Trump sending pallets of cash to Iran

[JDs Couch]

 

[MadAsAHatter]

Too bad you narrative is going to fall apart.

All sources I've read; which include Axios, CNN, AP and NYP, all say it is $20B in frozen/seized Iranian assets originating from Iranian oil sales to South Korea and being held in Qatar. Early reports say $6B would be released as phase 1 if a deal to end the war is met. The rest would be released in separate phases across a 3 year period pending Iran keeping their part of the bargain.

So no, the US isn't just giving Iran $20B of our own money [like Obama did]. It's letting Iran have access to their own money that the US has frozen/seized. No pallets of cash will be exchanged.

 

[japetus]

That's just how it goes.

 

[JDs Couch]

Too bad you narrative is going to fall apart.

All sources I've read; which include Axios, CNN, AP and NYP, all say it is $20B in frozen/seized Iranian assets originating from Iranian oil sales to South Korea and being held in Qatar. Early reports say $6B would be released as phase 1 if a deal to end the war is met. The rest would be released in separate phases across a 3 year period pending Iran keeping their part of the bargain.

So no, the US isn't just giving Iran $20B of our own money [like Obama did]. It's letting Iran have access to their own money that the US has frozen/seized. No pallets of cash will be exchanged.

(You might want to look into the Obama deal a bit closer, friend)

 

[MadAsAHatter]

(You might want to look into the Obama deal a bit closer, friend)

I had a feeling you were going to reference this. I'm already ahead of you.

The Obama deal was part of an old arbitration from 1979 with the previous Iranian regime in which the US supposedly owed them $400M involving military equipment. That became null and void when that regime collapsed. Obama decided to pay the $400M plus about $1.3B in interest. For all intents and purposes this was US taxpayer money given to a new Iranian regime that the US had no deal with.

 

[JDs Couch]

I had a feeling you were going to reference this. I'm already ahead of you.

The Obama deal was part of an old arbitration from 1979 with the previous Iranian regime in which the US supposedly owed them $400M involving military equipment. That became null and void when that regime collapsed. Obama decided to pay the $400M plus about $1.3B in interest. For all intents and purposes this was US taxpayer money given to a new Iranian regime that the US had no deal with.

False. The $400m was Iran's to begin with, and the interest was likely less than would have been awarded to them if the matter went to court.

And, there was a MOU at the time that the money would be held for Iran in an interest-bearing account.

So, yeah. It was their money that the US stole in 1979.

 

[70 Mach 1]

 

[MadAsAHatter]

False. The $400m was Iran's to begin with, and the interest was likely less than would have been awarded to them if the matter went to court.

And, there was a MOU at the time that the money would be held for Iran in an interest-bearing account.

So, yeah. It was their money that the US stole in 1979.

Not quite. You're correct on the first 2 lines, but incorrect on the last one. It was owed to a [by that time] defunct Iranian regime which made everything null and void concerning the new Iranian regime. The proper resolution would have been to dissolve the unrealized interest and return the original $400M investment to the US. or at worst let new regime have the $400M.

I'll concede I may be wrong on the interest coming from the US taxpayers. I made an assumption based on the little I found on the matter. I'm not 100% sure where that came from since no sources I read gave much info on that.

 

[MadAsAHatter]

View attachment 442940

What are you drinking this evening?
I have some Kraken rum from a few weeks ago that I'm working on.

 

[70 Mach 1]

What are you drinking this evening?
I have some Kraken rum from a few weeks ago that I'm working on.

Just finished a bottle of jimmy beam black from Saturday night. Wasn't that great. First time i tried it

Tonight at cigar lounge having Elijah Craig small batch

 

[JDs Couch]

Not quite. You're correct on the first 2 lines, but incorrect on the last one. It was owed to a [by that time] defunct Iranian regime which made everything null and void concerning the new Iranian regime. The proper resolution would have been to dissolve the unrealized interest and return the original $400M investment to the US. or at worst let new regime have the $400M.

I'll concede I may be wrong on the interest coming from the US taxpayers. I made an assumption based on the little I found on the matter. I'm not 100% sure where that came from since no sources I read gave much info on that.

It was owed to Iran. If the President of the USA changes, does that make any debts to them null and void?

Either way the scale is miniscule compared to the alleged deal on the table now. Especially considering the war for no reason cost you $2 billion per DAY, the right wing freakout regarding the Obama deal was way out of proportion.

If only there had been a nuclear agreement, say something signed around 2015? Hmmm....

 

[MadAsAHatter]

It was owed to Iran. If the President of the USA changes, does that make any debts to them null and void?

This isn't an equivalent. The Iranian at that time government completely collapsed and was replaced with a new form of governments. It's not the same as electing a new leader of the same government.

