Tag: Iran cash

The Obama Administration’s continuously bizarre relationship with Iran has raised logical, political and now legal questions. While the President’s term is nearly over, Hillary Clinton has promised to continue the president’s Mideast policies, and that makes the need for probing, honest answers an urgent requirement.

In a move that would be more appropriate for a poorly written made for TV movie, the White House sent a plane filled with cash to Tehran, in what was obviously a cash-for-hostage deal. According to the Wall Street Journal “The Obama administration secretly organized an airlift of $400 million worth of cash to Iran that coincided with the January release of four Americans detained in Tehran, according to U.S. and European officials and congressional staff briefed on the operation afterward. Wooden pallets stacked with euros, Swiss francs and other currencies were flown into Iran on an unmarked cargo plane, according to these officials. The U.S. procured the money from the central banks of the Netherlands and Switzerland….”

The White House maintains that the cash is the first installment of a settlement regarding a cancelled arms deal with the deposed Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, but the explanation fails to acknowledge that the matter remains in dispute, under review by an international tribunal in The Hague.

The use of cash, as opposed to more conventional international payment means, allows Tehran to provide more clandestine support for terrorists across the globe, and continue its support for Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, who has committed numerous and extreme crimes against humanity, against his own citizenry. Al-Assad is also supported by Moscow.

This strange course of events continues a pattern of deceiving both Congress and the American people concerning the Obama Administration’s relationship with Iran, the leaders of which continue to enthusiastically chant “death to America” numerous times throughout each year.

An administration official, Ben Rhodes, who served as deputy national security advisor, has openly bragged, as noted in a New York Times article, about his ability to deceive the U.S. about the much-criticized nuclear deal. As noted by the Washington Times,  “It seems the goal behind the Iran deal was to extricate the United States from long standing alliances in the Middle East, including Israel. This was done to be able to close the Iran nuclear agreement.”

As serious as that deception was, it doesn’t cover the full extent of the Administration’s intensive lying about its relations with Iran.

Fox News  has found that a State Department official,in a stunning admission, acknowledged Wednesday that an official intentionally deleted several minutes of video footage from a 2013 press briefing, where a top spokeswoman seemed to acknowledge misleading the press over the Iran nuclear deal. ‘There was a deliberate request [to delete the footage] – this wasn’t a technical glitch,’ State Department spokesman John Kirby said Wednesday, in admitting that an unidentified official had a video editor “excise” the segment… Kirby said someone had censored the video intentionally.

There was, and is, more than ample reason for the White House and the State Department to believe that the public and Congress would object to the actual terms of the nuclear deal.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Ca.) notes: “The more we find out about the Iran nuclear deal, the worse it looks. Each new day Congress reviews this deal, we discover more information and more reasons why this deal is simply unacceptable:”

1. Though the deal was originally being negotiated to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, in its final form the agreement would allow just that when it sunsetsin 10-15 years.
2. This deal will accelerate regional nuclear proliferation. Saudi leaders for instance have said that this deal is worse than the nuclear pact former President Bill Clinton made with North Korea.
3. Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu saidthis deal will give Iran “hundreds of billions of dollars to fuel their terror and military regime.”
4. Sanctions relief isn’t tied to Iran complying with the deal, meaning Iran gets massive amounts of reliefbefore they’ve demonstrated strict adherence.

We are all in touch and up to date on the pack you tadalafil cialis have ordered Strictly following the guidelines set forth by the FDA. According to research, people who have regular exercise of 25 to 30 minutes are less likely to develop impotence or erectile dysfunction and have more active love life than those who sit for less than one hour per day. order viagra online Generic drugs are manufactured by credible drug manufacturers using established formula of branded tadalafil cialis india pills, capsules and syrups. This purchase generic viagra is because it helps to treat impotence.

5. And the money can’t be taken back once Iran gets it.
6. That relief can be used to expand Iran’s malign and destabilizing influence in the region that hasexacerbated sectarian conflict.
7. The money can also be used to further fund Iran’s terrorist proxies like Hamas, Hezbollah, Assad, and Houthis in Yemen.
8. In fact, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, saidthat Iran will not change its anti-American policy.
9. To enforce the deal, world powers must first know if Iran violated the deal but that is an unclear process that can be delayed for weekswhile Iran would be able to hide and obfuscate banned activities.
10. Iran doesn’t have to come cleanon its past nuclear activity, leaving world powers little ability to verify future illegal advances.
11. Iran’s foreign minister interprets the deal very differentlythan the Obama Administration does.
12. For example, he believes that the scale of foreign investments would effectively prevent the world from re-imposing sanctionson Iran, making the “snapback” provision of the deal effectively meaningless.
13. He also said that Iran could deny inspectors accessto nuclear and military sites under the deal.
14. He also said that Iran would not be violating the deal if it broke the UN resolution prohibiting the purchase of conventional armsand missiles because the arms embargo is implicitly out of the scope of the nuclear agreement.
15. Even if Iran adheres to the arms embargo, the embargo is lifted in 5 years, giving Iran access not only to conventional arms to further fuel terrorism and their drive for regional dominancy.
16. In 8 years, the missile ban will be removed, allowing Iran to acquire missiles that could carry nuclear payloads.
17. The Obama Administration pushed for the UN to vote on the dealin an attempt to jam Americans and their elected representatives before they’ve even had a chance to review the deal.
18. Iran will be allowed to conduct advanced research and developmentthat will pave the way for centrifuges that are modern and efficient. They will be able to enrich huge amounts of Uranium that will shorten their breakout time for a bomb.
19. The deal also provides sanctions reliefto Iranian military leader Qasem Soleimani, leader of the elite Quds force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, who is a designated terrorist who is responsible for the deaths of at least 500 U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
20. On top of that, the deal lifts sanctionson two Iranian atomic scientists who worked on Iran’s illegal nuclear program and a nuclear proliferator who has previously helped smuggle nuclear components.
21. The murderous Syrian President Bashar al-Assad calledthis deal a “great victory” and congratulated Iran on their achievement.

It’s not just weapons deals that has raised eyebrows when it comes to the odd relationship between Mr. Obama and Iran’s harshly anti-U.S. leaders.

While the Obama Administration supported almost all of the “Arab Spring” movements, including that which replaced the pro-U.S. regime of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak with that of the Moslem Brotherhood’s Mohammed Morsi, it noticeably failed to support the one portion of the Arab Spring movement that would have been in America’s interest, the “Green Revolution” in Iran.

As noted by the Atlantic “One of the prime missed opportunities of the Obama Administration came during the Iranian “Green Revolution” uprisings of 2009. The President could have advanced American moral and strategic interests by standing up more boldly for the young demonstrators protesting totalitarianism…” The President turned his back on the movement, strengthening the control of one of the most rabidly anti-American governments in existence.