statistical analysis suggests that no one can be wrong that often.
Why don't members of the right come out and admit it? They hate this President because he's a Democrat , and, more importantly, because he's Black. Of course that will never happen and not because they're ashamed of their bias. It's because the Republican Party now views honesty as a weakness rather than a virtue.
We now likely face another eight years of the same because our next president is a Democrat and because that person is a woman. The only thing worse in the collective mind of the GOP would be if Hillary were Black.
26
Patrick, though I agree with everything you wrote in your comment, I want to disagree only to this extent. The republicans hate Barak Obama because he's Black, and simply for no other reason. They have worked with other democratic presidents before, but they didn't hate them because they were democrats. They may not have agreed with them, but they didn't hate them. These republicans refuse to give this black man any credit for anything positive that happened in the last 8 years, and hold him totally responsible for all the bad and non-positive things that have happened during his presidency. In fact, the juvenile cyber bully the Rs have nominated as their designee for the White House has even said Mr. Obama is responsible for things that happened BEFORE he became President. President Obama cannot win with these people.
1
Patrick, you are operating under the false assumption that anyone who is not a Democrat must be a Republican. As the vote total in the November election will demonstrate, the vast majority of Americans do not belong to either of the corrupt party establishments.
Michael, if you're correct, isn't that a terribly sad commentary about these people? After all this time, have they learned nothing?
Bottom line - there were no "hostages" and there was no "ransom". But, even when it's that simple some don't - or don't want to - get it. Even when they're running for president.
18
There were no hostages?
There was no ransom?
No seriously, are Obama liberals clicking their heels together and chanting this nonsense until it becomes true?
There was no ransom?
No seriously, are Obama liberals clicking their heels together and chanting this nonsense until it becomes true?
2
Many of your commenters seem to miss the fact that Iran had a legitimate claim to this money, and that the US was going to lose this case if it was litigated at the Hague. This is not just idle speculation. It is a solid legal analysis, based upon precedent.
It should also be mentioned that the payment to Iran was not US tax dollars, as I have read in some articles; nor was it drug money, as Sen. Mark Kirk seems to be alleging. This was money that Iran paid for merchandise it never received. I wonder how many of your commenters would walk away from a transaction where they had paid a large sum of money and failed to obtain the benefit of their bargain. I doubt they would refer to a legitimate repayment as ransom, no matter who they were dealing with or the terms of the deal.
It should also be mentioned that the payment to Iran was not US tax dollars, as I have read in some articles; nor was it drug money, as Sen. Mark Kirk seems to be alleging. This was money that Iran paid for merchandise it never received. I wonder how many of your commenters would walk away from a transaction where they had paid a large sum of money and failed to obtain the benefit of their bargain. I doubt they would refer to a legitimate repayment as ransom, no matter who they were dealing with or the terms of the deal.
38
You people are shameless. The money was originally "withheld" because the Iranians had occupied your embassy and were keeping your diplomats hostage. Remember that? Or have you suppressed that memory because the incident occurred under the administration of that other skilfull Democrat statesman... Jimmy Carter?
1
The breathless media hype over this and the Clinton e-mails and whatever other trivial thing that comes up is solid evidence that our perpetual presidential politics, campaigns that are way way too long, and lack of in depth reporting on such issues as what kinds of policies and practices that been have shown to improve education or the details about the TPP and other trade agreements are not helping us to make intelligent, informed decisions when We the People take back our power on Election Day.
10
You think allowing the Russians to read her State Department emmails was trivial? You amaze me. I have a Ph.D. too.
2
Interesting how you decide what is trivial or not. I don't think pay to play is trivial, and the people who are concerned about that are not just bucktoothed right-wingers or however you deride those who lack your forgiving attitude toward all things Clinton. I don't think that destroying records is trivial. I don't think that being caught in lie after lie is trivial. The people who are concerned about those things are not the hicks and hayseeds you'd apparently like to think. They are instead people who are concerned about integrity in government. That's not you, obviously, but such people do exist.
1
Iran will get nuclear weapons if they don't have them already in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The nuclear agreement only lasts10 years to my understanding. That is about the time President Hillary Clinton will be finishing her second term. That's convenient. The nuclear agreement and the payoffs may buy some time at the expense of keeping the terrible regime in Teheran in power and the resulting war crimes and other atrocities. The $400 million should have been paid to the victims of their crimes, or their families. After Bush "won" the war in Iraq. The Iranian nuclear problem should have been settled right away.
5
There were two parts to this Big Lie: (1) that Iran was holding "hostages, and (2) that this was a "ransom" payment. The first part needs refuting just as much as the second part.
Iran was holding prisoners who were accused of crimes under their laws, including espionage. They were never "hostages." To the extent that we believe they were unfairly charged, and could not expect a fair trial in Iran, it's good that our government made a negotiated effort to bring them home.
The cost of that effort was to free several Iranian businessman who were charged with violating sanctions. They weren't "hostages" either.
Iran was holding prisoners who were accused of crimes under their laws, including espionage. They were never "hostages." To the extent that we believe they were unfairly charged, and could not expect a fair trial in Iran, it's good that our government made a negotiated effort to bring them home.
The cost of that effort was to free several Iranian businessman who were charged with violating sanctions. They weren't "hostages" either.
111
When the Berlin Wall fell President George H. W. Bush ignored the suggestions of some in his administration to fly to Berlin for a "victory lap". He realized this would embarrass the Soviet leadership and possibly precipitate violence toward the citizens of East Berlin. A low profile, he rightly judged, was correct for that situation.
President Obama made an equally correct decision in this situation. He could have made it public that he was using the $400 million as leverage. This would have garnered praise in the U. S. and and blunted some of the criticism of the Iranian nuclear deal. It would also have embarrassed the Iranian leadership and possibly precipitated a tit for tat response which undermined the new agreement.
In my view that is how a statesman, with a view extending well beyond his term in office, should make such decisions.
President Obama made an equally correct decision in this situation. He could have made it public that he was using the $400 million as leverage. This would have garnered praise in the U. S. and and blunted some of the criticism of the Iranian nuclear deal. It would also have embarrassed the Iranian leadership and possibly precipitated a tit for tat response which undermined the new agreement.
In my view that is how a statesman, with a view extending well beyond his term in office, should make such decisions.
19
You're equating the fall of the Berlin Wall with the non-ransom of non-hostages?
You're equating the fall of the Berlin Wall to the non-ransom of non-hostages?
Linking the payment to the hostage release is exactly what constitutes 'ransom', and the linkage that was admitted after first denying any linkage is exactly what is meant by a cover-up. The shipping of pallets of Swiss francs and Euros on an unmarked plane in secret is exactly how elicit payments - including ransoms - are handled, and the word parsing to get around 'banking' and 'US dollar financial transaction' bans by air lifting pallets of foreign currency of exactly equal value to the US dollar amount stinks as well. How about finally being honest and simply saying that the events were linked and so was the Iran nuclear deal and the US release of Iranian criminals? What is wrong with honesty and recognizing the plain intent and content of the actions of this Administration?
49
Would the US still have owed the $$ if the prisoners were not released?
11
The payments were not "elicit". Nor were they illicit. The money was owed to Iran. The licit payments were held until the US was sure the prisoners were released. It's called leverage, just as the Administration labeled it. The definition of ransom is different from what occurred.
5
Exactly your response. That is what is wrong. the right wing is so rabid in its opposition of Obama, Democrats, anything or anyone they deem left wing, that they make a political war out of virtually everything, caring not one whit about truth, context, reality, etc.
I don't blame the Obama Admin. for trying to avoid yet another warfront from the right wing over having actually done the right thing but which they would no doubt turn into something requiring a special prosecutor, and another $80 million from taxpayers to investigate.
I don't blame the Obama Admin. for trying to avoid yet another warfront from the right wing over having actually done the right thing but which they would no doubt turn into something requiring a special prosecutor, and another $80 million from taxpayers to investigate.
5
When a cash settlement is due to Iran under international law regardless of the outcome of the release of prisoners, it simply is not ransom in any way, shape or form.
As the article mentions, the $400 million 1979 the US owed plus interest to Iran is far less that what could have been awarded by an international tribunal.
Iran should not hold American prisoners, and the US should not retain Iran's money while not satisfying a contract.
Both wrongs have been remedied.
That is the path forward toward progress and constructive engagement, not intransigence, belligerence and endless recriminations.
As the article mentions, the $400 million 1979 the US owed plus interest to Iran is far less that what could have been awarded by an international tribunal.
Iran should not hold American prisoners, and the US should not retain Iran's money while not satisfying a contract.
Both wrongs have been remedied.
That is the path forward toward progress and constructive engagement, not intransigence, belligerence and endless recriminations.
27
Iran has now taken more hostages, any American traveling overseas is bait.
thanks Obama
thanks Obama
1
It appears that it does not matter the credibility of a situation (like described in this story), even if embracing it borders on treason, the Republican Party will do what it can to exploit it, to the detriment of the United States. Partisanship in the GOP has gotten so radical that they collectively suffer from "psychotic belief," erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary. They hate the Clintons with such vehemence it borders on the absurd. McConnell abhors Obama for no other reason that Mr. Obama is not white. Why else would McConnell vouch to bring Mr. Obama down the elected President even took office? The hateful, ridiculous rhetoric spewing from the GOP makes no sense whatsoever, and their contempt for the well-being of the United States when partisan politics are in play, is shameful. I am so glad that Trump, with his circus, is bringing down the Republican temple brick by brick. Hopefully, something better and "saner" will replace it, and Republicans will finally be put to rest -- along with their oligarchs and their media sycophants. Good riddance.
28
Indulge me in a hypothetical situation.
Let's say that I steal 400 dollars from you. Justifiably angry, you kidnap my family until those 400 dollars are returned. That $400 would absolutely be "a sum of money or other payment demanded or paid for the release of a prisoner," wouldn't it?
The mental gymnastics taking place would make a Simone Biles envious. Instead of tripping over symantics, can't we juse agree that the end result was beneficial for all parties?
1. The prisoners were released.
2. Iran's frozen assets were returned.
3. The nuclear deal was signed.
Let's say that I steal 400 dollars from you. Justifiably angry, you kidnap my family until those 400 dollars are returned. That $400 would absolutely be "a sum of money or other payment demanded or paid for the release of a prisoner," wouldn't it?
The mental gymnastics taking place would make a Simone Biles envious. Instead of tripping over symantics, can't we juse agree that the end result was beneficial for all parties?
1. The prisoners were released.
2. Iran's frozen assets were returned.
3. The nuclear deal was signed.
10
no, we can't agree. not with a braggadocio lummox running for president. i leave it to you to decide to whom that refers.
4. The United States bargained for the release of hostages.
No, BA. Let's say I paid you $400 several years ago for a table, but you never delivered it, and we have been engaged in a legal battle ever since. One night, I catch your kids going through my stuff in my garage, and detain them. And perhaps not coincidently, we have been arguing over a dead tree on my property that you think is a threat to your house.
Taking advantage of the situation, we agree that you will return my money (eliminating the pending lawsuit), I will let your kids out of my garage, and we will collaborate on taking down the dead tree on a deliberate timeline.
Simon would never have to leave the ground.
Taking advantage of the situation, we agree that you will return my money (eliminating the pending lawsuit), I will let your kids out of my garage, and we will collaborate on taking down the dead tree on a deliberate timeline.
Simon would never have to leave the ground.
1
For nearly 40 years through Republican and Democrat administrations alike the return of the $400 Million was considered irresponsible and unnecessary. In order to facilitate the nuclear negotiations, which included the subsidiary issue of a prisoner exchange, the Obama administration agreed to the repatriation of the cash. That the initial payment was made in foreign paper currency and the subsequent $1.2 Billion was not, is evidence of dissemblance in the POTUS' comments, not evidence of ransom.
I don't think a lack of transparency was really the problem here - it was an affirmative lie by the administration. Their initial position was that the timing of the release and the cash payment were totally uncorrelated. This at the time was laughable to any observer, but just because it was a bad lie doesn't make it any less a lie. If anything, it makes the whole handling of the incident even more cavalier and insulting to the public.
The premise of this article - and of the administration's revised position - is also kind of questionable. Iran had a legal claim to the funds -- so what? We've been holding the cash since 1979. At that point, the timing of its return isn't just an afterthought. It's the very heart of the debate/dispute. Overall, not sure this wasn't the right outcome. But the process was miserably handled.
The premise of this article - and of the administration's revised position - is also kind of questionable. Iran had a legal claim to the funds -- so what? We've been holding the cash since 1979. At that point, the timing of its return isn't just an afterthought. It's the very heart of the debate/dispute. Overall, not sure this wasn't the right outcome. But the process was miserably handled.
46
@John, how about if WE expect them to cooperate perhaps we should too? As you say, we have been holding the cash since 1979. One-way-street diplomacy is a dead end. Is that what we really want?
2
Everyone is looking at this as they see it.
It's admirable to see people laboring to post a rational validity to opposing perspectives, but that, in itself, might be evidence that this situation is the Perfect Contradiction.
It's admirable to see people laboring to post a rational validity to opposing perspectives, but that, in itself, might be evidence that this situation is the Perfect Contradiction.
It was unrelated. You didn't understand the article. Try reading it again.
As is typical in an election year, in PA, Pat Toomey is running a TV ad designed to stoke fear and terror as, the ad claims, Iranians are chanting, "Death to America," presumably daily, and trumpeting Toomey's opposition to this multi-nationally negotiated deal. Devoid of anything else, the GOTP continues to stoke its xenophobic base, play upon racial animus, gin up wild conspiracy theories, and attack the legitimacy of our President, via their "Birther-in-Chief" pseudo-candidate. This was Iran's money - we didn't "pay them" out of our Treasury, and this diplomatic resolution was clearly the best means to achieve closure and to bring hostages home. Unfortunately, in the wild world of the alt-right, facts and truth mean nothing - and no insane, delusional peddling of fiction is off limits. Clearly shame and self-reflection are not in the GOTP's lexicon - absolute power and the accompanying corruption they seek to retain are all that matter.
11
Nicole Machiavelli argued it is best to give away what is not yours. You lose nothing and gain the benefits of what you gave away.
