Media Criticism, Political Commentary, War Commentary

Iran

36 Comments

Reagan sent them a cake and a bible, but Obama shipped them $400M in cash. But don’t call it ransom!

[Thursday-morning update]

Why did the mullahs want the ransom in cold hard cash? The question answers itself:

Don’t the Iranians trust us? After all, they know we’re good for it, even if we have a national debt of 19 trillion. Of course, we do have a history of withholding payments from Iran, not that they don’t deserve it. Or maybe they just wanted to stick it to Obama-Kerry at the last moment, show who’s boss.

Well, they did that, but I suspect there is another reason – the great flexibility and usefulness of cash, something that can be distributed hand-to-hand without having to go through the banks and their nosey wire-transfer tracking. Like the Mafia, the mullahs are not keen on transparency. They like to keep to themselves how they use their money.

I’m sure that Valarie Jarrett is pleased.

[Update in the evening]

The Justice Department objected to the cash transfer, but was overruled.

36 thoughts on “Iran”

    1. I thought Obama was supposed to be smarter than that, but OK if you say he’s as stupid as Reagan during the Iran-Contra scandal I agree.

    1. Your link doesn’t say anything about the secret plane flight to deliver hundreds of millions at the time the hostages were released.

      The Obama administration’s MO in regard to Iran has been one of constant lying to the American public, just like on every other issue.

      1. Yes the fact that the money arrived the same day as the hostages being released is the kind of minor detail that makes it smell like an exchange. The Iranians certainly seem to think, as do a lot of other people. But by all means, let’s continue with the Obama was just being as dumb as Reagan narrative. It definitely makes everything alright.

      2. “Secret” plane flight? The article states plainly that the money was being delivered, and why. It wasn’t a secret in any way, regardless of how the money was delivered.

        1. Wodun, how did you feel about Reagan trading arms with Iran for the release of the hostages? Bother you? Did it enter your radar? Willing to acknowledge it now?

          2. Again, saying Obama is just being as stupid as Reagan doesn’t sound like much of a defense.

          3. It was stupid. But Reagan was starting to suffer from Alzheimer’s. What’s Obama’s excuse?

            The entire Reagan presidency was a medical mishap from the earliest days of his presidency? I always suspected that from the start, but fascinating nonetheless.

          4. The entire Reagan presidency was a medical mishap from the earliest days of his presidency?

            What a moronic question. I can’t imagine how you managed to infer it from what I wrote. But I guess I have to consider the moronic source.

            And we all notice that you still haven’t provided Obama’s excuse.

          5. What a moronic question. I can’t imagine how you managed to infer it from what I wrote. But I guess I have to consider the moronic source.

            And we all notice that you still haven’t provided Obama’s excuse.

            I inferred it from what you said: early Alzheimers led him to his bad decisions at the start of his presidency to give arms to the Iranians in exchange for [other stuff he wanted]. You said this, not me, though I agree with it.

            As for Obama, money was released as part of a wider deal for deactivating centrifuges, etc, designed to weaken Iran’s long-term development of nuclear weapons. The terms were not secret. How the payment was made is totally uninteresting.

          6. That didn’t occur at the start of his presidency. It was in his second term.

            How the payment was made is totally uninteresting.

            The timing of the payment is very interesting.

          7. Considering how Democrats have gone ape over that for the last 30 years, how do you feel about Obama showing that Democrats don’t care about any of the things they claim to?

            Undeclared unilateral wars?

            Debt?

            Civility?

            Bigotry?

            Corruption?

            Using government agencies to abuse perceived enemies?

            Maybe for this latest example. You should pick a story and then defend it. You can’t take the position that it wasn’t a secret act to pay a ransom and that it was paying a ransom.

          8. designed to weaken Iran’s long-term development of nuclear weapons.

            The “deal” was designed to prevent any further American or international interference while Iran finishes work on nuclear weapons. At best, it slows them down but at the end, it explicitly allows them to make nuclear weapons.

            Here, once again, is the type of executive action Democrats claim to be against but support from Obama. Congress didn’t vote on this. Obama has continually lied about the content of the “deal” and the process and proceedings of the deal making. He even had records destroyed to alter the public record.

            Obama claims to be a diplomat but everything he has applied diplomacy to has had disastrous effects for the USA. But Obama’s interests are not the USA’s interests.

  4. Considering Obama gave Iran nukes, it is a mystery that he agreed to all of the other concessions as well.

      1. Do you think North Korea doesn’t have nukes? The Iranian deal as reported seems near identical to the North Korean deal made by Clinton. We will lift sanctions so they may continue to develop nuclear power. That is the deal that was made.

