President Obama’s penchant for saying whatever it takes to get him past a difficult time – like his promise that Americans would be able to keep their old insurance plans and doctors under Obamacare – was on full display last week.
Thus, he railed against those who presumed to characterize as a possible bribe his administration’s making a $400 million payment to the Iranians (1) in cash, (2) in various currencies, (3) in wooden crates, (4) in the dead of night, and (5) delivered in an unmarked airplane simultaneously with Iran’s release of four Americans it had been holding hostage – and whom the Iranians had theretofore been unwilling to release despite the tens of billions of dollars Iran would realize from the lifting of sanctions following the JCPOA nuclear agreement.
Notwithstanding appearances, Mr. Obama insisted it was not a remarkable event, because the $400 million was essentially the principal on what the U.S. owed Iran for having refused, in 1979, to go through with a $400 million arms deal for which Iran, under the just-deposed shah, had pre-paid.
Given the violent overthrow of the shah and the seizure of American hostages by militants loyal to Ayatollah Khomeini, the U.S. also refused to return the funds advanced. Iran sued the U.S. for the money and the president said he authorized the settlement and payment of the $400 million as part of an effort to forestall an expected negative court ruling calling for even greater liability. (Mr. Obama did not address the fact that the Iranians had been seeking the return of the $400 million from every U.S. administration going back to Jimmy Carter.)
This financial settlement, the president said, just happened to coincidentally occur at the same time the nuclear agreement was arrived at, as well as an agreement calling for Iran to release the four hostages – all via three separate and unrelated negotiating tracks.
As for the cash payment in different currencies, the president said it was necessary because of our strict laws and regulations against engaging in a wide range of financial transactions with Iran. But he did not venture to say if these subterfuges are legal, nor did he address the obvious question of whether the administration’s behavior legitimized private violations of the same prohibitions. These restrictions apply by their terms to direct or indirect transactions, whether carried out in dollars or foreign currencies.
Mr. Obama also ignored the fact that the American hostages were kept on a plane for several hours until the arrival of the plane carrying the American money. Their plane was only allowed to take off after the cash arrived.
Ransom? Coincidence? You be the judge.
And there was more dissembling last week from a president obviously focusing on his legacy and signature foreign policy effort and who is not above massaging the facts. Mr. Obama declared that Israel, after having initially and sharply opposed it, now accepts the notion that the Iran nuclear agreement was a very positive development.
The president cherry-picked the comments of some high-level former and current Israeli officials who have spoken of some future opportunities that might be presented by the agreement (but who also raised concerns about the many challenges it poses) and claimed the “Israeli military and security community…acknowledges this has been a game changer.”
Mr. Obama fairly gloated that those who have been most critical of the deal – i.e., Israeli officials – should apologize and admit they were off the mark:
What I’m interested in is if there there’s some news to be made, why not have some of these folks who were predicting disaster come out and say, ‘This thing actually worked.’ Now that would be a shock…. That would be impressive. If some of these folks who said the sky is falling suddenly said, “You know what? We were wrong and we are glad that Iran no longer has the capacity to break out in the short term and develop a nuclear weapon.’ But that wasn’t going to happen.”
Of course, the Netanyahu government continues to oppose the deal. The Times of Israel quoted a senior Israeli official who summed up the problem: “[T]he agreement removes the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program based on dates certain, rather than on changes in Iran’s aggressive behavior, including its support for terrorism around the world…. The deal doesn’t solve the Iranian nuclear problem, but rather delays and intensifies it.”
