Captain Crazy blows up the leadership from Iran and that Iranians need to take control of the leadership.. what if they can't? What if the current administration is holds up in a few places to stop an overthrow of the current government?

Wow, talk about naive. Even if there was some kind of restraint to that kind of transfer, it’d take some IT nerd 3 keystrokes to go around it.

Wow, talk about naive. Even if there was some kind of restraint to that kind of transfer, it’d take some IT nerd 3 keystrokes to go around it.

Dupe

Iran was under heavy banking sanctions at the time, which limited how funds could move through normal electronic channels. That’s why the settlement was paid in foreign currency cash instead of a standard U.S. bank transfer. Originally Posted by fd-guy

Do your homework on the release of funds under the 2015 JCPOA, aka Obama's nuclear deal with Iran. Sanctions were lifted to allow roughly $100 billion in Iranian assets held primarily in foreign banks to be released, supposedly for humanitarian purposes such as food and medicine. There was no legitimate reason for ANY of the funds to be paid in cash.

Oh wait... could the reason have been to pay ransom for the release of Americans seized by the Iranians?

Naaahh... obama would never do that!

https://nypost.com/2016/08/03/us-sen...-freed-report/[/QUOTE]

Wow, talk about naive. Even if there was some kind of restraint to that kind of transfer, it’d take some IT nerd 3 keystrokes to go around it. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

Calling it naïve doesn’t really address the point. Saying ‘someone could bypass it in three keystrokes’ is hypothetical — not evidence that it happened.

It’s odd to call stating documented facts naïve, while treating imagined workarounds as self-evident. Possibility isn’t proof.

Do your homework on the release of funds under the 2015 JCPOA, aka Obama's nuclear deal with Iran. Sanctions were lifted to allow roughly $100 billion in Iranian assets held primarily in foreign banks to be released, supposedly for humanitarian purposes such as food and medicine. There was no legitimate reason for ANY of the funds to be paid in cash.

Oh wait... could the reason have been to pay ransom for the release of Americans seized by the Iranians?

Naaahh... obama would never do that!

https://nypost.com/2016/08/03/us-sen...-freed-report/ Originally Posted by lustylad

The $100 billion figure refers to previously frozen Iranian assets that were unfrozen as part of the JCPOA — that wasn’t the same thing as the $1.7 billion settlement payment. Those are two different buckets of money.

The $1.7 billion was tied to a decades-old Hague tribunal claim over pre-1979 arms deals. Conflating asset unfreezing with a cash settlement muddies the issue.

If the claim is that the payment was illegal ransom rather than a legal settlement, that would require documented evidence — not just sarcasm.

The $100 billion figure refers to previously frozen Iranian assets that were unfrozen as part of the JCPOA — that wasn’t the same thing as the $1.7 billion settlement payment. Those are two different buckets of money.

The $1.7 billion was tied to a decades-old Hague tribunal claim over pre-1979 arms deals. Originally Posted by fd-guy

Ok, assuming it was a separate claim, you still haven't explained why it had to be paid in cash, instead of doing a simple bank transfer, which had already been established as a legal means of payment under the JCPOA.

If the claim is that the payment was illegal ransom rather than a legal settlement, that would require documented evidence — not just sarcasm. Originally Posted by fd-guy

Don't you find it odd that the first tranche of $400 million in "pallets of cash" was clandestinely loaded onto a private, unmarked plane in Geneva on the very same day those four American hostages were released - January 17, 2016?

Of course you won't find any "documented evidence" it was ransom. Obama wanted plausible deniability. Problem is, his claim doesn't pass the plausibility test.

Update:

Unfortunately, CENTCOM reported that we suffered 3 deaths to US service members, NBC News reported the deaths happened in Kuwait, but still waiting to hear more details.

Trump confirms we are eradicating the Iranian Navy and Israel confirms we have established air superiority over Iran’s airspace.

Trump also confirmed that Iran’s remaining leadership want to negotiate, but expect the strikes on IRGC assets and capabilities to continue regardless. Trump is going to completely wipe out Iran’s offensive and defensive capabilities for the foreseeable future.