        Since the deal was made; Iran, like DPRK, chants death to the US. Iran is now claiming the reparations paid was ransom money. The Obama Administration has claimed both are lies, yet Iran hasn’t changed their stance at all. Neither did the DPRK. The DPRK never slowed their progress towards building a nuclear weapon. Do you have evidence, real physical evidence, that Iran has slowed its efforts. It still has centrifuges spinning and per the deal can upgrade them in about 10 years. Iran is still testing ballistic missiles too, as allowed under the deal.

        1. There’s no easy way to do it. AFAIK besides Stuxnet there were a couple of targeted assassinations of Iranian nuclear researchers in the last couple of years. Only other things which could be done would be to bomb sites or invade Iran. IMO invading Iran is a really bad idea… Bombing sites could have an impact. You could blow up their nuclear reactor sites and a couple of the centrifuge sites which are above ground. But their main “secret” centrifuge site is supposed to be deep below ground in a place which isn’t exactly easy to bomb. So the campaign would have limited impact. i.e. you could probably stop them from having plutonium bombs but they could still do a uranium bomb if they wanted to. AFAIK uranium bombs are harder to miniaturize than plutonium bombs so that would be the only advantage you would get. Then there’s this:
          https://www.rt.com/news/342483-s-300-deployed-iran/

          So I’m not exactly sure air bombing Iranian sites would be that easy…

          1. Anybody say it was easy? Anybody say anything about bombing? The issue is that the Obama gave them $400m. A lot of other options between paying ransom money and bombing.

      2. Its only a matter of time Dave and you know it. Considering we knew exactly what they were doing thanks to Stuxnet, claims that they aren’t developing nuclear weapons is another administration lie.

  5. The money arrived the same day the hostages were released, so it isn’t a stretch to think the 2 were connected. The Iranians believe they were connected, and in the final analysis that’s what really counts. They (and others) will now act on that belief.

    1. The money arrived the same day the hostages were released, so it isn’t a stretch to think the 2 were connected.

      Not only were they connected but when the plane was late they not only delayed releasing the hostages but told one, “if the plane doesn’t arrive this is your last day.”

      I’m afraid I got this second hand if someone could verify?

  6. How the payment was made is totally uninteresting.

    It was done that way because doing it another way broke the law.

    Breaking US law is uninteresting? Bringing anything Reagan did somehow makes it ok for Obama to break the law? Hillary using the ‘old news’ dodge that she’s used for everything older than ten minutes somehow makes the question one she doesn’t have to answer is ok?

    Ask Trump what he thinks about giving money to Iran. He correctly pointed out “All of our hostages come home first, then we’ll talk.” Meanwhile we still have more hostages in Iran. I guess they have about three months to get a few more billion from us?

    What happens after they give Trump our hostages? “Sorry Iran, you get nothing. Suck it!”

    Rand, you know what I just said is true, yet you think this is a bad thing about Trump. It’s way past time we dealt with our enemies like they were enemies. That’s why we need Trump regardless of his downside.

      1. A dodge? Of course I don’t know what you know, nor do you know what I know. Yet, that still leaves a lot we both know.

        Is their any part of your being that thinks Trump would pay off Iran? All this time you’ve been telling us how Trump doesn’t pay his bills, but in this case he would? I will never believe you believe such absurdity. I have too much respect for your integrity. I know, with absolute certainty that you understand what I’m saying.

          1. Let me know when you’re ready to identify a delusion. A ship with a broken rudder may wander the ocean, but it will never suddenly fly off into space. Even Trump has some level of predictability.

            Here’s my prediction… over the next four years you will write numerous articles about how Trump got something right and it will never be his fault. It will always be in your mind accidental, unintentional and a con.

        2. It would depend on the cost/benefit analysis of the situation. Trump has in the past been more than willing to give money to some pretty terrible people (cough-Hillary Clinton-cough) to get what he wants. If a deal with Iran looked better than a war with sa, he might just do it.

  7. The justice dept. objected sounded hopeful until I read…

    The officials did not object to the settlement itself. Just the timing and look of it.

    At least Russia still understands what treason is. Perhaps our ‘leaders’ will one day get a clue?

    1. In other news, FDR deliver’s cash to Hitler’s Germany. Asked for comment a govt. official said, “this only looks like treason, Germany has promised to only use the cash for shower disinfectant. They say they have a vermin problem and it just wouldn’t be right to withhold funds we owe them just because there happens to be an ongoing war. War’s come and go, but extermination of ‘pests’ is forever.”

Comments are closed.