“The
2015 Iran nuclear deal involved multiple nations, not just the United
States under Obama, and did not involve the United States giving cash
to Iran.”
-- Independent,
transparent fact checking from PolitiFact and the Poynter Institute
Recent developments in the
Middle East – the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani by the
United States and the subsequent responsive attack by Iran on U.S.
air bases in Iraq – have stirred up old accusations by President
Trump that former President Barack Obama enabled terrorism while
negotiating the Iran nuclear deal.
For the benefit of all and
for the edification of President Obama, let's examine the facts.
First of all, the
agreement was promoted by Obama. But, it included China, France,
Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the European Union and not
just the United States and Iran.
The deal resulted in Iran
getting access to some of its own funds – assets that had been
frozen – it wasn’t cash given to Iran by the United States. And
$150 billion is a high-end estimate, and the one with the least
evidence to support it. The best high-end estimate from the U.S.
Treasury Department in 2015 was $56 billion, and outside analysts
believed the number could be lower.
Note: Adam J.
Szubin, Acting Under Secretary of Treasury for Terrorism and
Financial Intelligence, supplied written testimony to a U.S. Senate
committee in August 2015 stating that U.S. assessment of the total
liquid assets Iran would regain control of as a result of the nuclear
agreement was “a little more than $50 billion.”
Per the deal, the United
States and other countries lifted sanctions and the funds were
unfrozen after nuclear inspectors verified in January 2016 that Iran
was doing enough to curb its nuclear program.
As The New York Times
previously reported:
“Before the 1979
revolution, Iran’s shah had paid $400 million for American military
goods but, after he was overthrown, they were never delivered. The
clerics who seized control demanded the money back, but the United
States refused. The additional $1.3 billion is interest accumulated
over 35 years. An initial reimbursement was released after the Iran
deal was implemented and to help secure the release of American
hostages.”
Trump has continually
claimed since his 2016 campaign: “We gave them $150 billion and
$1.8 billion and we got nothing.” For example, remarks by Trump on
Iran Strategy on October 13, 2017, included this false claim …
“The nuclear deal
threw Iran’s dictatorship a political and economic lifeline,
providing urgently needed relief from the intense domestic pressure
the sanctions had created. It also gave the regime an immediate
financial boost and over $100 billion dollars its government could
use to fund terrorism.”
And Trump again told the
old lie in 2018 before a meeting with French President Emmanuel
Macron…
“The Iran deal is a
terrible deal. We paid $150 billion. We gave $1.8 billion in cash.
That’s actual cash, barrels of cash. It’s insane. It’s
ridiculous. It should have never been made. But we will be talking
about it.”
Let's get the facts about
the $1.8 billion in cash. As part of a settlement, Obama transferred
$1.7 billion in cash to Iran in 2016. The administration may have
also used the money to pressure Iran to release several American
prisoners.
Barbara Slavin, acting
director of the Future of Iran Initiative at the Atlantic Council,
said …
“This was not a quid
pro quo for hostages. It was an opportunity for countries with no
diplomatic relations to clear away a number of diplomatic disputes.
For the U.S., it was important to get back the detained Americans,
and the Iranians wanted their seven citizens out of jail.”
The Obama administration
maintained that the payments were made as a reimbursement to Iran for
military equipment that the country had purchased from the U.S. in
the late 1970s but had never received because relations ruptured when
the shah was overthrown in 1979. The debt had been in international
arbitration for years. As part of that, Iran paid settlements of more
than $2.5 billion to U.S. citizens and businesses.
Slavin added that most of
the recent coverage of the U.S.-Iran dealings ignores the importance
of the prisoner exchange.
According
to Gary Sick, a former National Security Council official who served
as the principal White House aide for Iran during the Iranian
Revolution and the hostage crisis:
“It
was all taken care of at the same time, through separate channels. It
was a good deal for U.S. taxpayers, the U.S. obeyed the law, and the
payment was always going to happen anyway.”
The entire $1.7 billion –
representing the principal and held in a U.S. government trust fund –
was given in two separate payments of $400 million and $1.3 billion,
and provided in cash. The timing of the first payment corresponded
with Iran's release of the American prisoners, which occurred the
same day.
– PBS
News
Of course,
this payment gave rise to Trump’s dramatic accounts of money
stuffed in barrels or boxes and delivered in the dead of night.
There was no $150 billion payout from the U.S. treasury. The money
he constantly refers to represents Iranian assets held abroad that
were frozen until the deal was reached and Tehran was allowed to
access its funds.
In a tweet,
Trump explicitly compared the money to a congressional
appropriation. That’s just flat wrong. It was not U.S. taxpayer
money as he would like people to believe.
In conclusion, the Iran
nuclear deal is one of the most robust and detailed nuclear
agreements ever achieved. Experts say that Iran was generally in
compliance with the agreement when Trump decided to terminate it and
reimpose sanctions.
Ilan Goldenberg, the
director of the Middle East Security Program at the Center for a New
American Security, claimed when the United States withdrew, the deal
was working exactly as designed: Iran’s nuclear program was
drastically curtailed, and the U.S. ability to detect any Iranian
attempt to build a bomb was significantly improved.
When the deal was in
effect, Iran was cooperating. It is apparent relations have taken a
frightening 180 degree turn. Come 2021, a new U.S. president could
reverse Donald Trump’s decision and pursue truth and peace instead
of lies and conflict. Shouldn't that be the course of a country
dedicated to the highest ideals?
No comments:
Post a Comment