Another Flight-Ful Of Francs

‘US Payment Of $1.7 Billion To Iran Made Entirely In Cash’

SEN. KELLY AYOTTE (R-NH): “…the eagerness of the Obama administration to bend over backwards to accommodate Tehran, conceal information from the American people, and protect a fundamentally flawed and deeply dangerous agreement that is only getting worse.” (Sen. Ayotte, Press Release, 9/1/2016)

$1.7 Billion In ‘Taxpayer Money’ Sent To Terror-Sponsoring Ayatollahs

“The Obama administration followed up a planeload of $400 million in cash sent to Iran in January with two more such shipments in the next 19 days, totaling another $1.3 billion, according to congressional officials briefed by the U.S. State, Treasury and Justice departments. The cash payments [were] made in Swiss francs, euros and other currencies . . . The payment ‘flowed in the same manner’ as the original $400 million that an Iranian cargo plane picked up in Geneva, Switzerland, according to a congressional aide who took part in the briefing. . . The Treasury Department confirmed late Tuesday that the subsequent payments were also made in cash.” (“U.S. Transferred $1.3 Billion More in Cash to Iran After Initial Payment,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/6/2016)

“U.S. lawmakers have voiced concern that Iran’s military units, particularly the elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, would use the cash to finance military allies in the Middle East, including the Assad regime in Syria, Houthi militias in Yemen, and the Lebanese militia, Hezbollah.” (“U.S. Transferred $1.3 Billion More in Cash to Iran After Initial Payment,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/6/2016)

PREVIOUSLY: ‘State Department Confirmed … That A $400 Million Dollar Cash Shipment To Iran In January Was Tied To The Release Of Four American Citizens’

“The State Department confirmed Thursday that a $400 million dollar cash shipment to Iran in January was tied to the release of four American citizens who’d been detained in the country. Spokesman John Kirby said … the U.S. withheld delivery of the cash as leverage until the U.S. citizens had left Iran, according to the Associated Press. Both events happened on Jan. 17.” (“State Dept.: $400M Cash Shipment To Iran Tied To U.S. Prisoners' Release,” USA Today, 8/18/16)

“Senior Justice Department officials objected to sending a plane loaded with cash to Tehran at the same time that Iran released four imprisoned Americans, but their objections were overruled by the State Department, according to people familiar with the discussions. . . The timing and manner of the payment raised alarms at the Justice Department, according to those familiar with the discussions. ‘People knew what it was going to look like, and there was concern the Iranians probably did consider it a ransom payment,’ said one of the people.” (“Justice Department Officials Raised Objections On U.S. Cash Payment To Iran,” The Wall Street Journal, 8/3/16)

“Wooden pallets stacked with euros, Swiss francs and other currencies were flown into Iran on an unmarked cargo plane, according to these officials. … U.S. officials also acknowledge that Iranian negotiators on the prisoner exchange said they wanted the cash to show they had gained something tangible.” (“U.S. Sent Cash To Iran As Americans Were Freed,” The Wall Street Journal, 8/3/16)

Part Of A Pattern Of Deception

“The Obama administration previously had refused to disclose the mechanics of the $1.7 billion settlement, despite repeated calls from U.S. lawmakers. The State Department announced the settlement on Jan. 17 but didn’t brief Congress that the entire amount had been paid in cash.” (“U.S. Transferred $1.3 Billion More in Cash to Iran After Initial Payment,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/06/2016)

Another Secret Side-Deal: ‘Key Restrictions On Iran's Nuclear Program … Will Start To Ease Years Before The 15-Year Accord Expires’

“Key restrictions on Iran's nuclear program imposed under an internationally negotiated deal will start to ease years before the 15-year accord expires, advancing Tehran's ability to build a bomb even before the end of the pact, according to a document obtained Monday by The Associated Press. The confidential document is the only text linked to last year's deal between Iran and six foreign powers that hasn't been made public . . .” (“AP Exclusive: Document Shows Less Limits On Iran Nuke Work,” The Associated Press, 7/18/2016)

