US gave $1.7 billion to Iran as hostages were released, four times original amount

The Obama administration disclosed to Congress on Tuesday that it transferred a total of $1.7 billion in cash through Swiss banks to Iran around the time American hostages were released this year, about four times the amount originally disclosed to the public, sources told Circa.

The news was delivered by the State, Defense and Treasury Departments in a private briefing to congressional staff who went into the meeting thinking they were learning more detail about the $400 million in payments originally reported in the news media.

US gave $1.7 billion to Iran as hostages were released, four times original amount

Well I guess we were wrong when we said President Obama paid $400,000,000 to the Islamic Republic of Iran to release our hostages...

We didn't pay $400,000,000 for hostages democrats...you were right....we didn't....I admit we conservatives were wrong on that assessment...

What's that you say???
We paid $1,700,000,000 laundered through Swiss bank accounts then converted to non US denominations of currency to free said hostages....ok, thanks for clearing that up...

My favorite part is the lying about lying about lying...it would be comical if not so tragic...


Hope and Change indeed....thanks for all the transparency President Obama...
I'm sure the mainstream media would be covering it EXACTLY the same if George W. Bush Had acted similarly...

-Christosterone

a reply to: Christosterone

"At this point, what difference does it make?" (quote by everyone's favorite Presidential Frontrunner)

The Pentagon recently announced $6.5 trillion is unaccounted for.. last time they had a big announcement about missing Trillion$ was September 10th, 2001 (Rumsfeld, announcing $2.3 Trillion unaccounted for that time)

$1.7 billion isn't even a drop in the bucket.

Black ops and other nefarious activities require lot$ of funding my friend


PS: As of 9/6/2016, National Debt is at $19.51 Trillion

Our leaders are so responsible with all that money!!!

Hey, but this was just their money, that we seized. We were just returning what was theirs.


If you by that BS, anyway.




(SARCASM icon DESPERATELY needed returned to this site!)

a reply to: Christosterone

My question is: What does it matter if it's a fiat based currency? Couldn't the Fed just create that money out of thin air and hand it over?

I understand the ramifications that Iran now has a big load of money to play with, but did it really affect our economy at all?

If I remember correctly.

Yes this was their money. We lost the court case.

It was a matter of time before we had to give it back.

They got it sooner rather than later.

a reply to: chiefsmom

Usually followed up by showing how it wasn't their money that was frozen.

a reply to: Christosterone

In reading the comments there, something struck me.

We didn't pay this ransom for no reason.

I obviously have no way of validating this, but the US wouldn't give up 1.7 bill to a state we're actively having escalated aggressions with to free a few hostages.

They know something, and the US doesn't want it to be public knowledge. This is not a ransom paid for hostages, rather for incriminating and destabilizing information.

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
a reply to: Christosterone

I understand the ramifications that Iran now has a big load of money to play with, but did it really affect our economy at all?

I am the op and NEVER mentioned the effect this payout would have on the US economy...because that is an obtuse thought process on par with an elementary schooler's understanding of the political world(no pun intended)

Also, I would love to hear the "ramifications" since you "understand" them....do tell

-Chris

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: Christosterone

In reading the comments there, something struck me.

We didn't pay this ransom for no reason.

I obviously have no way of validating this, but the US wouldn't give up 1.7 bill to a state we're actively having escalated aggressions with to free a few hostages.

They know something, and the US doesn't want it to be public knowledge. This is not a ransom paid for hostages, rather for incriminating and destabilizing information.

Well, some 9-11 truth right before the election would make things interesting...

Where is the statement from the state department confirming the $1.3 Billion? Did this happen today like that article wants you to believe or did it happen last month like this article would have you believe..

More right-wing BS

a reply to: facedye

No, what actually happened facedye is that Iran was owed money by the United States government that was frozen decades before...

But the U.S refused to pay back Iran's money until they handed over 4 hostages.


It was blackmail on the U.S' part not Iran's.


Anything else you hear is proper bullsh*t.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: facedye

No, what actually happened facedye is that Iran was owed money by the United States government that was frozen decades before...

But the U.S refused to pay back Iran's money until they handed over 4 hostages.


It was blackmail on the U.S' part not Iran's.


Anything else you hear is proper bullsh*t.

Have you actually read what the court case was about? If so, please enlighten me, because it's the most complicated and (seemingly purposely) convoluted court case summary I've read in a while:

Iran Compensation Case

Check this paragraph out:

“This was about basically two things, Congress making available funds that were illicitly entered into the United States, and hence were frozen. And allowing those assets to compensate victims of terrorism if, in fact, those victims got a judgment in a court of law.”

So we froze Iranian assets because those funds were associated with terroristic endeavors. Endeavors accused to be funded by Iran to take place in the US.

Iran Terror Compensation

From the article above:

During its Tuesday morning session, the Parliament cited examples such as the U.S involvement in the coup of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953, America's support of Iraq in its war with Iran from 1980 to 1988, and the destruction of oil platforms in the late '80s.

This comes as a response to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision last month, which ruled that Iran should hand over nearly $2 billion in frozen assets to Americans affected by attacks that Iran was accused of organizing.

"(The law) provides a new standard clarifying that, if Iran owns certain assets, the victims of Iran-sponsored terrorist attacks will be permitted to execute against those assets," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority.

So.. to a layman, Iran is blaming Americans for funding terrorism while Americans are blaming Iran for funding terrorism. For one reason or another, Iran is getting 1.7 billion dollars that were frozen BECAUSE we had an inclination they were being used to execute terrorist goals.

Not sure why you think this is clear cut and dry. This seems to be convoluted on purpose.

a reply to: grey580

What coirt case did we lose?

The cash payment came from fines imposed on corporations violating the sanctions and doing business with Iran, not from the frozen assets which are still untouchable.

a reply to: facedye

Have you actually read what the court case was about? If so, please enlighten me, because it's the most complicated and (seemingly purposely) convoluted court case summary I've read in a while:

weak come back, you got shot down then, blame your own understanding for spouting lies.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

If we were the ones doing the extorting then why did Iran wait until our plane with the money landed before they released the hostages?

You are cray-cray.

Not surprising Obama would be lying his way through this escapade.

All $3 bills are counterfeit.

I suppose the Clinton Campaign is supporting this whole thing?

a reply to: facedye

Legalese is always convoluted, mate.


I'm not sticking my neck on the line for Iran here.
I'm just countering the narrative that Iran wanted money for hostages, when in fact the US wanted hostages for money.


I've no doubts that both players are hiding something from the people.

a reply to: facedye

Obama had to make sure no U.S. Citizens benefited from that.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Hazardous1408

If we were the ones doing the extorting then why did Iran wait until our plane with the money landed before they released the hostages?

You are cray-cray.

You think The United States wouldn't do the same?

You as cray-cray as me amigo.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: facedye

Legalese is always convoluted, mate.


I'm not sticking my neck on the line for Iran here.
I'm just countering the narrative that Iran wanted money for hostages, when in fact the US wanted hostages for money.


I've no doubts that both players are hiding something from the people.

I think, based on the articles I've sourced, that it's way more complicated than that. You just seemed entirely sure that this exchange of 1.7 billion was in reference to getting back our hostages. I don't think the US really cares about the hostages.

Based on those articles, we froze about 2 billion dollars of Iranian funds because we suspected they were funding and sponsoring terrorism in the states. Then they demand 2 billion from us by calling us terrorists, and they get it.

I respectfully disagree with you - to me, this is convoluted on purpose. There's much more here than meets the eye.