Being that the money was not ours and we have been holding it since 1979 we gave away nothing. Had we went to international court to hold onto the money we would have paid even more in fines.
More importantly if we want to China and the rest of the world to follow international laws, it would be practical if we did too.
So what do we gain.
Ensured that the Iranians lived up to their end of an agreement to release Americans hostages. Saved the tax payers money if the issue had went to court. Demonstrated again that the United States will live up to its commitments.
Again all this cost us nothing.
Surely the author of "Art of the Deal" would realize that the Obama agreement was a prudent and wise decision.
Being that the money was not ours and we have been holding it since 1979 we gave away nothing. Had we went to international court to hold onto the money we would have paid even more in fines.
More importantly if we want to China and the rest of the world to follow international laws, it would be practical if we did too.
So what do we gain.
Ensured that the Iranians lived up to their end of an agreement to release Americans hostages. Saved the tax payers money if the issue had went to court. Demonstrated again that the United States will live up to its commitments.
Again all this cost us nothing.
Surely the author of "Art of the Deal" would realize that the Obama agreement was a prudent and wise decision.
246
a good deal so why the fibby spin?
sure trump would appreciate the deal, and he'd have all over the papers in six inch type.
no fan of mr. t's but geez, when our side keeps fouling off easy pitches and dropping fly balls we have to ask, like casey stengel did of the uninspiring roster of the first mets, "can't anyone here play this game?"
sure trump would appreciate the deal, and he'd have all over the papers in six inch type.
no fan of mr. t's but geez, when our side keeps fouling off easy pitches and dropping fly balls we have to ask, like casey stengel did of the uninspiring roster of the first mets, "can't anyone here play this game?"
Iran should not be receiving any money. It is an abomination to the world. Before getting any money from the kaffirs and apostates, Iran should enforce human rights and individual freedoms where secular and other religious beliefs are free with equal rights.
Iran arrests and detains Christians for evangelising. No church buildings are allowed. It is disgusting that any right minded person would ever think that helping a hostile foreign islamic nation to prosper is not tantamount to TREASON. Obama and Hillary enabled the trouble in the Middle East by aiding the al qaida/muslim brotherhood to overthrow the Syrian govt.
The US support for these islamic jihadists against Assad is the reason why the war continues endlessly. If the US acknowledged Assad and helped him to stop the jihad muslims the war in the middle east would end.
Instead, your "competent" Obama continues to pour money, weapons, technology and training into muslim countries? Very STUPID, as Trump says.
Iran arrests and detains Christians for evangelising. No church buildings are allowed. It is disgusting that any right minded person would ever think that helping a hostile foreign islamic nation to prosper is not tantamount to TREASON. Obama and Hillary enabled the trouble in the Middle East by aiding the al qaida/muslim brotherhood to overthrow the Syrian govt.
The US support for these islamic jihadists against Assad is the reason why the war continues endlessly. If the US acknowledged Assad and helped him to stop the jihad muslims the war in the middle east would end.
Instead, your "competent" Obama continues to pour money, weapons, technology and training into muslim countries? Very STUPID, as Trump says.
A guy named Schwartz wrote "The Art of The Deal". Schwartz is on record as saying DJT is a sociopath.
This is so tiresome. There is only one thing President Obama can do that will please Republicans, leave the White House in 2017 (sooner if they could get their dreams and prayers answered). Even then beware, the first black president will surely be accused of stealing the silverware.
I am so accustomed to Republican delusions, conspiracy theories, character assassination and throwing our nation under the bus, that I only marvel that they haven't (yet) blamed President Obama for the 1983 bombing deaths of 241 marines in Beirut Lebanon. Sound too far fetched? Don't believe it. Republicans are very creative when it comes to attacking, casting aspersions, laying blame, concocting and promoting conspiracy theories. I have no doubt they are even now asking themselves, "Where was Obama in 1983?"
I am so accustomed to Republican delusions, conspiracy theories, character assassination and throwing our nation under the bus, that I only marvel that they haven't (yet) blamed President Obama for the 1983 bombing deaths of 241 marines in Beirut Lebanon. Sound too far fetched? Don't believe it. Republicans are very creative when it comes to attacking, casting aspersions, laying blame, concocting and promoting conspiracy theories. I have no doubt they are even now asking themselves, "Where was Obama in 1983?"
17
It concerns me that people keep saying that the money was "owed" to the Iranians. As the article states, the money was initially a payment made by the shah for military equipment. The equipment was not shipped, due to the Iranian Revolution and the taking of the embassy hostage. The Hague tribunal has not reviewed or ruled on the dispute, it is simply an administration claim that they would lose the case.
In any case, the timing and method of payment, and, indeed, the statements of the Iranians, would make most agree that it could be reasonably described as ransom.
In any case, the timing and method of payment, and, indeed, the statements of the Iranians, would make most agree that it could be reasonably described as ransom.
4
Would you have called it paying ransom if the money was returned to Iran and the prisoners were not released? Calling it ransom is has no basis in any reality.
4
Four hundred million dollars in non-sequential bills and Pres. Obama says a simple wire transfer could not be set up with the Iranian government. The payment was not leverage for the hostages, it just looks exactly like that, but that’s the subtleties of international negotiations between professional diplomats of which we regular civilians are ignorant. There is no reason to think any of this money will be used for terrorism, and no more hostages will be taken. And we owed the good and excellent people of Iran the money anyway.
There is no real scandal here, just diplomacy that looks amateurish and kind of sleazy, which has not been characteristic of the seven plus years of this administration. I mean that. Thus I’m willing give the Obama people the benefit of the doubt here, even if my head spins at my own profound naïveté.
There is no real scandal here, just diplomacy that looks amateurish and kind of sleazy, which has not been characteristic of the seven plus years of this administration. I mean that. Thus I’m willing give the Obama people the benefit of the doubt here, even if my head spins at my own profound naïveté.
2
After seven years you would think the opposition party would grow weary of criticizing Obama's every action, portraying every decision as some nefarious act or borne out of incompetence. In reality, the president has been a model of competence over the course of his tenure. Would he have done some things differently, given the outcome? No doubt. Hindsight it 20/20. The point is that in nearly all situations, the president has taken action that improved the country's standing and produced an outcome, while not ideal, was far superior to what would have happened if he took the opposition's lead. I cringe when Trump calls him a failed president and criticizes him for the clean up of the economic and international mess he was handed by a truly incompetent administration. It's tantamount to calling your caregiver a quack because you temporarily lost some hair while being cured of cancer. The aftermath of the end of the Iraqi war has not been pretty but it's a far superior alternative to an endless occupation. It's time to stop giving any attention to opposition criticism of the president. If people are still unable to see it for what it is by now, attempts to enlighten them are a waste of time.
283
Yes...a picture of competence, this administration. Who can forget the rollout of the ACA (Obamacare). Or the visionary approach to the Middle East, pulling troops out prematurely to give rise to Isis, or "cash for clunkers." I do give him credit for not extending his vacation in this nice weather, and finding some time to go visit the folks suffering from the floods in Louisiana.
In the end, he will be remembered for two things - having the guts to go after Osama bin Laden in a mission that was fraught with risk - and for turning the House and Senate to Republican majorities - not to mention all the down-ballot successes of the GOP in governorships and state legislatures.
In the end, he will be remembered for two things - having the guts to go after Osama bin Laden in a mission that was fraught with risk - and for turning the House and Senate to Republican majorities - not to mention all the down-ballot successes of the GOP in governorships and state legislatures.
2
Yes, we are indeed tired of having to talk about Obama's illegalities, false claims, and lack of leadership - it really is indeed getting old and tired that only one side of the political aisle notices and cares about the reputation of that office that he is denigrating.
2
You have to hand it to the right wing: They are masters of propaganda and the manipulation of public opinion, while the despised "liberals," Democrats, progressives, socialists, and those with a nuanced knowledge and understanding of the situation are forced to play catch up. This US-Iran story is a perfect example
See how easy it was for the Wall Street Journal to plant the simple but inaccurate version of what happened, and how cumbersome it is for the Times to try to correct it. Too late, damage done. First impressions easily take hold and are very difficult to correct once formed--especially when they neatly fit with previous psychological conditioning. Besides, it is a lot of mental work to sort out this complicated US-Iran situation. And we Americans are nothing if not cognitively lazy--which is another story.
Propaganda is based on half truths and offers simple-minded explanations that leave out important details, omit context, and ignore nuance. Only a few of many dots are specified for the public to connect: US pays $400 to Iran after Tehran releases American detainees. You be the judge, but some might call this a random by the Obama administration.
Ethically, the GOP version of the story is biased, misleading, distorted, and pertinent information and context are withheld. Who cares? And if some of us do, good luck correcting the facts, because as we can see, facts don't matter anymore.
It is about winning (by any means necessary). It is not about governing
See how easy it was for the Wall Street Journal to plant the simple but inaccurate version of what happened, and how cumbersome it is for the Times to try to correct it. Too late, damage done. First impressions easily take hold and are very difficult to correct once formed--especially when they neatly fit with previous psychological conditioning. Besides, it is a lot of mental work to sort out this complicated US-Iran situation. And we Americans are nothing if not cognitively lazy--which is another story.
Propaganda is based on half truths and offers simple-minded explanations that leave out important details, omit context, and ignore nuance. Only a few of many dots are specified for the public to connect: US pays $400 to Iran after Tehran releases American detainees. You be the judge, but some might call this a random by the Obama administration.
Ethically, the GOP version of the story is biased, misleading, distorted, and pertinent information and context are withheld. Who cares? And if some of us do, good luck correcting the facts, because as we can see, facts don't matter anymore.
It is about winning (by any means necessary). It is not about governing
14
Several baffling issues arise from this incident. In particular, why would a president and an administration that espouse transparency fail to timely disclose such arrangement at its conclusion. In addition, why did the US government compensate victims of terrorism, sponsored and condoned by the Iranian regime, from funds generated from a BNP Baribus penalty settlement, instead of suing and winning compensation at The Hague. Further, why was such compensation not negotiated as a part of the Iran Nuclear Treaty when the leverage was available. At the announcement of the Iran Nuclear Deal President Obama stated "It shows what we can accomplish when we lead from a position of strength and a position of principle" (President Barak H. Obama). True transparency imply timely disclosure of non classified information in order to reduce speculation. True transparency mandates that embarrassing information to the administration is disclosed rapidly and that the lessons learned from such occasions are publicly debated. "My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government" (President Barak H. Obama). We hope that future presidents and administration continue to improve government transparency.
29
, "why would a president and an administration that espouse transparency fail to timely disclose such arrangement at its conclusion."....I wonder if it might have been because the administration wanted to keep the line of communications with Iran open and momentum moving in a positive direction? Would that have been a fair justification?
6
The administration DID announce the transaction in January. No one paid attention until the "pallets of cash" image was promulgated by the right-wing Wall Street Journal Editorial Page.
4
Why did Eisenhower agree with Churchill (then in the House of Commons) to use the CIA depose the democratically elected president of Iran (Mossadegh) in 1955, and install the Shah (a 19 year old kid), which directly led to the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979?
Why, why why why why?
Why, why why why why?
4
This is Obama, Hillary, and the Times at their worst.
The basic point of the editorial is right, but Obama said the two were not linked. Of course, they were linked. This explanation should gone out from the Administration as a boast from hour one.
In addition, what was dubious was the cash. That is not how Iran put the money in. If it were going to Russia or Ukraine, you would know that it almost certainly was for corruption. (Surely Manfort did not get all or maybe any of the cash recorded.) Iran seems financially cleaner, so it probably went to pay militias, terrorist organizations, etc. That is why that Obama did not link it from the beginning and why the NYT does not admit it today.
The basic point of the editorial is right, but Obama said the two were not linked. Of course, they were linked. This explanation should gone out from the Administration as a boast from hour one.
In addition, what was dubious was the cash. That is not how Iran put the money in. If it were going to Russia or Ukraine, you would know that it almost certainly was for corruption. (Surely Manfort did not get all or maybe any of the cash recorded.) Iran seems financially cleaner, so it probably went to pay militias, terrorist organizations, etc. That is why that Obama did not link it from the beginning and why the NYT does not admit it today.
6
We did not deliver $400 million. We delivered $1.7 billion. We should at least get that right.
The money was Iran's, sent to a bank to pay for something they never got. The money sat in that bank earning interest. The US would not allow the bank to return it, so it sat.
When we unfroze relations, of course they can withdraw their own money from their own bank account. Even that we impeded, until we also got something unrelated that we wanted.
It was not ransom. It was high handed behavior, of the sort that drove the dispute ever worse. Since it was the US acting badly, we just didn't admit it. But we knew, and we knew we'd lose if we let it go to a hearing.
Iran was also acting badly. We see theirs, we refuse to see ours, and we lock ourselves into conflict. It is better to make peace.
Of course the Republicans insist this isn't peace, because we did not get everything they can dream of demanding. The world does not work that way. It is peace, and as much peace as we have with many other nations.
The money was Iran's, sent to a bank to pay for something they never got. The money sat in that bank earning interest. The US would not allow the bank to return it, so it sat.
When we unfroze relations, of course they can withdraw their own money from their own bank account. Even that we impeded, until we also got something unrelated that we wanted.
It was not ransom. It was high handed behavior, of the sort that drove the dispute ever worse. Since it was the US acting badly, we just didn't admit it. But we knew, and we knew we'd lose if we let it go to a hearing.
Iran was also acting badly. We see theirs, we refuse to see ours, and we lock ourselves into conflict. It is better to make peace.
Of course the Republicans insist this isn't peace, because we did not get everything they can dream of demanding. The world does not work that way. It is peace, and as much peace as we have with many other nations.
26
We properly should have seized that money the second they took over our embassy and held our embassy workers hostage for a YEAR.
The money should have gone to reimburse us for the huge costs of that -- including the fact that we JUST paid "reparations" to the embassy workers (after 37 years) -- please don't try to tell me this is not all interconnected.
NOBODY ever discussed owing Iran $400 million in all of these years....NOBDOY ever discussed how the poor, poor embassy workers should get a million bucks each for their "suffering" after 37 years....
This only came up when OBAMA needed to pay off folks in order to get his precious treaty. The embassy folks were paid off to ensure they shut up and didn't scream bloody murder that Iran was being REWARDED with repayment after so many years -- that Iran OWED THEM for the kidnapping and loss of an entire year of their life (spent in abject terror that they'd be hung or worse as "enemies of the state").
