General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe $400 Million was not Ransom
Why is it that people purposely try to misunderstand an easy to understand process.
Iran held 4 American hostages. The U.S. Government was working through backchannels to get them released, to no avail.
In separate negotiations, the United States was about to lose a case involving an old arms deal in which the U.S. held $400 Million of Iran's money. We had to return it, sooner or later.
We returned the money, which we would have been obliged to do, but made the hostages part of the deal. This was not our $400 Million, it was there's. This has nothing to do with a ransom. No one else is at risk, unless we are holding someone else's money.
Can you imagine if we lost the case and had to give back the money and didn't get the hostages back? Obama and Clinton would be roasted over a pit if it that happened.
Why doesn't everyone get it?
radical noodle
(8,012 posts)but I was ready to throttle Tweety a little while ago over just that. He is either dumb as a rock or he purposely misrepresented it.
blm
(113,083 posts).
Buckeye_Democrat
(14,856 posts)kennetha
(3,666 posts)is what it is.
Mosby
(16,340 posts)forest444
(5,902 posts)Not that there isn't necessarily any merit to the op-ed; but only that a Jeanne Kirkpatrick's disciple isn't exactly the best source for opinions on matters of international relations (or anything really).
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)with interest. And we are one of the countries that accepts that courts rulings.
uponit7771
(90,359 posts)... and even if that was so that's different from Ransom IE give me money I'll give you hostages.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)That was to ensure there would be no demand for some of the rest of the $1.7 billion in order to return the sailors since the other $1.3 billion is contingent upon compliance with the rest of the nuclear agreement. Payments will be made as milestones are reached.
Tactical Peek
(1,211 posts)Unlike those TOW anti-tank missiles and Hawk anti-aircraft missiles back in the '80s, which clearly were ours.
It was even our cake, too, to put the icing on the ransom.
Takket
(21,612 posts)Skittles
(153,174 posts)what part of that do you not get? Sure, the outcome was better than if the hostages were not released but IT IS WHAT IT IS. And who fucking cares what repukes think? They would condemn Obama NO MATTER WHAT HE DID.
louis c
(8,652 posts)Skittles
(153,174 posts)you don't get your money until we get _________ = RANSOM
SunSeeker
(51,658 posts)Maybe we would have dragged our heels, but eventually we would have complied with the Order from the Hague.
riiiiiiight, OK THEN - they gave up the hostages out of the goodness of their hearts
SunSeeker
(51,658 posts)We gave up money we had no business holding, and gave up prisoners they had no business holding.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)The nuclear deal itself required them to do things like send most of their enriched uranium out of the country and to pour cement in to destroy a plutonium reactor. They had already done this prior to the implentation of the nuclear deal. Having done that some sanctions were to be removed as the deal was implemented.
That was the biggest thing done that day. Because deals were made, they also freed the Americans and got the $400 million back to comply with the court. At the last minute, the episode with our sailors happened and probably to not risk everything, they too were freed.
It seems the design of the deals showed the P5+1 had the greater leverage compared with Iran. They had to do not revokable things we wanted before we gave them what they wanted.
Short story - it was well negotiated.
Skittles
(153,174 posts)over and out
SunSeeker
(51,658 posts)louis c
(8,652 posts)The United States was instructed by the Hague to return Iran's money being held for a pre-revolution arms deal. It was their money. It had to be delivered even if we didn't get the hostages back.
The Obama Administration made that return, which we were obligated to do, contingent on the return of the hostages.
What part of "it's not our money, it's theirs" don't you understand?
Can you imagine the outcry if we gave Iran back their the $400 million, as ordered by International Law, and they kept the hostages?
If it was our money, from our treasury, that would be ransom. It's Iran's money, therefore, it can't be considered ransom.
spanone
(135,859 posts)Vinca
(50,302 posts)In fact, as I understand it, had the case progressed through the world court to its finale, the United States could have been on the hook for a whole lot more than the initial seizure plus interest. In my mind, if you pay ransom it is not with the kidnapper's own money.