Obama and Iran: The 400 million was for prisoner release

Yes, we paid a terrorist state 400 million in untraceable cash in return for hostages.

Iran is classified by our own government which Obama presides over as follows:

In 2015, Iran’s state sponsorship of terrorism worldwide remained undiminished through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF), its Ministry of Intelligence and Security, and Tehran’s ally Hizballah, which remained a significant threat to the stability of Lebanon and the broader region. [See Chapter 3, State Sponsors on Terrorism, for more information about Iranian activities.]

Refusing to talk and improve diplomatic relations with nations that have competing interests with our own, or until such time as they start acting the way we want, will only make those differences worse, not better.

Have you yet grasped the point that it was their own money that we had been holding onto?

We “completed a business deal” with Iran. Not that it matters much, but what’s so untraceable about cash? Isn’t cash the ultimate traceable monetary transaction? Ever read the little numbers printed on the bills?

There was a time when Republicans thought getting hostages released from Iran was a *good *thing, something to consider a heroic act for a President.

Something must be *different *now. I wonder what that could be?

Where did you think we’d trace it to? You think a government can’t move money around its own coffers? Through its own state-controlled banks? Or convert it to cash itself? Do you think that, if we send $400m to some other country we can just track it forever?

The “cash” bit is just an emotional hook for people who think life is like the movies.

Yes, I grasp that it was money owed to terrorists. Do you?

Magiver - you seem to believe that the fact that the payment was in cash is an aggravating circumstance. If the payment simply had to be made - which I understand you disagree with - how should it have been made, in your opinion? Gold? EFT? Bitcoin?

Obama gave 400 million dollars to terrorists.

There is no argument you can make that mitigates this fact.

I know you oppose the payment. But you keep mentioning cash as though that’s the worst way to pay such a debt. I’m not interested in you repeating again that you oppose the payment, I’m asking that if cash was the worst way to make a payment, what is the best way to make such a payment under the circumstances?

Walmart gift cards.

Even terrorists don’t deserve that.

It’s a government. Governments aren’t terrorist, by definition. Governments might sometimes support terrorists, as Iran sometimes does, but it is different. Plus, it was their money. We actually leveraged that money into getting the hostages back - otherwise, we would have had to give it back to them for nothing.

The world is complex and nuanced.

And how is this worse than what Reagan did?

Reagan was a Republican.

You seem to be stuck on this point.

Is it your world view that nations must never negotiate, come to terms or reach agreement with any “enemy” state?

I thought Iran was fighting the terrorists, in Syria.
Terrorists suplied by Qatar, the Saudi’s and by the US.
There were even cash drops (gasp!) to these so called “moderate rebels”.

Yeah, there’s one: it isn’t true. The U.S. Government gave money to the Iranian government (which was their own property anyway.) If the Iranian government gives that money to terrorists, that isn’t Obama’s doing.

(Otherwise, if you eat at a certain restaurant, “You’re giving money to the Ku Klux Klan.” Should you be arrested and charged with supporting terrorists?)

If Iran funds terrorism, then their assets should just be seized again and paid out to the victims.

A lot of things should happen that don’t because of real world complications. China’s government should respect the rights of their people. But they don’t, and we can’t make them.