You folks may be naive dupes of Obama, but I am NOT.
The money should have gone to reimburse us for the huge costs of that -- including the fact that we JUST paid "reparations" to the embassy workers (after 37 years) -- please don't try to tell me this is not all interconnected.
NOBODY ever discussed owing Iran $400 million in all of these years....NOBDOY ever discussed how the poor, poor embassy workers should get a million bucks each for their "suffering" after 37 years....
This only came up when OBAMA needed to pay off folks in order to get his precious treaty. The embassy folks were paid off to ensure they shut up and didn't scream bloody murder that Iran was being REWARDED with repayment after so many years -- that Iran OWED THEM for the kidnapping and loss of an entire year of their life (spent in abject terror that they'd be hung or worse as "enemies of the state").
You folks may be naive dupes of Obama, but I am NOT.
1
Nobody discussed? They had a court case going that we were losing. This compromise saved us a few hundred million in interest and court costs. We'd have given them even more, and soon.
No, we cannot unilaterally use our position in the world banking system to Bogart other nations' money. If we do, we'll quickly lose that position, which is worth a lot more to us, not least for properly done sanctions.
No, we cannot unilaterally use our position in the world banking system to Bogart other nations' money. If we do, we'll quickly lose that position, which is worth a lot more to us, not least for properly done sanctions.
The withholding of the $$$ owed until the prisoners were released is consistent with Reagan's motto of "Trust, but Verify." And is consistent with the Iran nuclear deal - trust Iran to follow the agreement but have inspections to verify.
Republicans have such a loser in Trump that they are grasping at anything to distract the public's attention. And the media plays into their hands when they treat issues like this as a major news story. All the media seems to be chasing the White Conspiracy Rabbit down the Breitbart/Jones Conspiracy rabbit hole.
Republicans have such a loser in Trump that they are grasping at anything to distract the public's attention. And the media plays into their hands when they treat issues like this as a major news story. All the media seems to be chasing the White Conspiracy Rabbit down the Breitbart/Jones Conspiracy rabbit hole.
33
True. True. True
1
Krushev said capitalism would sell the USSR the rope to hang the West with. Obama seems to turn that around and now we give Iran the money to support terrorism.
13
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Iran would say the same about the U.S. and the support it provides to the government of Israel, thereby making it possible for Israel to defend the territory it occupies on the West Bank.
6
So you didn't read the article or didn't understand it. We gave Iran Iran's money.
3
Again, it was Iran's money.
As the old saying goes, "Are you gonna believe me or your lying eyes?" Sorry folks, this was a ransom payment no matter how hard Obama's friends at the NY Times tries to spin it.
21
Who are YOU gonna believe: The Times or the liars at Faux News who'll call it ransom even though this was, in fact, money that was owed Iran by the United States? Apparently you would have been happier had the U.S. been compelled to return the money while our citizens remained in their jail cells in Tehran.
9
Crickets are singing and when you hear them you know that winter is sure to come, because insects cause winter. Sound crazy or naive or foolish?
How, if the $400 million was guaranteed to Iran in January, does the idea of paying it to secure hostages arise? Does the chirping of crickets cause winter?
Reagan made promises to the Ayatollah if he would hold the hostages until after he beat Carter....and traded weapons to fund of a terrorist group in Nicaragua. Then Reagan pulled our troops out of Beirut and declared victory after terrorists killed 241 American soldiers and sailors. Reagan cut and ran. Is Reagan a coward and a traitor? How would events have been portrayed if Reagan was Black?
How, if the $400 million was guaranteed to Iran in January, does the idea of paying it to secure hostages arise? Does the chirping of crickets cause winter?
Reagan made promises to the Ayatollah if he would hold the hostages until after he beat Carter....and traded weapons to fund of a terrorist group in Nicaragua. Then Reagan pulled our troops out of Beirut and declared victory after terrorists killed 241 American soldiers and sailors. Reagan cut and ran. Is Reagan a coward and a traitor? How would events have been portrayed if Reagan was Black?
18
ACCURATE EVALUATION Is not a quality I would attribute to the GOP that ended up with Trump as its presidential candidate. He is unfit to hold high office both temperamentally and intellectually. For the same lack of judgment, I believe that the critics of the financial part of the nuclear agreement with Iran was grossly misrepresented. The US OWED Iran over 1 billion dollars. So with the $400 million payment, the US used its indebtedness to procure the release of 3 American hostages. Transparency? Such deals cannot be achieved under the light of flashbulbs and mobs of reporters.
11
Robert - Brilliant!
2
NH Senator Kelly Ayotte (R) is working the ransom angle to the nth degree. She carries that GOP hymnal too tightly which is why she is likely to face defeat to Democratic Governor Maggie Hassan in November.
13
Quite frankly I've been watching that important senatorial race from afar. I don't know why Governor Maggie Hassan just doesn't point out the fact that when Senate Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky runs up the Confederate Flag why Kelly Ayotte (R) salutes it. Did the Maine Volunteers die for nothing?
1
Why don't we refight the Civil War while we're at it.
The art of the deal, oh, my mistake, that would have been the headline if a republican had done it, but because a democrat did it then it "was a weak loser move done by a foreign born ISIS founder who is Muslim and stole an election to be president..."
17
Yes. I'm so sick of the ways Republicans continue to divide our country. Hate mongering shouldn't be the aim of a political party, and yet it is. Daily.
2
Thank you for making clear that it is NOT ransom when you give someone money that is theirs.
21
"Pragmatic diplomacy not capitulation." That's what we're calling it now. That 400 million was withheld so as NOT to support a nation that held the American Embassy hostage for over a year. So your enemies can do that to you and get their money back. What about the cost of that particular action to the U.S. in terms of dollars; not to mention lives. And did we agree to deliver the undelivered weaponry too? Or was that covered by the "nuclear deal." Is Iran gonna wait until they get their pipeline money before they strike Israel with a nuclear attack? That would be smart and Israel might want to avoid pragmatic diplomacy not capitulation" on its part. No need to hasten the inevitable.
1
I understand how Republicans would pounce on this, but as the Editorial Board makes clear, this was not a quid pro quo, based on an Iranian money demand in return for hostages. Rather it was a prudent withhold until the hostages were released, a leveraging of the timing so to speak. Call it "trust but verify" Obama style.
The rationale was nuanced and carefully orchestrated. Moreover it was totally transparent, having been announced in January.
But nuanced and careful aren't not part of GOP lexicon. It's far easier to scream about something long in the works than to take the time to see the President's diplomatic smarts in action.
As the board makes clear, had Obama not held out for the hostages, the right would have served up his head on a silver platter.
Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't: always the GOP way.
The rationale was nuanced and carefully orchestrated. Moreover it was totally transparent, having been announced in January.
But nuanced and careful aren't not part of GOP lexicon. It's far easier to scream about something long in the works than to take the time to see the President's diplomatic smarts in action.
As the board makes clear, had Obama not held out for the hostages, the right would have served up his head on a silver platter.
Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't: always the GOP way.
178
"The rationale was nuanced and carefully orchestrated."
That is true.
"Moreover it was totally transparent, having been announced in January. "
That is not true.
When originally announced in the media as a great diplomatic success and with photo ops for all to see, there was no notion that the cash would be held until hostages were free. Then there were official statements from Obama and Kerry that did not clarify on that point. CM, I am fine with your version until you said the above, which is at best a contortion.
That is true.
"Moreover it was totally transparent, having been announced in January. "
That is not true.
When originally announced in the media as a great diplomatic success and with photo ops for all to see, there was no notion that the cash would be held until hostages were free. Then there were official statements from Obama and Kerry that did not clarify on that point. CM, I am fine with your version until you said the above, which is at best a contortion.
1
I commend you Ms. McMorrow for being a stalwart supporter of the left wing, liberal democratic cause, but it's not always a matter of liberals vs conservatives at the NYT would have us believe. While what the administration purports as the truth regarding the payment to Iran and the release of prisoners may be true, it certainly doesn't pass the smell test; regardless of your political affiliation. It's perfectly all right to admit that the Obama administration doesn't walk on water. But to defend that they do in all instances isn't.
1
Yeah, no responsibility, now that's a leader. When the hostages were returned to the US in 1980 there was no payment. Why did the Iranians return the hostages on Reagan's first day in office after over a year? There is one true answer to that question but you'll not find it in the NYT.
What Obama paid to Iran was ultimately to be paid either under the Hague based international arbitration, or the bilateral negotiations, if not by Obama then by his successor as the amount of 400 million dollars was owed to Iran as a compensation for noncompliance by the US of its arms sale deal of 1979. Thus, what's blamed as the ransom for persuading Iran to sign the nuclear deal is in fact a smart diplomatic move on the part of Obama through which he had so intelligently timed the payment that not only it coincided with the inking of nuclear deal but also secured the release of three American detainees. With one wise move Obama thus succeeded at achieving multiple goals- all in America's national interest.
121
What does IRAN owe us -- after 37 years -- for kidnapping our embassy workers and holding them hostage for a YEAR?
How about...a billion dollars?
How about...a billion dollars?
1
And the State Dept. just issued a warning that Iran is looking to take more Americans prisoner. Other Americans were just charged there as well.
Smart. Put a $ sign on every American so Obama can smartly release Iran's money.
Smart. Put a $ sign on every American so Obama can smartly release Iran's money.
1
No use trying to explain, those who think that the US should dictate terms to everyone and force issues are never going to be satisfied with accommodations to resolve conflicts. They prefer in your face action like the catastrophic invasion of Iraq. If this lamentable event that has brought about the present crisis isn't enough to convince them that force doesn't solve problems, rather it creates them, nothing will. So let them bray and move on. The problem is that when the time comes to act and not talk, they will find that they have a spur in their heel.
132
But which foot is that bone spur on?
1
Nonsense Frank. The issue is that Iran should never have even come close to the US soldiers. That's the issue.
Democrats need to be more adept at quick and repeated messaging to stop the propaganda mill. Propaganda works because it is a simple message (a lie) repeated endlessly by all the players. Truth can work the same way. As this campaign goes on, democrats ranging from Hillary to local mayors need to get on TV and refute whatever the next lie will be, over and over. Then it has as much power as the lie.
184
Merely refuting it keeps the lie alive.
It is necessary to take the next step, to show the malice and essential un-trustworthiness of those who started the lie. That turns it on them.
It is necessary to take the next step, to show the malice and essential un-trustworthiness of those who started the lie. That turns it on them.
5
Exactly right Tom.
Also important to bat down the lie crisply. The tactic of false charges and smears is simply to dwell on discussing them, not prove them.
It is also essential to advance the extraordinary life and accomplishments of Yale JD, First Lady of Arkansas and the United States, Senator and Secretary of State Clinton and founder of the Children's Defense Fund and the Clinton Foundation that has bettered the lives of hundreds of millions of people around the world.
As Trump has become less viable as a candidate, the tactic has shifted to simply weaken a victorious President Hillary Clinton.
For the American people to achieve real change, we must do our part.
We must show up in force and vote up and down the ballot to give Secretary Clinton a clear mandate, repudiate Trumpism decisively and Republican obstructionism that rewards gridlock and party over country.
Also important to bat down the lie crisply. The tactic of false charges and smears is simply to dwell on discussing them, not prove them.
It is also essential to advance the extraordinary life and accomplishments of Yale JD, First Lady of Arkansas and the United States, Senator and Secretary of State Clinton and founder of the Children's Defense Fund and the Clinton Foundation that has bettered the lives of hundreds of millions of people around the world.
As Trump has become less viable as a candidate, the tactic has shifted to simply weaken a victorious President Hillary Clinton.
For the American people to achieve real change, we must do our part.
We must show up in force and vote up and down the ballot to give Secretary Clinton a clear mandate, repudiate Trumpism decisively and Republican obstructionism that rewards gridlock and party over country.
3
I hate to say this, but I think it's easier to sow propaganda than the truth. Lies are usually simpler than actual reality. So the gullible can remember a sly slogan. And pass it along. While the truth requires effort to assimilate a bunch of facts along with a cogent analysis. You need a knowledge base to do that.
I fear for our Republic. Unless the educational level and an ability to process and examine facts improves.
I fear for our Republic. Unless the educational level and an ability to process and examine facts improves.
1
In the beginning American and British intelligence at the behest of British Petroleum overthrew a democratically elected Iranian leader who threatened to nationalize Iranian fossil fuel assets being confiscated by the barbarian gangsters at the helm of BP.
America installed their tyrant royal dictator puppet in power the Shah of Iran. The American military-industrial complex armed the Shah and was poised to share even nuclear technology with Iran. The arms that Shah era Iran paid for but were never delivered is the money that Ameria was legally obligated to return. When the people of Iran rose up and threw the Shah, America protected him from the "justice" he deserved.
Since the fall of the Shah, America supported their friend Saddam Hussein's 8 year Iraqi war against Iran that left a million Iranian casualties. The USN shot down a civilian Iranian airliner. Bush declared Iran part of an "axis of evil" then America invaded and occupied Iranian neighbors Afghanistan and Iraq. America has engaged in covert cyber and drone war against Iran. Iran has not attacked nor threatened to attack America.
Unlike Israel, Iran is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has no nuclear weapons. Unlike Israel, Iran is not a ethnic sectarian colonial apartheid Jim Crow state sponsor of terrorism. Unlike Israel, Iran does not receive $ 3 billion a year in American military aid to support an illegal immoral occupation, blockade/siege, exile and 2nd class citizenship.
America installed their tyrant royal dictator puppet in power the Shah of Iran. The American military-industrial complex armed the Shah and was poised to share even nuclear technology with Iran. The arms that Shah era Iran paid for but were never delivered is the money that Ameria was legally obligated to return. When the people of Iran rose up and threw the Shah, America protected him from the "justice" he deserved.
Since the fall of the Shah, America supported their friend Saddam Hussein's 8 year Iraqi war against Iran that left a million Iranian casualties. The USN shot down a civilian Iranian airliner. Bush declared Iran part of an "axis of evil" then America invaded and occupied Iranian neighbors Afghanistan and Iraq. America has engaged in covert cyber and drone war against Iran. Iran has not attacked nor threatened to attack America.