Saudi Arabia also confirmed they are willing to respond to Iran’s attacks on Riyadh.

The operation is not over, and our armed forces are still in harm’s way, but the IRGC have no path to victory, they have confirmed they are the terrorist state preventing peace in the Middle East, and the world has turned on them.

BREAKING: President Trump just gave ABC News the line of the century:

“I got him before he got me. They tried twice. Well, I got him first.”

https://x.com/fft1776/status/2028398933320335434?s=42

Vladi, HAS, nukes!
Vladi is a proven threat to world order!
Vladi's killed and maimed 100s of 1000's in Ukraine!
Why doesn't donnie takeout Vladi and decapitate his regime?
(There appears to be (a politically-influenced) double standard here!)
While we're at it ...why don't we take out Kim Jung-un he's got an arsenal of ballistic missiles...he kills and represses his own people! Originally Posted by victoryformation

donnie will never touch Putin or Kim because they own him. If there was any consistency to trump's nonsense, he would have confronted them a long time ago. But of course there isn't.

Iran is a minor threat by comparison, but the Ayatollah didn't have any compromising videos to hold over donnie's head, and never sent him any "love letters" either.

trump is a coward and a traitor who's in WAY over his big, dumb pumpkin head.

It appears the only people upset about Khamenei being taken out, are the brainwashed American Leftists and anti-trumpers.

The Iranian People are celebrating in the streets, while blue-haired baristas and Libertarian podcasters throw a fit.

All they know how to do is hate trump. Originally Posted by bambino

When did Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Thomas Massie dye their hair and start working in a coffee shop?

Calling it naïve doesn’t really address the point. Saying ‘someone could bypass it in three keystrokes’ is hypothetical — not evidence that it happened.

It’s odd to call stating documented facts naïve, while treating imagined workarounds as self-evident. Possibility isn’t proof. Originally Posted by fd-guy

Have you met the MAGAverse? They never need proof of anything. In fact, "proof" is usually inconvenient and often gets in the way of their Fantasy Land bullshit.

Ok, assuming it was a separate claim, you still haven't explained why it had to be paid in cash, instead of doing a simple bank transfer, which had already been established as a legal means of payment under the JCPOA.




Don't you find it odd that the first tranche of $400 million in "pallets of cash" was clandestinely loaded onto a private, unmarked plane in Geneva on the very same day those four American hostages were released - January 17, 2016?

Of course you won't find any "documented evidence" it was ransom. Obama wanted plausible deniability. Problem is, his claim doesn't pass the plausibility test. Originally Posted by lustylad

Fair points. On the cash question — even after the JCPOA implementation day, U.S. dollar transactions through the American banking system with Iran were still restricted under sanctions law. That meant a straightforward electronic transfer wasn’t legally available in the usual way. That’s why the funds were reportedly converted into foreign currency and physically transferred. You can absolutely argue the optics were terrible — they were — but there was a sanctions framework in play that limited the mechanics.

As for the timing, yes, the settlement payment and the prisoner release happening the same day raises eyebrows. That’s understandable. But simultaneity isn’t the same thing as proof of ransom. The administration’s explanation was that resolving both issues at once reduced the risk of either side backing out. That may look transactional — because diplomacy often is — but transactional doesn’t automatically mean illegal.

I get why people question it. I just think moving from ‘this looks suspicious’ to ‘this was criminal ransom’ requires more than inference from timing. Plausibility can raise a question, but it doesn’t settle it.

BREAKING: President Trump just gave ABC News the line of the century:

“I got him before he got me. They tried twice. Well, I got him first.”

https://x.com/fft1776/status/2028398933320335434?s=42 Originally Posted by bambino

A single dramatic sentence without context isn’t much to go on. What’s the actual claim here?

BREAKING: Iran only has SMALL BOATS left after the US military sunk ALL ELEVEN Iranian military ships in the Gulf of Oman, per Fox

This makes it INCREDIBLY difficult for the Iranians to achieve their goal of closing the Strait of Hormuz.

https://x.com/nicksortor/status/2028...135367366?s=42