Trump Would Never Lie -- The Truth About the "Obama Nuclear Deal"

“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?