Unlike Israel, Iran is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has no nuclear weapons. Unlike Israel, Iran is not a ethnic sectarian colonial apartheid Jim Crow state sponsor of terrorism. Unlike Israel, Iran does not receive $ 3 billion a year in American military aid to support an illegal immoral occupation, blockade/siege, exile and 2nd class citizenship.
72
At the end of WW2, the Soviets were in occupation of the northern parts of Iran, and the British of the southern parts.
As with Greece and Yugoslavia, it was an early post-war confrontation, the start of what became the Cold War, predating George Kennan's Long Telegram, back to a time when many were still considering actual military action to push back Stalin.
When the Soviets chose to pull back as part of the calming of the first confrontations, the British were left with Iran, and also ownership of the oil they had developed since 1908 as the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. The British no more wanted to let go of that than they wanted to give up the rest of their Empire. In 1953, they were fighting to hold their Empire, as was France also.
That is the full setting for the 1953 overthrow. Iran was in transition, a colonial conflict that it finally won. The Shah was a "win" for Iran but not a complete win, since he was agreeable to those who departed, who objected to the more extreme options being produced by actual democracy.
That produced a frozen post-colonial settlement, that stayed frozen for an unusually long time.
It was not the same as regime change now done by the US, which goes into genuinely independent countries to change their government.
As with Greece and Yugoslavia, it was an early post-war confrontation, the start of what became the Cold War, predating George Kennan's Long Telegram, back to a time when many were still considering actual military action to push back Stalin.
When the Soviets chose to pull back as part of the calming of the first confrontations, the British were left with Iran, and also ownership of the oil they had developed since 1908 as the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. The British no more wanted to let go of that than they wanted to give up the rest of their Empire. In 1953, they were fighting to hold their Empire, as was France also.
That is the full setting for the 1953 overthrow. Iran was in transition, a colonial conflict that it finally won. The Shah was a "win" for Iran but not a complete win, since he was agreeable to those who departed, who objected to the more extreme options being produced by actual democracy.
That produced a frozen post-colonial settlement, that stayed frozen for an unusually long time.
It was not the same as regime change now done by the US, which goes into genuinely independent countries to change their government.
6
Unlike Iran, Israel does not support al-Assad's regime that has killed over 100.000 Syrian citizens and rendered millions homeless, nor does it provide assistance to international terrorist groups like Hezbollah, which has effectively turned Lebanon into an Islamic police state. Why don't you go to Iran - and try shooting off your mouth there. You might wish you were in Israel (at least for now).
1
This could have been written by an Iranian diplomat. Maybe it was.
The money was owed, its total amount drastically reduced by effective US negotiation, its payment ordered by the Hague Court. All that is clear. At the same time Iran had agreed among other things to return US hostages. That too is clear. The Obama administration, just to make sure Iran abided by its agreement, withheld payment until the Americans were safely returned.
None of that in any way fits the definition of a "ransom." If anything, the withholding by the withholding of payment by the US of money owed until the Americans were handed over constitutes hard-nosed US extortion of an untrustworthy Iranian regime.
Efforts beginning with the Wall Street Journal, but echoed by to many TV talking heads, to make this look like a lapse in the US principle of not paying ransom for hostages is just so much muddled thinking and scandal-mongering.
You'd think we have scandals enough without having to manufacture one out of what is clearly a diplomatic success.
None of that in any way fits the definition of a "ransom." If anything, the withholding by the withholding of payment by the US of money owed until the Americans were handed over constitutes hard-nosed US extortion of an untrustworthy Iranian regime.
Efforts beginning with the Wall Street Journal, but echoed by to many TV talking heads, to make this look like a lapse in the US principle of not paying ransom for hostages is just so much muddled thinking and scandal-mongering.
You'd think we have scandals enough without having to manufacture one out of what is clearly a diplomatic success.
115
So the US couldn't trust IRAN to hand over the hostages,...yet, we trust IRAN to keep the Nuclear Agreement? I used to support the Obama admin.... this ended it. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck...it's RANSOM.
47
OK, remember that next April when the Federal Government decides to withhold your tax refund. Just because you overpaid your taxes doesn't mean you're entitled to a refund. And just because the Iranians paid us for arms or services we never delivered doesn't mean they're entitled to their own money back. Maybe instead of seeing ducks and ransoms, you can just see simple breach of contract.
4
If you give someone back their money, it is not ransom.
7
Trust but verify. Remember that? That is what we did.
4
Oh my god, a debt payment used as leverage to ensure people get home safely. What dastardly technique will these villains in the White House think up next?
186
Did you read what you just wrote? That the Iranians are not to be trusted with people's lives, so why would you give them a path to nuclear weapon?
10
I don't understand why people think the nuclear deal gives Iran a path to a nuclear weapon. It does just the opposite. The path to a nuclear weapon was not doing the deal. With no deal, Iran could have pursued any nuclear options they wanted.
Which in the end, would have led to another major war because Israel would have bombed the facility. It could have even led to WW III.
Which in the end, would have led to another major war because Israel would have bombed the facility. It could have even led to WW III.
2
@Sally, so, you also don't trust inspecting rules put in place. Do you have an analysis of how they will be ineffective? Other than mistrust of ALL involved?
1
Forget semantics of the $40 million. Facts NOT in doubt are:
1. The public affairs representative of the U.S. State Department LIED to a reporter, thereby to the American electorate, about secret negotiations with Iran.
2. A person or persons unknown in the State Department and possibly other centers of government directed removal of this LIE from the public record.
3. Current State Department spokesperson continues (as of yesterday) to LIE about how this removal came to pass.
Given only 1, 2, & 3 above, and there is oh so much more, how could any sane, rational person with an IQ above room temperature ever believe one single word issued by any member of the Obama administration?
It's OK to support these people without believing them, as I believe is the case with the NYT editorial board. Just say that is your position without insulting others' intelligence by asking us to believe they are honorable people. They are NOT!
1. The public affairs representative of the U.S. State Department LIED to a reporter, thereby to the American electorate, about secret negotiations with Iran.
2. A person or persons unknown in the State Department and possibly other centers of government directed removal of this LIE from the public record.
3. Current State Department spokesperson continues (as of yesterday) to LIE about how this removal came to pass.
Given only 1, 2, & 3 above, and there is oh so much more, how could any sane, rational person with an IQ above room temperature ever believe one single word issued by any member of the Obama administration?
It's OK to support these people without believing them, as I believe is the case with the NYT editorial board. Just say that is your position without insulting others' intelligence by asking us to believe they are honorable people. They are NOT!
35
"how could any sane, rational person with an IQ above room temperature ever believe one single word issued by any member of the Obama administration?"
I'll answer: One who can provide proof, articulate what the "LIE" was, who said it, the name of the reporter and the rest of the "FACTS" one claims to have but gives no context.
I'll answer: One who can provide proof, articulate what the "LIE" was, who said it, the name of the reporter and the rest of the "FACTS" one claims to have but gives no context.
9
But the Republicans ARE "honorable" people? DT is more "honorable" than President Obama? Dream on!
1
See CNN achieves.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/03/politics/republicans-investigation-edited-...
Reads in part: "
Washington (CNN) — Secretary of State John Kerry on Friday slammed the selective editing of a video of a State Department press briefing on the Iran deal, calling it "stupid and clumsy and inappropriate."
He said he intends to find out who at the department was responsible for the action and added he didn't want someone who would do that working there, telling reporters in Paris, "I would like to find out exactly what happened and why."
BTW, he hasn't -- another LIE from a key member of the Obama team.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/03/politics/republicans-investigation-edited-...
Reads in part: "
Washington (CNN) — Secretary of State John Kerry on Friday slammed the selective editing of a video of a State Department press briefing on the Iran deal, calling it "stupid and clumsy and inappropriate."
He said he intends to find out who at the department was responsible for the action and added he didn't want someone who would do that working there, telling reporters in Paris, "I would like to find out exactly what happened and why."
BTW, he hasn't -- another LIE from a key member of the Obama team.
1
Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton, have reduced American diplomacy to cash payments to our enemies. Cash payments are either ransom payments or Obama's version of diplomacy, in either case it is not the way grown-ups do things, (adults wire-transfer money) but business as usual at the corrupt State Department (Clinton Foundation) of Mr. Obama.
25
I believe we received a signed receipt from Iran fir the return of THEIR money. Or are you a Trumpster who reneges on signed contracts?
7
Adults, prior to transferring money, try to ascertain the best method of transfer. Iranian banks are embargoed from electronic international money transactions. An adult would try to send the money in a negotiable form, in this case cash consisting of foreign currency since actually paying in US dollars was also verboten.
BTW, an adult should also read the article before writing an unconsidered, wrong-headed opinion about a topic you obviously know very little about. .
BTW, an adult should also read the article before writing an unconsidered, wrong-headed opinion about a topic you obviously know very little about. .
4
I believe it is called "following the letter of the law." As it happens, it is illegal to transact wire-transfers with anyone in Iran.
As for the Clinton Foundation - shame on them for trying to do good - like improving health care for those who can't pay for it, advocate for children and women, addressing climate change and other unprofitable initiatives. They should be emulating the GOP SuperPACs instead, laundering foreign money to prop up their candidates.
As for the Clinton Foundation - shame on them for trying to do good - like improving health care for those who can't pay for it, advocate for children and women, addressing climate change and other unprofitable initiatives. They should be emulating the GOP SuperPACs instead, laundering foreign money to prop up their candidates.
4
Try to explain this to a Republican.
41
(Not Mark) I'm not a republican, try and explain it to me.
Don't know why the false dichotomy. The Left insists it was the repayment of a debt. The Right - $$$ for hostages. Each vehemently denies the other. I know one thing. We weren't turning over that cash without some Americans.
But, it can be both, which is what the State Department finally owned up to. Too bad the President didn't.
But, on the bright side, Mr. Obama can get his third Pinocchio. Then he can be like Bolt.
But, it can be both, which is what the State Department finally owned up to. Too bad the President didn't.
But, on the bright side, Mr. Obama can get his third Pinocchio. Then he can be like Bolt.
34
... "Mr. Obama can get his third Pinocchio".
Mr. Dana,
I take it you're not disputing the fact that the cash delivered to Tehran was a return of Iranian funds after nearly 40 years of impoundment. Surely you understand that with the passing of nearly four decades, the value of those funds has been eroded by inflation and the opportunity cost that results from such an asset freeze.
Adjudication at The Hague would have concluded as much. So settlement with the Iranian government was inevitable, assuming of course that the US is not interested in permanent hostility and theft on some level.
The Obama settlement of this asset freeze avoided claim settlement in a court outside the US. I don't hear anyone objecting to that position. He also eliminated an item of dispute between Iran and the US that enables future leaders to navigate a more constructive relationship without the baggage that inflames mistrust & conflict.
So we returned Iranian funds that we've held for 37 years. But we timed the return of those funds to the safe release of three detained Americans. Did Obama use the leverage of "possession" ? Absolutely. Did the Iranian gov use the repatriation of their funds (from 1979) to unload three detainees that were diplomatic and political baggage for them ? No contest.
Welcome to the messy and nuanced world of international diplomacy, where criticism from political rivals always come to feed ... on chum !
Mr. Dana,
I take it you're not disputing the fact that the cash delivered to Tehran was a return of Iranian funds after nearly 40 years of impoundment. Surely you understand that with the passing of nearly four decades, the value of those funds has been eroded by inflation and the opportunity cost that results from such an asset freeze.
Adjudication at The Hague would have concluded as much. So settlement with the Iranian government was inevitable, assuming of course that the US is not interested in permanent hostility and theft on some level.
The Obama settlement of this asset freeze avoided claim settlement in a court outside the US. I don't hear anyone objecting to that position. He also eliminated an item of dispute between Iran and the US that enables future leaders to navigate a more constructive relationship without the baggage that inflames mistrust & conflict.
So we returned Iranian funds that we've held for 37 years. But we timed the return of those funds to the safe release of three detained Americans. Did Obama use the leverage of "possession" ? Absolutely. Did the Iranian gov use the repatriation of their funds (from 1979) to unload three detainees that were diplomatic and political baggage for them ? No contest.
Welcome to the messy and nuanced world of international diplomacy, where criticism from political rivals always come to feed ... on chum !
6
Actually, we're looking at the Supreme Dichotomy....
nope, draw a line anywhere for bolt and get out of his way.
You guys are way too hung up on facts. It sounds really cool to say that Barry capitulated to the Iranians. Who cares what the facts are? Don't u guys watch Fox News?
40
Feels more like a prisoner exchange, or a hostage swap, since the cash already belonged to Iran.
14
This editorial will allow Obama to sleep well at night knowing that all of his sheep are in the fold.
25
Within the editorial is the sentence that explains it all: "Where the administration went wrong was in not being more transparent sooner about how the detainees’ release unfolded." You can't just talk a good game, you have to play it, too. Nobody trusts a hypocrite, especially a high-minded one.
15
Repeat after me: this was not a ransom payment. The United States owed Iran this money, money which is rightfully theirs. Repeat again.
55
We can repeat until we're blue in the face but nobody can overcome stupid and craven and Trump has collected that bunch in one giant wad of stupidity and ignorance. Too sad. This is so so simple. It was the smart thing to do and it was not a ransom.
2
Shouldn't the US have sent Iran the late 70s weapons technology which was promised instead of returning the money?
1
Again the GOP is sadly putting its interest over the interest of the nation.
Putting America first is code for putting the GOP first.
Putting America first is code for putting the GOP first.
50
This is just another item on the long list of things the GOP has turned around, lied about to make the President look bad. I think it's great he got those Americans released, why isn't the GOP applauding that success. I think it's great Iran has given up it's atom bomb program, why is't the GOP appalling that? As for a ransom, how can giving someone "THEIR" money back be looked at as a ransom payment? Plus, as a taxpayer I think the lives of three American detainees are worth the money. Just look at how much we pay congress to do nothing.
59
And I think its sad how miserably naive and uninformed you are. You really think Iran is giving up its nuclear ambitions?
"But history is replete with instances of American presidents advancing national interests by working with governments they did not necessarily trust. This is one of them."