A better equivalent would be if a business was owed money, then before being paid went bankrupt and the owner died with no heirs. There'd be no entity to pay the money to. Then several decades later pay the money plus interest to some rando who happened to buy the building at auction a few months prior.

Either way the scale is miniscule compared to the alleged deal on the table now. Especially considering the war for no reason cost you $2 billion per DAY, the right wing freakout regarding the Obama deal was way out of proportion.

Scale and cost of the war is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. One case was a matter of payment plus interest being null and void but being paid anyway and the other is allowing Iran access to their own money.

If only there had been a nuclear agreement, say something signed around 2015? Hmmm....

One that Iran threw out the window. Unless you believe there is some other use for enriching uranium well past the 5% needed for commercial power.

 

[JDs Couch]

This isn't an equivalent. The Iranian at that time government completely collapsed and was replaced with a new form of governments. It's not the same as electing a new leader of the same government.

A better equivalent would be if a business was owed money, then before being paid went bankrupt and the owner died with no heirs. There'd be no entity to pay the money to. Then several decades later pay the money plus interest to some rando who happened to buy the building at auction a few months prior.


Scale and cost of the war is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. One case was a matter of payment plus interest being null and void but being paid anyway and the other is allowing Iran access to their own money.


One that Iran threw out the window. Unless you believe there is some other use for enriching uranium well past the 5% needed for commercial power.

False. Iran followed the agreement perfectly, as per US intelligence reports, until Donald Trump tore it up in 2017 (and even past that date). Then there was no agreement and they were free to legally enrich as much as they wanted.

"Iran complied with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) from its implementation in January 2016 until at least May 2019, as verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)"

 

[70 Mach 1]

I wish he'd send you to iran.

 

[MadAsAHatter]

False. Iran followed the agreement perfectly, as per US intelligence reports, until Donald Trump tore it up in 2017 (and even past that date). Then there was no agreement and they were free to legally enrich as much as they wanted.

"Iran complied with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) from its implementation in January 2016 until at least May 2019, as verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)"

Not 100% true. The deal came under scrutiny in 2017 that it was flawed and Iran wasn't fully holding up their side of the deal. The Trump admin withdrew in 2018. You're correct in that effectively gave Iran the ability to do what they wanted. But would you be fine with Iran having nuclear weapon capabilities? I'm for sure not fine with that. My opinion is Iran wasn't holding up their end which led to the US withdrawing from the accord. That ultimately lead to what we're dealing with today.

But all of this is besides the point being discussed. The money Obama gave to Iran stemmed from a contract that was rendered null and void due to a complete change in regime. That's not the same as the potential deal being discussed between Iran and the Trump admin.

 

[JDs Couch]

Not 100% true. The deal came under scrutiny in 2017 that it was flawed and Iran wasn't fully holding up their side of the deal. The Trump admin withdrew in 2018. You're correct in that effectively gave Iran the ability to do what they wanted. But would you be fine with Iran having nuclear weapon capabilities? I'm for sure not fine with that. My opinion is Iran wasn't holding up their end which led to the US withdrawing from the accord. That ultimately lead to what we're dealing with today.

But all of this is besides the point being discussed. The money Obama gave to Iran stemmed from a contract that was rendered null and void due to a complete change in regime. That's not the same as the potential deal being discussed between Iran and the Trump admin.

Initial Compliance (2016–2019) IAEA reports consistently verified that Iran was adhering to its nuclear constraints, including limiting low-enriched uranium stockpiles to under 300 kg and keeping enrichment levels at 3.67%
Post-2019 Violations: After the U.S. left the deal and reimposed sanctions, Iran began stepping back from its obligations, including raising uranium enrichment to 60%

 

[70 Mach 1]

You cant argue with an idiot.
Enough. All he does is AI misinterpreted info

 

[JamesTiberiusKirk]

(You might want to look into the Obama deal a bit closer, friend)

You beat me to it. In his defense, it's a distortion that's been repeated so often it's become fact for many.

What's that old saying, something like - a lie can travel around the world before the truth can get its boots on. Hey, if it's wrong I tried...

 

[MadAsAHatter]

Initial Compliance (2016–2019 IAEA reports consistently verified that Iran was adhering to its nuclear constraints, including limiting low-enriched uranium stockpiles to under 300 kg and keeping enrichment levels at 3.67%
Post-2019 Violations: After the U.S. left the deal and reimposed sanctions, Iran began stepping back from its obligations, including raising uranium enrichment to 60%

Again, beside the point of and deflecting from the original topic.
I'll ask it again anyway... Are you comfortable with Iran having nuclear weapon capabilities?

 

[JDs Couch]

You cant argue with an idiot.
Enough. All he does is AI misinterpreted info

Oh hi drunkard