Is the brink of WW3 due to Obama and his continuing influence from the shadows?

a reply to: MoreCoyoteAngels

I wonder how much his contribution of US cash to Iran has brought about this delimma the world is facing now?

We unfroze some Iranian assets at an attempt for a diplomatic opening.

Was it dumb? Sure. Did it do anything beneficial? Probably not.

But people have to make up their minds on whether or not they have the stomach for diplomacy, even if it’s with unsavory countries. The left laid into Trump for trying with North Korea. What did we have to lose? Nothing, our relations are abysmal. So I don’t see how it’s a cardinal sin to try.

Back to Iran, I’d be willing to bet their disdain for the west comes from the UK’s influence and appetite for oil. Eventually Iran chased them off and the US slipped in and installed a government.

Aside from rhetoric from recent U.S. presidents, I’d say their hate for the west stems from generations ago. This is evident by the younger generation being more open to the west and a more free society (see head dress protests).

Obama was a god awful president who was two faced and a far cry from what he ran on. His admin was closer to a Bush 2.0 presidency than anything else. I’m not defending him because that’s impossible. But the partisan obsession with blaming everything on the politician they hate the most is just allowing for patsies. That’s why we keep repeating mistakes, is because we allow ourselves to act as if all shortcomings come from one party or one politician.

a reply to: MoreCoyoteAngels

My logic is simple. Obama gave Iran a boat load of American dollars. Joe Biden lifted sanctions which allowed Iran to sell billions of more dollars in oil. And recently gave Iran billions for hostages.

Not exactly true.

Obama gave Iran pallets of mixed currency.

We were told that not enough American dollars were in the area at the time.

So they "borrowed" other currencies and in return the owners of said currencies were repaid in American dollars.

Some of us thought at the time that it was a pretty slick way to launder payoffs from other countries...

a reply to: Lumenari

We were told that not enough American dollars were in the area at the time. So they "borrowed" other currencies and in return the owners of said currencies were repaid in American dollars. Some of us thought at the time that it was a pretty slick way to launder payoffs from other countries...

So you’re saying it wasn’t unfrozen Iranian assets that were given back, but rather a compilation of multi national assets given to them?

Is it possible that only 10% of US currency is physical which would create a problem for compiling so much cash (if the multi currency claim is true)?

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Lumenari

We were told that not enough American dollars were in the area at the time. So they "borrowed" other currencies and in return the owners of said currencies were repaid in American dollars. Some of us thought at the time that it was a pretty slick way to launder payoffs from other countries...

So you’re saying it wasn’t unfrozen Iranian assets that were given back, but rather a compilation of multi national assets given to them?

Is it possible that only 10% of US currency is physical which would create a problem for compiling so much cash (if the multi currency claim is true)?

www.cbsnews.com...

State Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau says the U.S. couldn’t say more about the Jan. 19 payments because of diplomatic sensitivities. They involved 13 separate payments of $99,999,999.99 and final payment of about $10 million. There was no explanation for the Treasury Department keeping the individual transactions under $100 million.

On Jan. 17, the administration paid Iran the account’s $400 million principal in pallets of euros, Swiss francs and other foreign currency, raising questions about the unusual payment. The $1.3 billion covers what Iran and the U.S. agreed would be the interest on the $400 million over the decades.

in re; Jerusalem.
should we base our foreign policy on doing the right thing for the right reason

or on not provoking the bad guys?

if what you're saying is true, what does it say about Iran and Hamas, attacking and killing and possibly starting a war, because another country recognized somebody's capitol?
is that really worth killing over?

a reply to: Lumenari

That’s fair, thanks for the information.

I didn’t know that they included interest and adjusted it for inflation which certainly gives it worse optics.

But you’d agree, it’s still different than many claiming we just gave them over a billion dollars right? And not because it vindicates any political party, but because it forces people to realize the history and how we got to our relations.

Most people don’t know that we created Irans nuclear program by building a reactor for one of their universities and supplying the fuel. Or that Iran was one of a handful of countries to get the modern F-16s in the late 70s (which later got sold to Israel even though we had some of Irans payments for them).

Personally, I don’t think we should have given Iran their money back much less interest. But again, it’s far different than saying it was strictly a ransom.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

If you read the article, we paid it in cash.

Taxpayer dollars.

The money came from a little-known fund administered by the Treasury Department for settling litigation claims. The so-called Judgment Fund is taxpayer money Congress has permanently approved in the event it’s needed, allowing the president to bypass direct congressional approval to make a settlement. The U.S. previously paid out $278 million in Iran-related claims by using the fund in 1991.