Excuse me, but Iran is the one that has tried at various times to befriend the U.S. but was rebuffed and betrayed at every attempt. Think back to May 2003, when Khamenei's offer of a Grand Bargain, communicated to the State Department by the Swiss Ambassador, was thrown into the waste basket by a U.S. Administration drunk with its initial success in Iraq.
Or the recent nuclear accord, which Iran has observed in minutest detail but which U.S. Congressmen, AIPAC and the terrorist Saudi regime are trying to undercut at every opportunity.
Why does the U.S. Treasury and OFAC not give the formal go-ahead to global banks to renew business with Iran? Why is the U.S. consciously trying to damage President Rouhani's reputation and ensure his replacement next year by Ahmadinejad who is already jockeying to bring Iranian citizens another 8 years of misery?
Come on, U.S.A., for once in your life try and fulfil your treaty obligations.
Excuse me, but Iran is the one that has tried at various times to befriend the U.S. but was rebuffed and betrayed at every attempt. Think back to May 2003, when Khamenei's offer of a Grand Bargain, communicated to the State Department by the Swiss Ambassador, was thrown into the waste basket by a U.S. Administration drunk with its initial success in Iraq.
Or the recent nuclear accord, which Iran has observed in minutest detail but which U.S. Congressmen, AIPAC and the terrorist Saudi regime are trying to undercut at every opportunity.
Why does the U.S. Treasury and OFAC not give the formal go-ahead to global banks to renew business with Iran? Why is the U.S. consciously trying to damage President Rouhani's reputation and ensure his replacement next year by Ahmadinejad who is already jockeying to bring Iranian citizens another 8 years of misery?
Come on, U.S.A., for once in your life try and fulfil your treaty obligations.
23
If you read the entire piece, you would have your answer
"There are many reasons to fault Iran, including for its role in the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s brutal civil war; aid to Hezbollah; hatred of Israel; and abysmal human rights record."
"There are many reasons to fault Iran, including for its role in the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s brutal civil war; aid to Hezbollah; hatred of Israel; and abysmal human rights record."
4
I think administration would consider precisely that in exchange for Iran getting out of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen. So far, though, the mullahs have no intention of seeking peace in the Middle East.
And so it goes...
And so it goes...
2
Glad to see this message get out there - but why does it take the NY Times of this, rather than our president? Why wasn't he shouting this on Twitter or in a call to Morning Joe, as done by some others? He can look presidential or even professorial, but he was a terrible messenger ever. We needed someone to out the message out there for our side. Too late now.
9
Why would Obama not do what you suggest? Are you really asking that after almost eight full years now of a dignified president? Every time he has made any effort to play nice with his detractors, they've doubled down and now we have their best face forward, Trump. Let Obama be Obama. There are more of us who appreciate that and know anything out of character with him would only backfire and give more fodder to the goons.
2
So according to the terms of our agreement with Iran we HAD to pay the $400 million. The timing of this payment had not been determined. We decided to use the actual transfer of funds as leverage to ensure the hostage release. Imagine if the Obama Administration had released the funds prior to getting the hostages back and Iran had dragged out or delayed their release. Then the right would have screamed bloody murder about giving the money before ensuring the release. The unpleasant and consistently unsavory fact is that since Obama has taken office, no matter what decisions he makes right wing outlets like Fox will be critical in an effort to discredit him. Has anyone in the media thought to interview the hostage families of these people to see if they are approving of how things finally went down. Chalk up another distorting story line by the right and the neocons to further their narrow hawk like agenda.
52
We should be careful about accepting theories so easily, if not for anything, at least as a quality control check. The theory that is being advanced here, without any documented proof, is that we were willing to return the money very quickly (although our track record on this matter speaks otherwise) the Iranians were delaying the release of hostages, so we withheld the money as leverage. A plausible alternative theory is that we were delaying payment until we were confident they came through on meeting their nuclear agreements, which led Iranians to threaten to not release the hostages until they get their money, so we paid in a simultaneous exchange. We, the public don't have any proof for either theory. Where is the truth, or is it something in-between?
What I find interesting is that Iran is a majority Shiite nation, which technically makes them an ally to the U.S. in our fight against ISIS (which is primarily Sunni). We can either assume the mindset that Iran is a part of the "axis of evil", or we can recognize that the world we live in is much more intricate and complicated than conservatives may be willing to acknowledge for fear of looking weak. Oh yeah, and while we are at it, does anybody remember Iran Contra? Reagan only sold missiles and arms to the Iranians for the release of hostages - that is one heck of a ransom.
27
The money should be distributed to all Iranians. Would the hostages have been set free before or after this money is taxed back to the existing government?
1
Some important items are missing from this story, namely, what was it the Iranians were doing that caused the U.S. to believe its imprisoned citizens would not be released? Of course, the Iranians didn't arrest these people for actual crimes in the first place - what did the U.S. believe was Iran's motivation?
That said, the fact that the U.S. even threatened to withhold payment suggests such a lack of trust in the Iranian leadership as to cast doubt on whether the U.S. really believes that its watered down nuclear inspection safeguards would work as intended. As details continue to emerge, the nuclear deal appears to be more of a truce designed to last 10 to 15 years after which Iran could go nuclear if it wishes or, using the Islamic precedent of Hudaybayah, until Iran feels sufficiently empowered that it finds an excuse to abrogate the deal early. The West seems to be betting that a more tolerant (should we say, Westernized) regime will emerge in the interim to replace the Ayatollahs. Perhaps, but what a role of the dice. More likely, Israel will be the West's counterweight to Iranian moves at hegemony as the Sunni states shield behind the IDF and forcing Palestinians to accept reality and agree to an abiding peace that recognizes Jewish rights. Another interesting bet.
That said, the fact that the U.S. even threatened to withhold payment suggests such a lack of trust in the Iranian leadership as to cast doubt on whether the U.S. really believes that its watered down nuclear inspection safeguards would work as intended. As details continue to emerge, the nuclear deal appears to be more of a truce designed to last 10 to 15 years after which Iran could go nuclear if it wishes or, using the Islamic precedent of Hudaybayah, until Iran feels sufficiently empowered that it finds an excuse to abrogate the deal early. The West seems to be betting that a more tolerant (should we say, Westernized) regime will emerge in the interim to replace the Ayatollahs. Perhaps, but what a role of the dice. More likely, Israel will be the West's counterweight to Iranian moves at hegemony as the Sunni states shield behind the IDF and forcing Palestinians to accept reality and agree to an abiding peace that recognizes Jewish rights. Another interesting bet.
8
Yup that works both ways, they don't trust us either.
There is "spin" and there are "lies" and woe be unto Donald Trump and his surrogates who have knowingly crossed the rubicon from the former to the latter. The wheel of the cart follows the heel of the ox pulling the cart.
15
The actual lies about actual deeds come out of the State Department and the Clinton Foundation. You can't make this stuff up. This exists even if Trump does not. The reality of how the Obama Administration has gone about things, that will be there forever, no matter what spin you put on it. It is important to accept that Obama has gone good and Obama has done bad. All of our Presidents, have done both good and bad. Foolish to imagine Obama only does good.
1
Because it was Iran's money and the deal had been struck Iran was always going to get the money anyway. This seems an obvious and simple point, one that by itself debunks claims of "ransom".
That the administration held it until the hostages were released was smart -- had they not done that and had the hostages remained in Iran we would have heard howls from the right that the President had been "taken" for paying Iran its money and not even getting the hostages.
That the administration held it until the hostages were released was smart -- had they not done that and had the hostages remained in Iran we would have heard howls from the right that the President had been "taken" for paying Iran its money and not even getting the hostages.
34
The issue is lack of transparency from the "most transparent administration in history. "
1
"The truth is that the administration withheld the payment to ensure Iran didn’t renege on its promise to free three detainees "
The Editorial Board ignores the most important aspect of this "exchange" which is that Iran thought this was ransom money.
All other explanations are irrelevant.
The Editorial Board ignores the most important aspect of this "exchange" which is that Iran thought this was ransom money.
All other explanations are irrelevant.
14
Really. Iran didn't "think" that this was "ransom money"--this was how they spun the process TO THEIR PEOPLE--"Gee, look, we held The Great Satan's feet to the fire." Thanks, GOP, for buying into Iranian internal political propaganda and "validating" it to their people. This is despicable.
5
What evidence is there to support your contention that Iran thought this was ransom money? Does it matter? The point of contention is not what Iran believed. It's what was true and it was not ransom. Who cares what someone else thinks it coulda, woulda, shoulda been?
1
This is a good, clearly written editorial that explains what occurred.
I wish I could have said the same for other articles written on the subject, including the one in the NYT. While a good reader (and one who actually reads the whole article) would certainly have understood the issue and the nuance, that article (and others), along with headlines, allowed enough leeway for less discerning readers to misinterpret. I understand you want to sell papers and you want to appear balanced, but not being clear and precise is not a good way to do that. Telling two sides of an issue is not the same as telling the truth or the whole story. Clear, direct, honest and full reporting seems to be a lost "art."
I wish I could have said the same for other articles written on the subject, including the one in the NYT. While a good reader (and one who actually reads the whole article) would certainly have understood the issue and the nuance, that article (and others), along with headlines, allowed enough leeway for less discerning readers to misinterpret. I understand you want to sell papers and you want to appear balanced, but not being clear and precise is not a good way to do that. Telling two sides of an issue is not the same as telling the truth or the whole story. Clear, direct, honest and full reporting seems to be a lost "art."
20
Absolutely correct; the money was paid because the United States government was being held 'hostage' by Iran, the country that denies the Holocaust, has declared Israel an eternal enemy and holds sessions were men yell "death to America" after prayers.
Apparently, in this instance, the Obama administration is "playing by the rules" and following a court order. One might ask why we don't just pick off their leadership with "drone strikes" which we neither acknowledge nor know anything about but, so far, have killed around 4,000 "enemies of the state" in countries from Yemen to Pakistan but without a word about who is controlling all those drones.
Is the "nuclear deal" with a known supporter of terrorism that important?
Does the NYT really believe that Iran isn't still brewing up nuclear capabilities or, worse yet, biological and chemical weapons which they will readily give to their "proxies" fighting in Syria?
Mr. Obama's "legacy" shouldn't include paying money to secure hostages even if it wasn't such a deal; it just LOOKS like such a deal!
In short, the U.S.A. is playing fast and loose with "drone strikes' but when it comes to Iran, we follow the "letter of the law", more or less, so this president can go down in history as the "peace with Iran" president, a dubious achievement at best.
If it looks, quacks and walks like a duck, it's probably a duck...or a "bribe".
Apparently, in this instance, the Obama administration is "playing by the rules" and following a court order. One might ask why we don't just pick off their leadership with "drone strikes" which we neither acknowledge nor know anything about but, so far, have killed around 4,000 "enemies of the state" in countries from Yemen to Pakistan but without a word about who is controlling all those drones.
Is the "nuclear deal" with a known supporter of terrorism that important?
Does the NYT really believe that Iran isn't still brewing up nuclear capabilities or, worse yet, biological and chemical weapons which they will readily give to their "proxies" fighting in Syria?
Mr. Obama's "legacy" shouldn't include paying money to secure hostages even if it wasn't such a deal; it just LOOKS like such a deal!
In short, the U.S.A. is playing fast and loose with "drone strikes' but when it comes to Iran, we follow the "letter of the law", more or less, so this president can go down in history as the "peace with Iran" president, a dubious achievement at best.
If it looks, quacks and walks like a duck, it's probably a duck...or a "bribe".
10
This is yet another in an endless series of accusation stories created for cable news by trashing the ordinary meaning of words.
We took Iran's assets hostage in 1979 when they took our embassy staff hostage. Our embassy hostages were released in 1981. We were a little slower at our end.
Iran never took any US Navy hostages. They arrested the crew of a vessel that illegally entered their waters. They released them.
Welcome to the New Journalism, where the clear definitions of "hostage" and "ransom" have been replaced by fact-free political slogans whose sole purpose to create fake news stories.
We took Iran's assets hostage in 1979 when they took our embassy staff hostage. Our embassy hostages were released in 1981. We were a little slower at our end.
Iran never took any US Navy hostages. They arrested the crew of a vessel that illegally entered their waters. They released them.
Welcome to the New Journalism, where the clear definitions of "hostage" and "ransom" have been replaced by fact-free political slogans whose sole purpose to create fake news stories.
17
You have to be kidding us! Had the administration told the truth from the beginning, maybe I could accept it. However, since they lied a couple of times before the truth came out, they are guilty as charged.
22
No this is not advancing American interests this is a ransom payment pure and simple. The hostage plane could not take off till the money arrived and now we have more Americans being held by Iran. Further the State Department just issued a warning for American citizens to not go to Iran. A target has been placed on the backs of Americans' traveling oversees by this ransom payment.
19
Even worse..."repaying" this money to kidnappers and extortionists, 37 years after they KIDNAPPED OUR EMBASSY (!!!) was and is clearly a bribe -- NOT for the 3 detainees (who clearly are not worth a billion dollars) but for the friggin' treaty.
How short are your memories, people? I remember the kidnapping of our embassy workers very very well -- every night on TV for a YEAR -- "America Held Hostage".
Those who do not remember history, are condemned to repeat it....
How short are your memories, people? I remember the kidnapping of our embassy workers very very well -- every night on TV for a YEAR -- "America Held Hostage".
Those who do not remember history, are condemned to repeat it....
More hostages?? Proof please. Haven't heard of any lately.
This is a terrific example of "Murphy's Law of Politics," which states that anything that can be spun to make the others look like incompetent fools will be.
I'm not into false equivalences, but this is a game played by nearly every major player in DC, and as long as American voters continue to reward those who play it by spreading these moronic assertions and voting the players back into office term after term, we'll only see the situation get worse.
This nonsense isn't the fault of Trump or Clinton or any of their minions - it's the fault of the American voters who insist on digging deeper and deeper into their partisan rabbit holes.
I'm not into false equivalences, but this is a game played by nearly every major player in DC, and as long as American voters continue to reward those who play it by spreading these moronic assertions and voting the players back into office term after term, we'll only see the situation get worse.
This nonsense isn't the fault of Trump or Clinton or any of their minions - it's the fault of the American voters who insist on digging deeper and deeper into their partisan rabbit holes.