‘Iran Missile Tests Were 'In Defiance Of' U.N. Resolution’

“Iran test-fired two ballistic missiles Wednesday, state media reported, just a day after other missile tests that Washington suggests were in violation of a U.N. resolution. The missiles, capable of reaching Iran's archenemy Israel, were marked with a statement in Hebrew reading ‘Israel must be wiped off the Earth,’ Iran's semiofficial Fars News Agency reported.” (“Iran Fires Ballistic Missiles A Day After Test; U.S. Officials Hint At Violation,” CNN, 3/09/2016)

SEN. BOB MENENDEZ (D-NJ): “What has happened as a result of Iran violating the U.N. Security Council resolutions as it relates to missile testing? Absolutely nothing. . . . Something is wrong because the silence is so deafening.” (“Menendez Slams 'Silence' On Iran Missile Test,” The Hill, 12/08/2015)

GEN. HAJIZADEH, Revolutionary Guard Corps: “Iran’s missile program will not stop under any circumstances.” (“Iran Vows To Keep Firing Ballistic Missiles,” The Washington Post, 3/10/2016)

THE WASHINGTON POST: “The missile tests are one example of U.S. waffling. The administration has described them as a violation of U.N. Resolution 2231 and responded with mostly symbolic sanctions of several individuals and companies associated with the program. But it has appeared to yield to Russia’s contention that Iran did not, technically, breach the resolution because it was only ‘called upon,’ not ordered, to stop testing. A letter sent by the United States, Britain, France and Germany to the Security Council last week described the tests as ‘inconsistent with’ the resolution, rather than a violation that would mandate enforcement action.” (Editorial, “Iran Should Pay A Price For Its Ballistic Missile Tests,” The Washington Post, 4/07/2016)

  • “Iran's recent ballistic tests involved missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons and were ‘inconsistent with’ and ‘in defiance of’ council resolution 2231, adopted last July, said the joint U.S., British, French, German letter to Spain's U.N. Ambassador Roman Oyarzun Marchesi and U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon... The four powers' carefully worded letter stopped short of calling the Iranian launches a ‘violation’ of the resolution...” (“Exclusive: Iran Missile Tests Were 'In Defiance Of' U.N. Resolution - U.S., Allies,” Reuters, 3/30/2016)

Story Americans Told ‘Was Largely Manufactured For The Purpose For Selling The Deal’

“The way in which most Americans have heard the story of the Iran deal presented … was largely manufactured for the purpose for selling the deal.” (“The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama’s Foreign-Policy Guru,” The New York Times Magazine, 5/08/2016)

  • “In the narrative that Rhodes shaped, the ‘story’ of the Iran deal began in 2013, when a ‘moderate’ faction inside the Iranian regime led by Hassan Rouhani beat regime ‘hard-liners’ in an election and then began to pursue a policy of ‘openness,’ which included a newfound willingness to negotiate the dismantling of its illicit nuclear-weapons program. . . [I]t was also actively misleading, because the most meaningful part of the negotiations with Iran had begun in mid-2012, many months before Rouhani and the ‘moderate’ camp were chosen in an election among candidates handpicked by Iran’s supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The idea that there was a new reality in Iran was politically useful to the Obama administration.” (“The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama’s Foreign-Policy Guru,” The New York Times Magazine, 5/08/2016)

RICHARD COHEN: “In effect, the White House lied. The lie exposes a truth. Obama wanted the deal (almost) no matter what. He had not been beckoned into the talks by more reasonable Iranians, but had initiated them with the previous regime. In other words, he wanted the talks more than the Iranians did — a negotiating position of great weakness. It explains why nothing in the agreement thwarts Iranian efforts to support terrorism in the Middle East or continue to make mayhem in Iraq. It lowers the odds that Iran will continue to adhere to the agreement.” (Richard Cohen, Op-Ed, “Of Pride, Falls — And Obama’s Foreign Policy,” Washington Post, 5/10/16)


Related Issues: Iran Nuclear Deal, National Security, Iran