So yes, we just gave them over a billion dollars.

My original point though was the odd way of paying the principal.

In mixed currency... I'm standing by my personal opinion that it was a pretty nifty way to launder money.

And I'm drifting the thread... my apologies to the OP.

a reply to: Lumenari

It’s not thread drift because it directly related to Obama, Iran and the payments.

It was absolutely messy and reckless, but we do have billions in frozen Iranian assets in our banks. The collective world has 100b~ in frozen assets to Iran, plus we did have unreconciled deals to Iran because of the revolution (this isn’t necessarily odd considering countries will often nullify deals if a country restructures their government).

I’m not arguing whether or not it was the right thing to do, rather it’s more nuanced than many are willing to admit because of political bias. Both sides will willingly ignore the fact we give far more than that in aid to unsavory countries like Saudi Arabia (both parties), whom we even did the honor of omitting and classifying the part in the 9/11 commission report about Saudi Arabia.

So it boils down to, do we really want to analyze how we got to our position with Iran, or who do we want to blame in recent times when the history goes back half a century? And at the end of the day I suppose it doesn’t matter since it won’t ultimately change a damn thing.

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

A wolf in sheeps woolen is hardly the wolves greatest sin, and shame on the sheep for accepting the wolf as having their best interest, even tho he didnt smell right all along.

a reply to: 31331Dos

Off topic post, but I will say this final statement.

Peace came to the middle east under Trumps watch.

a reply to: 31331Dos

No, I believe that Iran has poured alot of gasoline on decades of old grievances and that Obama and Biden paid for the fuel.

I said that in the OP.

Please stay on topic.

Last time, and I"ll ask a mod to help me maintain my thread.

Thank you.

a reply to: 31331Dos

So please, go create your thread, and I will come talk about Trumps influence on current happenings.

Thank you!

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Youve said nothing at all to convince me that oh well, giving Iran all those billions didnt work out. Not Obama's fault.

I knew at the time it was BAD JUJU. And Biden has just doubled down.

This is on purpose. Not just regrettably foolish diplomacy. Nope. Not buying it. If so, history should have informed them not to do it.

And Obama knew it was wrong. He did it without Congress approval, under cover of darkness and on the way out.

BS it was clumsy diplomacy.

a reply to: Lumenari

Stunk to high heaven all around.

I hadn't heard this. So infuriating.

a reply to: MoreCoyoteAngels

The Middle East was far from peaceful under Trump. He had as many drone strikes in his first two years as Obama had in his entire eight, he moved the Israeli capitol to Jerusalem which inflamed Hamas, he bombed Syria and threatened to start a war there, he pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal, etc., etc.

The plan has been going off without a hitch regardless of who has been president for the past 30+ years. It's been a slow creep toward world war for decades and Trump did nothing to slow it down and as my examples above show he seemed to have followed the script like everyone who came before him.

Last post, see you around.

a reply to: 31331Dos

Yes, the Arab Spring was winding down after Obama's adventures in the ME and we just bombed Syria AGAIN the last few days. Hardly anyone noticed.

Bye. Come on back when you don't want to make it all about Trump.

a reply to: MoreCoyoteAngels

Youve said nothing at all to convince me that oh well, giving Iran all those billions didnt work out. Not Obama's fault.

My intent was never to wash Obama’s hands. Instead, I said it was dumb and had no benefit.

But your thread has done nothing to convince me that a half century of bad relations can be pinned on one recent president.

Why would we be closer to Iran right now because Obama have a country some money? Don’t countries like being given money?

And if your premise is that was the amount they needed to be aggressive, if you wouldn’t mind giving the thread a percentage of their yearly GDP that was.

a reply to: CriticalStinker


'Why would we be closer to Iran right now because Obama have a country some money? Don’t countries like being given money?'

Dont understand this comment.

a reply to: MoreCoyoteAngels

What’s there not to understand?

You’re making the case that Obama releasing some of their frozen assets, paying back some deals we took payment on without providing equipment, and giving interest and adjusting for inflation would drive them to WWIII more than our presence in the Middle East or the fact we overthrew their government many decades ago?

Saying Obama deserves the lions share of blame for our relations with them is as silly as trying to put it on Trump or Bush. This is much larger than any one of them.

But again, how much was that money we sent them in relation to their yearly GDP? Do you really believe it tipped the scale?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Lifting the sanctions has certainly improved Irans economic outlook. Don't try to deny.

Perhaps the cash in the dark was just Obama thumbing his nose at those of us that remember the year Iran held our embassy hostage.