8
Seems easier to work deals with Iran than our own Congress.
33
Yes, this is a "fake" ransom story. Yes, the president and state department were right to use whatever leverage available to speed up the release of the hostages. Yes, as Admiral Kirby noted, these issue converged as is the nature of international negotiations with adversaries.
But........the lack of transparency provides millions of gallons of glue to hate snifters and fodder for Team Trump to chew on and spit up all over the campaign trail. Warning to journalists covering Mr. Trump: wear boots or work shoes, no open toed heels or sandals. The ground surrounding Mr. Trump is ripe and slimey with this stuff.
But........the lack of transparency provides millions of gallons of glue to hate snifters and fodder for Team Trump to chew on and spit up all over the campaign trail. Warning to journalists covering Mr. Trump: wear boots or work shoes, no open toed heels or sandals. The ground surrounding Mr. Trump is ripe and slimey with this stuff.
8
The Times won't publish this, but it's staggering how often they parrot the administration's talking points. Clearly this is an opinion piece, but the news coverage isn't far off in its political slant.
21
And yet here you are, published a full thirty minutes ago for all the world to see. Freedom of expression I guess.
1
I love it when the times publishes comments like Portofogo's.
And yes, it is an opinion piece. Also it has a lots of facts in it. A foreign concept to those on the right, I understand.
And yes, it is an opinion piece. Also it has a lots of facts in it. A foreign concept to those on the right, I understand.
1
This paint job over reality is what makes the future of your paper certain only to those who don't want to think for themselves. The hostages were quoted as saying that THEY had to wait for the plane with the dough, not the other way around as you state. If the captors did not see the money, there would be no exchange. You can create your own dictionary, but mine screams "RANSOM FOR KIDNAPPERS"!!!Front page news!!!
15
Really? Maybe we held the $400 million for ransom instead. "Think" on that one.
Perhaps you prefer not to use the "leverage" we had to get some Americans freed - at NO ADDITIONAL COST to what we were obligated to pay.
One small quibble with Obama, did we charge the Iranians a hefty "handling fee" for processing the payment?
I, for one who thinks for myself AND others, will continue to support and read The New York Times excellent coverage.
Perhaps you prefer not to use the "leverage" we had to get some Americans freed - at NO ADDITIONAL COST to what we were obligated to pay.
One small quibble with Obama, did we charge the Iranians a hefty "handling fee" for processing the payment?
I, for one who thinks for myself AND others, will continue to support and read The New York Times excellent coverage.
2
Quoted where??
4
The GOP and all Obama haters will spin what they want, so facts have little to do with it. Giving back Iran's own money, which we were required under international law to do can hardly be described as ransom. The GOP hates the nuclear deal since they prefer to have Iran only a few weeks away from a bomb rather than 10 years away. They seem to like the idea that we or our ally Israel could/should bomb the hell out of Iran's nuclear sites (if only we could find and reach them underground). So what if it sets off a whole new war...
28
It's shocking we have such a preponderance of dimwits fed malarkey by Faux Noise that an article like this has to be spoon fed to readers, but thanks for this carefully detailed piece.
In an Obama/FDR type diplomatic process; real leverage and truthful dealing is used to get actual progress and vital positive change in world affairs. In a Tea Party Trumpian diplomatic process; you default on obligations (personal or public) and scream at the World Affairs toothpaste, "Get back into the tube!" and call it "... getting a better deal folks, I can get a better deal."
In an Obama/FDR type diplomatic process; real leverage and truthful dealing is used to get actual progress and vital positive change in world affairs. In a Tea Party Trumpian diplomatic process; you default on obligations (personal or public) and scream at the World Affairs toothpaste, "Get back into the tube!" and call it "... getting a better deal folks, I can get a better deal."
24
If it's their money it's not ransom , don't get how this is so hard for so many to understand. In 1979 the Shah's government payed for a weapons system which was never delivered . That we'd not provide arms to the revolutionaries that overthrew the Shah makes sense but by what right would we get to keep the payment made by an Iranian government. Would a foreign entity be justified , legally or morally, if they reneged on a current debt next year citing their opposition to either a Trump or Clinton administration ?
26
If the debt had been paid and the hostages not freed, Donald Trump would be all over it, and he would have a valid point. The "Art of the Deal" guy should know all about leverage, so he's either lying or he doesn't really know how deals work.
17
"If you don't do X, I won't give you the millions of dollars I owe you!" Yeah, that sure sounds like ransom payment!
Contrast that with Reagan's deals with Iran and what the Right's hero Reagan himself said:
"A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages."
President Obama didn't give anything to Iran other than the money that the U.S. owed Iran. Of course, he is not a Republican and his name is not Reagan and so the Right would spin it as they've been doing now. What a bunch of despicable people!
Contrast that with Reagan's deals with Iran and what the Right's hero Reagan himself said:
"A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages."
President Obama didn't give anything to Iran other than the money that the U.S. owed Iran. Of course, he is not a Republican and his name is not Reagan and so the Right would spin it as they've been doing now. What a bunch of despicable people!
34
I don't believe Obama halted Iran's nuclear weapon program. All it did was give Iran enough money to buy the weapons from North Korea. All it did was push Saudi Arabia into purchasing nuclear warheads from Pakistan. Saudi Arabia already has the missiles to deliver the warheads.
This deal is like most of our trade deals, favoring the other side to a fault!
This deal is like most of our trade deals, favoring the other side to a fault!
11
Right on!
2
So, like Reagan looking the other way as things were done by subordinates to facilitate release of hostages, so Mr. Obama looks the other way as we ransom THIS era’s hostages. We should note that it was the same country on both occasions, Iran, that precipitated BOTH actions, thirty years apart. Yet this is the country with whom we entered into an agreement in the hope that they’d act more responsibly; or at least responsibly enough that we wouldn’t actually need to expend resources to counter their threat to the region. Instead, how about threatening to destroy one of Iran’s newly reinvigorated shipping hubs to transfer crude if they take one more America hostage?
A pox on the NYT’s sorry attempt to spin ransom into something it patently is not. I understood Reagan’s motivations thirty years ago, and I understand President Obama’s today – and I condemn neither. The problem isn’t that a concerned administration seeks to recover Americans from an outlaw regime by what tools it has readily available. The problem is that we need to keep doing it with the leaders of that same country, who have not moderated by one whit their hatred of us over so long a period, their desire to humiliate us and their implacable resolve to eliminate our influence on that benighted region so that they may impose THEIR values on it as unimpeded as Saudi Arabia will allow them to do.
THIS is the failure of our Iranian policy, not that our president wanted to get our people back from barbarians.
A pox on the NYT’s sorry attempt to spin ransom into something it patently is not. I understood Reagan’s motivations thirty years ago, and I understand President Obama’s today – and I condemn neither. The problem isn’t that a concerned administration seeks to recover Americans from an outlaw regime by what tools it has readily available. The problem is that we need to keep doing it with the leaders of that same country, who have not moderated by one whit their hatred of us over so long a period, their desire to humiliate us and their implacable resolve to eliminate our influence on that benighted region so that they may impose THEIR values on it as unimpeded as Saudi Arabia will allow them to do.
THIS is the failure of our Iranian policy, not that our president wanted to get our people back from barbarians.
8
I guess, Richard, that some folks can be given information and still stick to their own set of "facts." It was IRAN's money, not our money. It was not ransom, but return of their money - and with considerably less interest than the Hague was about to require.
40
You conveniently forgot the funneling of arms to back the fascist contras in Nicaragua and the drugs coming into America, helping to fuel the crack cocaine epidemic.
All of the above actions were illegal.
All of the above actions were illegal.
16
Did you READ the article? It spells out HOW this is not a Saint Ronne-esque deal with The Devil.
Reagan SOLD weapons, secretly, to Iran's proxies in Lebanon in order to secure the release of hostages held there by those proxies AND used the proceeds, secretly, to fund US proxies in vicious guerrilla wars in Central America. Then he denied it. No, he "couldn't remember, or recall, or he didn't rightly know what happened," or so his Alzheimer-wracked mind supposed or claimed.
The money WAS Iran's. And if you read the article, you'd realize it was stated clearly that ",,,they were going to get it" so, no, this isn't Iran/Contra gate.
Reagan SOLD weapons, secretly, to Iran's proxies in Lebanon in order to secure the release of hostages held there by those proxies AND used the proceeds, secretly, to fund US proxies in vicious guerrilla wars in Central America. Then he denied it. No, he "couldn't remember, or recall, or he didn't rightly know what happened," or so his Alzheimer-wracked mind supposed or claimed.
The money WAS Iran's. And if you read the article, you'd realize it was stated clearly that ",,,they were going to get it" so, no, this isn't Iran/Contra gate.
15
Only the GOP is seizing this "irresistible opportunity" to prove Obama's - in their eyes - surrender to Iran, refusing to acknowledge that it was a smart move. The administration held back the $400 million - as leverage - to ensure the release of the Americans, before the money was returned. As simple as that. But it It is election year and the Republicans are wary of losing the White House. So they need publicity to lambaste the opposition camp, hoping to defend their seats in the Congress.
65
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story, especially when there is money to be made selling it to a gullible part of the population.
The same folks are still looking for the WMD in Iraq, another fabrication to justify a war that killed hundreds of thousands, cost the US trillions and spawned ISIS.
The Iran Nuclear Agreement (JCPOA) resulted in the removal of 98% of uranium from the country and shutdown of most centrifuges and enrichment.
The alternative that the "real men" of the neocon Bushworld apparently prefer is to allow Israel, who secretly possesses hundreds of nuclear weapons, to bomb Iranian nuclear sites. This is the same group that evidently preferred a similar solution in Syria, instead of what actually happened, the removal and destruction of hundreds of tons of chemical weapons.
Imagine what will happen if Trump were to be elected President.
The same folks are still looking for the WMD in Iraq, another fabrication to justify a war that killed hundreds of thousands, cost the US trillions and spawned ISIS.
The Iran Nuclear Agreement (JCPOA) resulted in the removal of 98% of uranium from the country and shutdown of most centrifuges and enrichment.
The alternative that the "real men" of the neocon Bushworld apparently prefer is to allow Israel, who secretly possesses hundreds of nuclear weapons, to bomb Iranian nuclear sites. This is the same group that evidently preferred a similar solution in Syria, instead of what actually happened, the removal and destruction of hundreds of tons of chemical weapons.
Imagine what will happen if Trump were to be elected President.
83
Actually the US held the money hostage, and Iran paid a ransom of freeing the prisoners in exchange for the money. No hostage taker would give up its hostage before getting its money, were it actually demanding a ransom. In effect, the US, which was legally bound to pay the money, was demanding ransom and received it. If one is a supporter of Iran, being upset might make sense but not otherwise. This "controversy" is just an example of the alternate universe in which Republicans now live and which the alt-right media promote. Among other things, it has brought us Donald Trump.
181
It is an old story with the Hard Riight. Chiang Kai=Shek, who had been chased off the mainland, was being prevented from liberating the mainland by the 7th Fleet EVERYTHING done by an adversary is done in bad faith, for sinister motives, etc., and everyone will see they were right once the proof gets found out. We gave Iran 50 billion dollars (implying that we gave them OUR money), and it doesnt matter that it was in fact their iwn money that we had held onto. Same with the 400 million. Reminds me of the homeless man who asked me for money, and then insisted that I had to hand it to him in a particular manner in order to assure him I was not demeaning him.
9
It is shocking that The New York Times doesn't understand the subtleties here. It makes no difference whether The Times or talk radio or some politicians want to call this payment a ransom or not. Our country's policiy of avoiding ransom payments is intended to deter would-be hostage takers. Now we have this. Call it what you will. But a payment that was owed for nearly 40 years was finally paid at a point in time to grease the wheels for other negotiations including the release of hostages. Not a ransom payment? Fine. But the next time a country or organization takes American hostages and requests financial considerations, I hope the Editors of The Times can explain to ther families exactly how this move by the Administration had absolutely no role in encouraging the hostage takers.
33
It is the Republicans who are calling this a ransom payment who are putting American lives in danger.
16
except these "hostage takers" are entering into a nuclear proliferation deal with us that hinges on giving back money that is theirs in the first place. yeah, exactly like most "hostage takers"....these facts can't get through your talk-radio wall of ignorance, apparently.
18
Reagan sold military weapons to Iran, while they were holding 400+ American hostages, to finance an illegal war in Central America...how did that effect us?
fwa
fwa
11
For the GOP any action by the Obama administration must be seen in the worst possible light. Money was send to Iran, hostages were released, thus it was ransom. That the money was owed to Iran and was withheld until hostages were released is irrelevant, there was obviously a link, thus it was ransom. There was a time when both parties stood behind the US government actions abroad, regardless whether the President was a Democrat or a Republican. Npw Republicans have decided that unless they are in charge no action serves the interest of the US and the most important thing to do is undermine the US government.
81
It still seems as if it wasn't on the up and up since it was cash, in foreign currency, shipped on an unmarked cargo plane. That just doesn't appear particularly legitimate.
13
The U.S. has no official banking relationship with Iran, so the money could not have been done by a bank transfer. Cash was the only option. It WAS on the up and up.
31
Because of banking laws it had to be foreign currency. I guess Fox news didn't tell you that!
18
The U.S. By law has no banking relationships with Iran. As a result, the payment had to be made in cash and transferred to Iran via a neutral third party. Nothing sinister at all, once you know the facts.
13
Imagine the reaction from Republicans, if you will, if it was President Obama, not the beloved saint of conservatism, Ronald Reagan, who had traded guns to Iran for hostages, as Reagan did in the Iran-Contra Affair? Do the words "impeachment" and "prison" come to mind?
That is paying ransom, if anyone needs an example.
That is paying ransom, if anyone needs an example.
291
Imagine if the Obama administration outed a CIA agent, as Dick Cheney's office did to Valerie Plame.
26
How typical of Obama apologizers. Add Israel to a completely unrelated matter and everybody will know, it's the Jews again and Obama is snow-white. From everything that is known, the 400 million would not have been paid if the hostages would not have been freed. Second, Obama's explanations for the cash transfer are not only ridiculous, they are the laughing stock of everybody who knows banking. Complete nonsense!!!
