Image 01 Image 03

Obama Admin Finally Tells Congress How U.S. Paid $1.3 Billion to Iran

Obama Admin Finally Tells Congress How U.S. Paid $1.3 Billion to Iran

Paid exactly the same way as the $400 million from the prisoner transfer.

Back in August, the Obama administration would not tell Congress how the U.S. paid $1.3 billion to Iran. The lawmakers asked questions after they learned that the administration paid $400 million as Iran released four American hostages.

Well, on Tuesday, the administration finally told the lawmakers about the $1.3 billion. Officials transferred the money “through Europe on Jan. 22 and Feb. 5” the exact same way they sent the $400 million. Iran picked it up in Geneva, Switzerland.

The Wall Street Journal reported:

The $400 million was converted into non-U.S. currencies by the Swiss and Dutch central banks, according to U.S. and European officials.

The Treasury Department confirmed late Tuesday that the subsequent payments were also made in cash.

“The form of those principal and interest payments—made in non-U.S. currency, in cash—was necessitated by the effectiveness of U.S. and international sanctions regimes over the last several years in isolating Iran from the international financial system,” Treasury spokeswoman Dawn Selak said.

The administration reached a “$1.7 billion settlement the Obama administration reached with Iran to resolve a decades-old dispute over a failed arms deal signed just before the 1979 fall of Iran’s last monarch, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.”

The officials also stated that “they believed the U.S. was set to lose the court proceedings in The Hague and would end up being liable for as much as $10 billion because of accrued interest.”

CIA Director John Brennan insists Iran has used the money “for development projects” like supporting its own currency, providing “moneys to departments and agencies, build up its infrastructure.” Republican lawmakers do not buy it.

Sen. Mark Rubio (R-FL) introduced a bill on Tuesday that “would block the Treasury Department from making any payments to Iran until Tehran returns the $1.7 billion to the U.S. and pays the American terrorism victims.”

Officials also tried to play off the $400 million payment and release of hostages as a coincidence, but the State Department confirmed they used the money as leverage:

State Department spokesman John Kirby was asked at Thursday’s press briefing: “In basic English, you’re saying you wouldn’t give them $400 million in cash until the prisoners were released, correct?”

“That’s correct,” Kirby replied.

Kirby continued:

“We deliberately leveraged that moment to finalize these outstanding issues nearly simultaneously,” he said. “With concerns that Iran may renege on the prisoner release, given unnecessary delays regarding persons in Iran who could not be located as well as, to be quite honest, mutual mistrust between Iran and the United States, we of course sought to retain maximum leverage until after American citizens were released. That was our top priority.”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


What the f@ck have they done, do they not understand how truly evil that country is? Can they be prosecuted for supplying material support to a terrorist state? Iran was over the barrel now with that huge influx of cash the rest of the world is now over the barrel. Why would they give money to Iran when they were producing weapons that killed American troops in Iraq, they were training the terrorist cells, they had their boots on the ground in Iraq killing Americans and destabilizing the region. WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Milhouse in reply to scaulen. | September 7, 2016 at 12:18 pm

    No, they can’t be prosecuted for it, since it’s the president who determines what is a terrorist state for this purpose. In addition, I doubt that repaying a debt constitutes “material aid”.

      scaulen in reply to Milhouse. | September 7, 2016 at 1:13 pm

      OK then why are they repaying the debt in hard cash exchanged into other currencies? Was it so it couldn’t be tracked which makes one wonder if this is really a repayment of a debt. To make sure all monies were paid wouldn’t an electronic transfer or a check be the correct way to do it so that there was proof of payment and receipt? What will stop Iran from saying that the pallets of cash were short a couple hundred million and we’ll send the receipt for that with this American we found in Beirut? So the President could say ok the IRA are not terrorists and we’d like to pay them back for the arms they bought in the US and we intercepted? How does that make any sense?

      Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | September 8, 2016 at 6:53 pm

      Why it was paid in this way is a very good question, but the fact remains that it was their money, so how can you call repaying it “material aid”?

      The IRA is irrelevant; the US government never owed it any money.

So what were those 13 electronic transfers of $100M each about, if not the rest of this payment?

    It was $1 less than 100 million per payment, a figure carefully chosen to get around the legal requirement for a specific Congressional appropriation line item for any spending >= $100 million. For little people like you and me, this would be a crime, called structuring, and we would go to jail. So yes, the way this “repayment” was set up IS a crime, ordered by the President and his Administration.

      Milhouse in reply to SDN. | September 8, 2016 at 6:44 pm

      That is utter bullshit and you know it. There is no “legal requirement for a specific Congressional appropriation line item for any spending” over $100M. Never has been, never will be, the entire concept makes no sense. You can’t possibly be so stupid as to believe it, or to believe anyone else will believe it.

      The reason it was split into 13 payments of 99,999,999.99 was simply that the amount field on the transfer record is 11 characters, including the decimal point. It is impossible to transfer more than that in one transaction. Not illegal, impossible. For anyone, whether a government department, a bank, or a Russian tycoon. If you want to send $100,000,000.00 or more you have to split it up.

I’m old enough to remember when giving aid and comfort to the enemy during a time of war was considered treason.

    Milhouse in reply to snopercod. | September 8, 2016 at 6:51 pm

    There has never been such a time, and never will be, because the constitution explicitly says otherwise. Treason requires taking up arms against the USA, or adhering to the enemy. Helping an enemy for any other reason is not treason.

    When Herman Haupt’s parents were tried for treason, the judge specifically instructed the jury that if it found that they had helped ther son Herman because he was their son then it must acquit them. It could only convict if it found that they had helped Herman out of loyalty to Germany, and that they would have given the same help to any German soldier, even if he wasn’t their son. The jury did find that, and the Supreme Court upheld the verdict only because there was sufficient evidence to support such a finding.
As of today Iran is still on the list of state sponsors of terrorism.
“miscellaneous financial and other restrictions.” It wouldn’t have mattered if they lost in court as our laws say we won’t pay Iran because of their status. This group of politicians needs to be flushed down the toilet. They are now responsible for the next waves of terrorism sponsored by Iran. This is disgusting, I hate the BS of our political system but I understand why it’s done and think it should be stopped but this, this is completely inexcusable. This is a country that blew up the Marine barracks in Beirut in 83 and has been constantly attacking us either directly or indirectly with it’s home grown and foreign terrorist network. They are our enemy there is nothing good about that country they just want to wipe us out and attack any of our allies. That is the country we should have been invading in the first place, not Iraq, not Afghanistan, Iran. As long as that country is ruled by the those madmen there will never be peace in the Middle East and maybe the rest of the world now.

    Milhouse in reply to scaulen. | September 8, 2016 at 6:57 pm

    If they had won in court it wouldn’t matter what our laws said, we would owe them that money and would eventually have to pay them. Not $1.3B but the much larger sum they were suing for. Foreign banks that hold our assets are not subject to our laws, and would have to pay.

2nd Ammendment Mother | September 7, 2016 at 3:27 pm

And lest we forget….. the average American Joe can have all of their assets seized for carrying around too much cash without a good explanation – you definitely can’t get through an airport with more than a few thousand dollars cash.