22
It would have been ransom IF the money paid to Iran had been U.S. money. It was not. It was Iran's money. Do you not understand the definition of ransom????
26
Not clear on how you got that pointing out Israel is involved in a similar arbitration was somehow an unfair exculpatory deflection ?
10
Nothing distorts thoughts more than anger. Right wingers are the biggest whiners...what a bunch of sore losers.
fwa
fwa
10
The 'bribe' story is particularly striking in the context of the current campaign. The Republicans' candidate has hogged center stage for month after month by fulminating myths, insults, and cockamamie policy proposals, undergirded by most of the -isms that are held in disrepute in the sober reaches of the political spectrum. Many of the prominent members of the party are trying to stay outside the blast radius by vague, awkward non- or quasi-endorsements or even disavowals. Nevertheless, when something like this comes along, they go for it with positively Trumpian gusto. They just can't help themselves. It's who they are --- and why there is Trump.
628
Where would the "sober reaches" be? In the faux one party utopia where not a dissenting voice is tolerated? Too bad its still a free country, not quite pacified by the liberal fascist ideologues.
The $400 million was the hostage Iran wanted to free.
The three American detainees were the ransom Iran paid.
The three American detainees were the ransom Iran paid.
712
Well, then, we can expect more Americans to be held as 'ransom' for more 'hostages' paid by this White House
1
I like how you put the fact the way the Iranian saw. they wanted that money so bad and US is holding it as hostage. Even before i heard the clarification from the administration when i read the controversy as reported by WSJ and Donald Trump, I didn't squirm that US government did something stupid
Ransom, by definition, means relinquishing something of yours to get something in exchange. The $400mm was NOT ours. We are no poorer to have given their money back.
In your world, apparently, there can be no negotiation, and thus no progress. How small-minded.
In your world, apparently, there can be no negotiation, and thus no progress. How small-minded.
3
This is an example of perfect pragmatic diplomacy that any president would have performed, but because President Obama succeeded where Reagan and Bush failed, there must be something amiss. The Republicans have nominated a total idiot this election cycle who does not know or understand what is diplomacy. His surrogates, WSJ's writers, must therefore fabricate a story from whole cloth for Fox news to broadcast all week long to discredit Obama and tarnish the nuclear and hostage deals in an aim to affect Hillary Clinton election. Obama should be lauded for exploiting Iran's monetary weakness as an additional fulcrum through which the nuclear deal and hostages releases became guaranteed. It is this simple. The Republicans just can't believe how successful Obama was and Hillary will be. It is killing them.
162
No thanks to Rupert Murdock, whose Faux News is like a Vulture waiting for anything that looks like it might soon expire, we have an entire right wing media that spends its time looking for anything that can be blown up into a scandal and flogged forever. To gain itself addicted viewers, ad revenue and a mindless state of public mass hypnosis, Murdock's media empire is disemboweling our Republic.
So now we have them convincing the undereducated that money which always belonged to Iran is actually a bribe - when it's returned to its rightful owners.
This citizen - little me - gets so tired of having to correct the right wing misinformation machine. We're in danger of being swamped by it. It's a type of "media global warming" slowly cooking all of us - like frogs in a pot!
There's so much irrationality now. We're awash in it! Like a deluge. Sitting all around us. Trapping us.
Voices cry out the truth. From houses trapped in the flood. But all the while the right wing propaganda rains down. More lies on top of the old ones.
What's a sane person to do?
So now we have them convincing the undereducated that money which always belonged to Iran is actually a bribe - when it's returned to its rightful owners.
This citizen - little me - gets so tired of having to correct the right wing misinformation machine. We're in danger of being swamped by it. It's a type of "media global warming" slowly cooking all of us - like frogs in a pot!
There's so much irrationality now. We're awash in it! Like a deluge. Sitting all around us. Trapping us.
Voices cry out the truth. From houses trapped in the flood. But all the while the right wing propaganda rains down. More lies on top of the old ones.
What's a sane person to do?
231
And what makes our times even more dangerous is that many people cannot distinguish reality from fantasy because of our instant digital world. No time for vetting misinformation. Our country is being lead down the path of catastrophe as long as the lemmings let themselves be controlled by marketeers.
3
Don't demonize the opposition in a democracy, its all you have. People are free to believe whatever they wish and so are you. You are talking down 50% of the population. You think they're misled, they think you are. That's what elections are for, so vote already and follow the will of the people when its done. No one wants to live in a one party state.
1
The administration wasn't just not transparent, the President himself outright lied when he told the American people that the two weren't linked at all.
21
I don't think I have ever heard a truthful word from Donald, yet you accuse the President of an "outright lie"?
Look in the mirror sir, the liar you speak of will greet you.
fwa
Look in the mirror sir, the liar you speak of will greet you.
fwa
16
This was not Reagan era Iran -Contra.
2
It's no surprise that the WSJ, now part of Rupert Murdoch's vast disinformation cesspool, first "broke the story". Cue up Fox "News", Rush Limbaugh and the full complement of right-wing talking bobble-heads, and you have another subject for conservative outrage and hatred.
I believe strongly in first amendment rights, but any "news" emanating from Fox "News" and today's WSJ really should be accompanied by some sort of warning label.
I believe strongly in first amendment rights, but any "news" emanating from Fox "News" and today's WSJ really should be accompanied by some sort of warning label.
326
Its so very simple. Our paying to Iran our 37 year old debt we owed it cannot be considered payment of ransom. Our withholding payment of our debt to Iran as a means of freeing Americans wrongfully held by Iran was brilliant and something to be praised, not turned on its head and condemned. Thanks, Obama, for bringing home our citizens wrongfully held prisoners by Iran. And thanks too for stopping in its tracks Iran's march to nuclear weaponry. Our ward state, Israel, and Iran are competitors and keeping nuclear weapons out of Iran's hands is a great service to Israel.
132
Wonderful, wonderful! Now, let's work at getting nukes out of Israel's hands as well.
2
Ronald the timing is what is eyebrow-raising.
1
When Obama took care of Osama bin Laden, the conservatives went to the edge of the earth screaming that he should not dare try and politicize that significant victory. And Obama has never really made political capital out of it. In the same breath, Obama exercised leverage with Iranian money that was due to them and got Americans back home safely. He should also reap political capital from this but he has not.
It is therefore not surprising that the conservatives will do and say anything to discredit his accomplishments because they do not have a track record to speak of. Had Obama refused to refund the Iranians and had the hostages lost their lives, he would have been skewered by the same republicans.
Have they no shame?
It is therefore not surprising that the conservatives will do and say anything to discredit his accomplishments because they do not have a track record to speak of. Had Obama refused to refund the Iranians and had the hostages lost their lives, he would have been skewered by the same republicans.
Have they no shame?
379
No, they don't.
36
The Times faults Iran for supporting Bashar al Assad and Hezbollah, when, not too long ago George W. Bush was subcontracting torture to, among others, the very same Bashar all Assad of Syria.
Just how is Iran supporting Hezbollah different from the US arming and funding Afghan fundamentalists, Saddam Hussein, the death squads in El Salvador or the Contra terrorists in Nicaragua?
Just how is Iran supporting Hezbollah different from the US arming and funding Afghan fundamentalists, Saddam Hussein, the death squads in El Salvador or the Contra terrorists in Nicaragua?
38
The destruction of Israel remains the primary objective of Iran. The Iranians are outsourcing this goal by funneling money through their surrogates in Hezbollah.
6
Why wasn't this editorial published weeks ago?
45
Exactly! Assuming the facts of the editorial are accurate, this should have been a feel good story about leveraging and insuring the return of hostages...movie to follow. But when the administration is not transparent and then fumbles around until the story is finally massaged, packaged and editorialized in the Times, it explains why there is such distrust and dysfunction in the political system.
6
I'm sure you know what happens when you assume.
1
Thank you. It's more than governments being blamed and discredited. It's the way of humans on Planet Earth. We all should be listening, thinking, and learning to do what is kind and helpful. Instead we hate and kill and commit mayhem. It's all a part of ongoing evolution.
7
The Republican Party would rather see the nation fail then admit anything President Obama has done has made the country or the world a better place.
History will not be kind to this Republican Party that gave us the impeachment of Richard Nixon, the Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan, the Iraq War of George W. Bush, the racial hatred against President Obama, and now, perhaps worst of all, the vial Presidential Candidacy of Donald Trump and all it says about today's Republican's
History will not be kind to this Republican Party that gave us the impeachment of Richard Nixon, the Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan, the Iraq War of George W. Bush, the racial hatred against President Obama, and now, perhaps worst of all, the vial Presidential Candidacy of Donald Trump and all it says about today's Republican's
535
The world is vastly a more dangerous place thanks to the policies of the failed "peacemaker", failed "nation-builder" you call President. This bumpkin, this fatherless passive-aggressive, is not my President.
3
Nixon resigned from the presidency before impeachment proceedings could officially begin.
Democrats have made their share of whopping mistakes too. Bill Clinton was impeached. Jimmy Carter became an unofficial hostage as the Iranian hostage crisis dragged on and on month after month with no end in sight. To add insult to injury Carter almost lost his re-nomination as president thanks to an insurgent candidacy of Ted Kennedy who attempted to replace him at the top of the ticket at the Democratic convention. However, the worst error Carter made was to adopt this absurd "Rose Garden" strategy where he remained hidden in the White House instead of campaigning for his own re-election. Ralph Nader gave George W Bush the keys to the White House by siphoning off progressive votes that should have gone to Al Gore. Maybe the faulty butterfly ballots would have been a mere footnote in history if there had been no Ralph Nader or Pat Buchanan third party presidential runs.
Democrats have made their share of whopping mistakes too. Bill Clinton was impeached. Jimmy Carter became an unofficial hostage as the Iranian hostage crisis dragged on and on month after month with no end in sight. To add insult to injury Carter almost lost his re-nomination as president thanks to an insurgent candidacy of Ted Kennedy who attempted to replace him at the top of the ticket at the Democratic convention. However, the worst error Carter made was to adopt this absurd "Rose Garden" strategy where he remained hidden in the White House instead of campaigning for his own re-election. Ralph Nader gave George W Bush the keys to the White House by siphoning off progressive votes that should have gone to Al Gore. Maybe the faulty butterfly ballots would have been a mere footnote in history if there had been no Ralph Nader or Pat Buchanan third party presidential runs.
1
Please think of how different the world would be today, if the Supreme Court had not installed George W. Bush as President back in 2000.
6
You said "when the Americans became concerned that Iran might delay freeing the detainees, who should never have been held in the fit's place"
Excuse me but the money should not have been held hostage for more than 37 years, knowing the US had no valid claim.
It's no wonder the Iranian government dislikes you.
Excuse me but the money should not have been held hostage for more than 37 years, knowing the US had no valid claim.
It's no wonder the Iranian government dislikes you.
15
Ha! Read anything about Iran these days? How about their past 40 years?
2
As a Persianist specializing in Iran's Language and Literary tradition, and as an Oregonian, I became aware around 1977 that a Vancouver, Washington construction company built numerous prefab houses for Iran while the Shah was still ruling the country, so I recognized immediately that the "Ransom" was to pay Iran back for infrastructure it had never received, not ransom for hostages.
6
Bottom line is that the US tried to use a last chance to blackmail Iran again while Iran did stick to the agreement.
Not exactly what one would expect from a country that sees itself as a morally and legally sound one but is, in fact, the weirdest bully in the school yard.
BTW, according to US intelligence reports, Iran did not have a nuclear weapons program since 2003, so being with striking distance from a working nuclear weapon also is not exactly the truth.
Fact is that the US has tried, and continues to do do so, to get Iran in line with its political ambitions in the region and nothing else.
This is payback for losing another US backyard after the revolution in 1979.
A backyard that the US established in a bloody coup against a legitimate Iranian government organized by the CIA to gain control over Iranian oil.
Not exactly what one would expect from a country that sees itself as a morally and legally sound one but is, in fact, the weirdest bully in the school yard.
BTW, according to US intelligence reports, Iran did not have a nuclear weapons program since 2003, so being with striking distance from a working nuclear weapon also is not exactly the truth.
Fact is that the US has tried, and continues to do do so, to get Iran in line with its political ambitions in the region and nothing else.
This is payback for losing another US backyard after the revolution in 1979.
A backyard that the US established in a bloody coup against a legitimate Iranian government organized by the CIA to gain control over Iranian oil.
9
BTW, the same reports also held that Iran was enriching uranium and nothing in the report contradicts the fact that Iran was still obstructing the IAEA (which itself concluded that it couldn't tell if the enrichment was just for peaceful purposes). In short, nothing in the report indicates that Iran wasn't working on developing a breakout capability. The bottom line is that Iran had no business detaining the Americans in question.
5
Apart from what is stated in the article, there has been a lack of clarity from both the administration and the news media as far as explaining that the funds handed over to the Iranians were their own assets in the first place.
This should have been a non-story from the beginning, if only the coverage had been a little less shallow, which allowed the critics to run unchallenged with their own version
Plenty of shame to go around.
This should have been a non-story from the beginning, if only the coverage had been a little less shallow, which allowed the critics to run unchallenged with their own version
Plenty of shame to go around.
13
In the 77 days till the election you can expect a steady drip, drip, drip of smear, innuendo, and outright lies about Hillary and those around them. It will go on once she wins in November.
The dying Grand Old Pirates party is truly desperate at this point. They are going to lose the Presidency for the third time in a row in November. The U.S. Senate will flip to the Democrats as well. The U.S. House will probably stay under their control but not by much and will probably flip in 2018. Under siege in many states at the Gubernatorial and state legislative levels as well.
America is on to the party of Greed, Selfishness, Misogyny, Bigotry, and warmed over Imperialism. It will take till 2020 and beyond but they are toast.
The dying Grand Old Pirates party is truly desperate at this point. They are going to lose the Presidency for the third time in a row in November. The U.S. Senate will flip to the Democrats as well. The U.S. House will probably stay under their control but not by much and will probably flip in 2018. Under siege in many states at the Gubernatorial and state legislative levels as well.
America is on to the party of Greed, Selfishness, Misogyny, Bigotry, and warmed over Imperialism. It will take till 2020 and beyond but they are toast.
40
IF the GOP were to die -- far from clear -- then another party would rise in its place, and I kinda doubt you'd like that party better. It would probably be the Tea Party on steroids.
Or are you arguing (as many lefties do!) for a one party system, that would exclude almost half the nation from the get-go?
The Democrats lost the White House 3 times in a row in the 80s, and it didn't "destroy their party". The House and Senate were dominated by Dems as recently as 2010! Congress goes back and forth, as elections occur and people die, and the centers of power shift. This has been true over the history of the US. It has never "destroyed" any political party.
Furthermore, the left is about to shoot themselves in the foot with Hillary. She may win, but it will be under a cloud of disgrace. Nixon won a historic landmark election in 1972, with a massive 49 state victory -- only to resign in disgrace a couple of years later. Nixon had a weak opponent, in a very lefty wing McGovern. Did all of that mean "an end to the Democratic Party"?
Or are you arguing (as many lefties do!) for a one party system, that would exclude almost half the nation from the get-go?
The Democrats lost the White House 3 times in a row in the 80s, and it didn't "destroy their party". The House and Senate were dominated by Dems as recently as 2010! Congress goes back and forth, as elections occur and people die, and the centers of power shift. This has been true over the history of the US. It has never "destroyed" any political party.
Furthermore, the left is about to shoot themselves in the foot with Hillary. She may win, but it will be under a cloud of disgrace. Nixon won a historic landmark election in 1972, with a massive 49 state victory -- only to resign in disgrace a couple of years later. Nixon had a weak opponent, in a very lefty wing McGovern. Did all of that mean "an end to the Democratic Party"?
1
Paul I truly hope you are correct about Clinton winning the presidency. I have never witnessed such an ugly, dangerous presidential candidate as Trump in my 40 years of voting. God help us if this dangerous, ignorant boor wins the White House.
6
Barack Obama did not pay Iran ransom for hostages.
Ronald Reagan did.
Ronald Reagan did.
664
Then delayed release until after his inauguration.
34
You say tomato I say tomahto.
1
President Obama's critics refuse to understand geopolitics. The United States sold the Shah of Iran military equipment. We were honor-bound to satisfy a debt. When the Shah was ousted, President Carter froze Iran's assets; given the hostility on the part of the country's new leaders he was not going to deliver the instruments of death to Khomeini's enemies.
So much has been made of the Letter to Iran signed by 47 Senators whose ignorance of detail and nuance will live in infamy. The Right conveniently forget that Ronald Reagan negotiated with the Ayatollah while Mr. Carter was still in office. He has not been held accountable for this dishonorable diplomacy nor was he crippled by his political opponents after the disaster at the Marine barracks at Beirut. Did arms to Iran in an illegal back-channel bring down his presidency?
But when President Obama ensures the release of political prisoners by holding up a payment, it's labeled "ransom" and American interests are thereby betrayed by a weak and feckless president.
What Mr. Obama's critics refuse to understand is that, in the long run, like it or not, Iran had right on its side in its dispute with America over a long-held payment, its evils as a nation notwithstanding.
The Right are deaf to hard realities which they don't like. One wonders what the bill to the U. S. would have been had the Hague tribunal handed America a bill for $5 billion which taxpayers would pay.
It would have all been Obama's fault. Isn't everything?
So much has been made of the Letter to Iran signed by 47 Senators whose ignorance of detail and nuance will live in infamy. The Right conveniently forget that Ronald Reagan negotiated with the Ayatollah while Mr. Carter was still in office. He has not been held accountable for this dishonorable diplomacy nor was he crippled by his political opponents after the disaster at the Marine barracks at Beirut. Did arms to Iran in an illegal back-channel bring down his presidency?
But when President Obama ensures the release of political prisoners by holding up a payment, it's labeled "ransom" and American interests are thereby betrayed by a weak and feckless president.
What Mr. Obama's critics refuse to understand is that, in the long run, like it or not, Iran had right on its side in its dispute with America over a long-held payment, its evils as a nation notwithstanding.
The Right are deaf to hard realities which they don't like. One wonders what the bill to the U. S. would have been had the Hague tribunal handed America a bill for $5 billion which taxpayers would pay.
It would have all been Obama's fault. Isn't everything?
447
Beneath geopolitics, I'd say they refuse to understand logic. Beneath "deaf to hard realities" I'd say the Right wants to replace reality with propaganda.
It's all money and power they want. Not free flow of information. Not an informed electorate.
It's the manipulation of emotion. Through propaganda. For profit and power.
Drives me up a Wall! Up many walls! Daily.
It's all money and power they want. Not free flow of information. Not an informed electorate.
It's the manipulation of emotion. Through propaganda. For profit and power.
Drives me up a Wall! Up many walls! Daily.
16
"We were honor-bound to satisfy a debt."
Honor-bound.
Morally obliged to do something - "the state is honor-bound to listen and act"
A concept that Trump does not understand. It's obvious in how he conducts business, sues and threatens. Obvious in how Trump speaks, his constant lies.
His multiple marriages. His bankruptcies. His tax evasion. There is very little honor to be found for anything other than the Donald.
President Obama understands honor-bound. His hands have been tied by a Republican Congress that does not honor it's duties and puts party before country. That rejects compromise. That does not honor it's obligation to provide for all citizens.
Clinton, I think, understands honor-bound. Morally obliged to do something.
That government is not a business. That all citizens are equal. That words matter.
D to go forward in November.
Honor-bound.
Morally obliged to do something - "the state is honor-bound to listen and act"
A concept that Trump does not understand. It's obvious in how he conducts business, sues and threatens. Obvious in how Trump speaks, his constant lies.
His multiple marriages. His bankruptcies. His tax evasion. There is very little honor to be found for anything other than the Donald.
President Obama understands honor-bound. His hands have been tied by a Republican Congress that does not honor it's duties and puts party before country. That rejects compromise. That does not honor it's obligation to provide for all citizens.
Clinton, I think, understands honor-bound. Morally obliged to do something.
That government is not a business. That all citizens are equal. That words matter.
D to go forward in November.
5
If we were "honor bound" to satisfy this debt...why didn't we pay it in the last 36 YEARS since the hostages were released???
Clearly we did not feel "honor bound" to pay a debt to a nation that took over our embassy and kidnapped our embassy workers for a YEAR.
No other previous President felt "honor bound" to pay a whopping sum of money to Iran....did they?
Obama promised payment of this money as bribe, to get Iran to sign the treaty. My guess is once they have the cash in their hot little hands, they will go on the violate the treaty. Their religion makes them consider "infidels" unworthy of trust or honor.
Obama is a coward who cravenly gives in on whatever helps him achieve his end goals...even if it requires bribes.
Sorry, but once Iran KIDNAPPED OUR CITIZENS....they forfeited any claim to repayment. I'd say they owe us a HECK of a lot more than a billion dollars. They would have been lucky if we'd just refused to charge THEM for what THEY did to US.
Clearly we did not feel "honor bound" to pay a debt to a nation that took over our embassy and kidnapped our embassy workers for a YEAR.
No other previous President felt "honor bound" to pay a whopping sum of money to Iran....did they?
Obama promised payment of this money as bribe, to get Iran to sign the treaty. My guess is once they have the cash in their hot little hands, they will go on the violate the treaty. Their religion makes them consider "infidels" unworthy of trust or honor.
Obama is a coward who cravenly gives in on whatever helps him achieve his end goals...even if it requires bribes.
Sorry, but once Iran KIDNAPPED OUR CITIZENS....they forfeited any claim to repayment. I'd say they owe us a HECK of a lot more than a billion dollars. They would have been lucky if we'd just refused to charge THEM for what THEY did to US.
6
As if we need it, this is just one more testament to the missing souls of the GOP, and in particular its blabbermouth-in-chief Trump,
Throughout this non-story, not one single Republican has had the courage to acknowledged the core facts here: thanks to the Obama administration, three Americans are home safely, and American taxpayers have benefited to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, or more, through a clever strategy that avoids the payment of further interest and penalties demanded by Iran.
For the GOP, when they win, America wins, but when Obama wins, America loses. It's pretty hard to deny that America won big in this broad, carefully coordinated deal, but the GOP can only find fault because it was spearheaded by the Kenyan Muslim in the White House. To call that churlishness is being overly generous.
It's also pretty hard to deny that the GOP has little regard for the good of country, because they keep proving it time and time again.
Throughout this non-story, not one single Republican has had the courage to acknowledged the core facts here: thanks to the Obama administration, three Americans are home safely, and American taxpayers have benefited to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, or more, through a clever strategy that avoids the payment of further interest and penalties demanded by Iran.
For the GOP, when they win, America wins, but when Obama wins, America loses. It's pretty hard to deny that America won big in this broad, carefully coordinated deal, but the GOP can only find fault because it was spearheaded by the Kenyan Muslim in the White House. To call that churlishness is being overly generous.
It's also pretty hard to deny that the GOP has little regard for the good of country, because they keep proving it time and time again.
135
It seems to me all Obama had to do when asked about this originally was to tell the truth. Just say it was their money and we delayed it to get our guys back. Why lie? Is it a Democratic prereq to lie?
8
Mary-did you read the article? Obama held a press conference in January about the pending payment. Just because you refuse to follow or believe the news and prefer the propaganda doesn't mean the News does not exist.
12
"....not being transparent." That phrase sums up the weakness
of the Obama's administration in foreign affairs It's the JV
President learning on the job. It's similar to the learning
curve that Jimmy Carter experienced in dealing with
Iran in 1979.
of the Obama's administration in foreign affairs It's the JV
President learning on the job. It's similar to the learning
curve that Jimmy Carter experienced in dealing with
Iran in 1979.
11
I would far rather have a president learning on the job than an incurious dolt like Bush II, who left office with the same inane certainty with which he entered it.
Obama is far from perfect, particularly when it comes to exiting his own bubble to communicate and to indulge in necessary politics. But he shines by comparison with his predecessor.
Obama is far from perfect, particularly when it comes to exiting his own bubble to communicate and to indulge in necessary politics. But he shines by comparison with his predecessor.
50
Pick your poison. Neither party has
a lock on poor leadership. The mistakes of
today will haunt the U.S. going forward,
with ISIS and Putin in the background. Sorry, I
forgot Trump.
a lock on poor leadership. The mistakes of
today will haunt the U.S. going forward,
with ISIS and Putin in the background. Sorry, I
forgot Trump.
4
Quite ironic: Obama was blackmailing the Iranians by delaying the transmission of their money. And now he is accused of being blackmailed by them.
15
Now THAT's Obama-style negotiations - cool, sophisticated and with best outcomes for everyone...
241
Especially the enemies of our country who prefer unmarked bills rather than bank transfers, things a truthful administration would use. Hezbolah can't spend a bank transfer.
5
Your comment is absurd, gathrigh. If the funds had been sent through a bank transfer and Iran wanted to send cash to Hezbollah or others, all Iran had to do was withdraw cash from the account(s) which received the transfer. I know when my employer deposits my paycheck by electronic transfer to my bank account I have no problem in getting cash from my bank.
5
We don't have a banking relationship with Iran.
10
The Democrats possess a naivete that is bewildering. They believe that just providing evidence and facts is enough, that people will rationally discern the truth, and act accordingly. Where did the Dems get this idea? Certainly not from our history.
The GOP is good at creating false impressions, Their enablers are willing to BELIEVE anything. After Trump loses, for example, they will go to their graves believing the election was "stolen." It's easier than thinking, right?
The Dems, consequently, have to be more realistic. The spirit of Joe McCarthy is alive and well.
The GOP is good at creating false impressions, Their enablers are willing to BELIEVE anything. After Trump loses, for example, they will go to their graves believing the election was "stolen." It's easier than thinking, right?
The Dems, consequently, have to be more realistic. The spirit of Joe McCarthy is alive and well.
343
I say the Dems need to go on doing the right thing and believing that, in time, the false narratives will fail as they always do.
1
But if we lower ourselves into the mud of our opposition the United States of America is no more.
1
If they would really believe the election was stolen , they can consider that we are now even & to just get over it as I had heard them reply numerous times when talking about the APPOINTMENT of George W. in 2000
3
"What really happened was this".
What the editorial means to say is: what really happened according to the explanations of the Obama administration as explained by the NYT Editorial Board is this.
Matters are not necessarily as clear-cut as explained here.
For a different view regarding the issue of "timing", as explained in the NYT and other sources see the link in the LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-iran-ransom-20160819-snap-s...
For a different understanding as to the meaning of ransom see the link in the Washington Times:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/18/iran-ransom-humiliates-o...
Everybody has an agenda. The facts and the truth seem to be somewhere in between the various narratives and explanations.
The historians will judge.
What the editorial means to say is: what really happened according to the explanations of the Obama administration as explained by the NYT Editorial Board is this.
Matters are not necessarily as clear-cut as explained here.
For a different view regarding the issue of "timing", as explained in the NYT and other sources see the link in the LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-iran-ransom-20160819-snap-s...
For a different understanding as to the meaning of ransom see the link in the Washington Times:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/18/iran-ransom-humiliates-o...
Everybody has an agenda. The facts and the truth seem to be somewhere in between the various narratives and explanations.
The historians will judge.
13
LA Times link says payments weren't ransom or coincidental. That's exactly what this editorial says.
I'm afraid my innate fear of propaganda precludes me from clicking on the second link.
Yes, historians will judge; Obama will be considered an exemplary president and the GOP will be remembered as racist scoundrels.
I'm afraid my innate fear of propaganda precludes me from clicking on the second link.
Yes, historians will judge; Obama will be considered an exemplary president and the GOP will be remembered as racist scoundrels.
68
I just read the article in the Washington Times you referenced. That snarky piece does not change the meaning of ransom. Ransom involves the payment of your own money to a kidnapper, in exchange for the victim or victims. President Obama refused to repay the Iranians their own money until they released the hostages. Mr. Schwartz, if you can't discern the difference between that exchange and the payment of ransom, the onus is on you.
In any case, I doubt historians will use the Washington Times article in formulating their interpretation of these events.
In any case, I doubt historians will use the Washington Times article in formulating their interpretation of these events.
54
Citing the Washington Times shows an inability to distinguish between a source of plausible facts attempting to cover a story, and a full time, rabid propaganda rag. If you are reading the Washington Times as anything other than a joke, the joke is on you.
33