The recent news about the January 2016 release of 5 prisoners in Iran and its coincidence with the US payment of $400 million to the IR Regime has created a lot of excitement in the anti-Obama and the anti-Nuclear Deal camps. While the US government states that the $400 million is a partial payment of an old debt, the anti-administration crowd believes that it is a ransom that was paid to the Regime to secure the release of the prisoners. Here is the background.
Back in the late 70’s, the late Shah paid the US government $400 million to purchase some fighter jets. When Dr. Bakhtiar was appointed as the prime minister, and in the populous atmosphere of the time, not only he abolished Savak, released the few hundred political prisoners, cut ties with Israel and S. Africa, he also cancelled all military contracts with the US and the $400 million contract was never fulfilled by the Pentagon. After Khomeini came and the mob took over the assets of many American companies in Iran, the US also held on to the billions of Iran’s cash, stock and gold bullions in US banks and institutions. The hostage crisis ensued and both parties accused each other of illegally holding other party’s assets and money.
The Algiers Accord in January 1981ended the hostage crisis. Among the key provisions of the accord was a process to resolve the financial issues between the 2 parties. The Iran US Tribunal was set up in The Hague with 9 judges, (3 Iranians, 3 Americans and 3 independents) to decide and have the final say on all the financial disputes and, half of Iran’s assets were transferred to an escrow account to pay for the claims. So far more than 2,700 cases have been decided and more than $2.5 billion has been paid to the American companies and individuals. In recent years, the case of the $400 million purchase was argued before the Tribunal and a decision was pending. The IR Regime was asking for $10 billion in monetary damages. The US lawyers believed that the Tribunal would rule in favor of the IR for a judgement of around $4 billion and encouraged the US government to pursue a friendly arbitration. The US engaged the Regime and a $1.7 billion agreement was reached; the original $400 million plus $1.3 billion interest accrued over 37 years.
What is not known at this point is the agreed method of payment to the IR and the schedule of payments. What is known however is that the US intended to resolve the dispute per the Tribunal’s decision and pay the $1.7 billion amount, although there were no ways to transfer the money to an Iranian bank until a nuclear deal could be reached, sanctions lifted and the Iranian banks get connected to SWIFT for money transfers. It is also known quite well that the US negotiating team was under tremendous pressure to include the release of the prisoners in the nuclear negotiations. And although all the public attention was directed at the 3 known prisoners, Mr.’s Rezaian, Hekmati and Abedini, it came as a surprise when the names of 2 other prisoners popped up; Mr. Khosravi-Roodsari and Mr. Trevithick. Mr. Khosravi was rumored to have ties with the US intelligence community and Mr. Trevithick held positions at the American University of Suleimania in Iraq and then Kabul, travelled extensively in the Central Asian countries and spoke Arabic, Dari and Russian. He entered Iran in September of 2015 to attend Dehkhoda Institute (affiliated with Tehran University) to learn Farsi. He was picked up by Sepah on December 6th and taken to Evin for 41 days.
On January 16, 2016, Mr. Trevithick was taken from Evin to the airport and put on a flight out of Iran. Mr. Khosravi was freed but stayed in Iran for a little while and then left. Mr.’s Abedini, Hekmati, Rezaian and his wife and mom however were taken to the airport where they had to wait until the plane with $400 million in cash arrived. Then they were allowed to leave. So was this a ransom for their release?
Not quite. The US government was going to accept the Tribunal’s decision and settle that matter, so the $1.7 billion was going to be paid, especially when you consider that there are additional cases in front of the Tribunal and US’s refusal to pay would’ve created problems for those cases. I also believe that back in January, Rouhani and Zarif had an exaggerated view of the Nuclear Deal and how it will solve all Iran’s economic problems, so they settled for $1.7 billion instead of waiting for the Tribunal’s judgement. Sepah however was left out of the action and more importantly was holding the prisoners. So they needed to be paid, and in cash. So the Regime requested that the 1st installment come in the form of cash which it did.
At the end, you don’t negotiate with your friends. You negotiate with your adversaries, and in the IR Regime’s case, every time you shake hands with them, you go and wash your hands.
The alternative is to bomb the place, which nobody is ready to do. Not yet.
The alternative is to empower the Iranian people to topple the regime. Bombing Iran has never ever been an alternative. Just a made-up excuse to support the IRI subsistence. During this 'imminent' treat of War with IRI, Iraq was bombed, Afghanistan was bombed, Libya was bombed. For none of those countries there was a 25 years long discourse of 'war imminence'!
Even as an American, your long term interest is to end Islamic Regime in Iran ASAP if you are not looking at your short term gain! It's as simple as that.
Thanks for reading Benross.
Bombing the facilities has always been on the table, at least by Obama. Extreme sanctions to cut off the oil shipment will also require naval blockade, no-fly-zone, etc. which is an act of war and will also end up in unanticipated events.
Can you give me 5 bullet points about "empower the Iranian people" comment? Please be specific. Thank you.
‘Empowering the Iranian people’, by definition, should be carried out by the Iranians. US cannot ‘generate’ a popular movement. But the first goal of such movement is to topple the regime. US should simply acknowledge that this is a legitimate cause.
Up until the arrival of Obama, the US was muted on this. Obama in his ‘wisdom’ decided to officially proclaim that US is NOT after destabilizing the Islamic regime (this was the content of his private letters to Khamenei during the uprisings of the ‘green’ movement). Although during his first term, the secretary of state, Hilary Clinton made some efforts to counter-balance his policy, and even Reza Pahlavi was interviewed in VOA (he was unofficially banned from VOA since the beginning of Islamic devolution). But that didn’t last long and VOA became a bedrock of the IRA propaganda (the Obama version of-course).
US army was forcefully present in Persian Gulf ever since the devolution. It was to secure the flow of the oil to the world. This was an effective ‘deterrence’ that IRI has learnt to live with it all these years. It never intended to destabilize the regime and the Islamists understood long time ago that they are not threatened by this presence as long as they stay within Iran borders (and some comparatively insignificant proxy wars). The ‘nuclear’ deal was not under the shadow of ‘imminent’ attack -the regime knew from the beginning that they have to cave-in on this- but under the ‘modalities’ of stabilizing the IRI.
You cannot give a ‘five bullet points’ action instruction for a ‘vision’ that has to be changed. But if they don’t do the following, it’s because they have the wrong vision:
• Funding again the various ONG activists that their funding has been stopped.
• Firing those IRI propagandists hired during Obama administration in VOA, re-hiring journalists like Afshin Nariman, and re-instating prominent ones who give a fair exposure to the opinion of those who are for toppling the regime.
• Firing Obama and his Iran advisors. The first one will happen anyway. But I’m not sure about the second one!
So Benross, as I am reading your reply it is clear to me that we Iranians need a common vocabulary and a structured methodology to at least be able to unite, communicate and achieve shared goals.
In my line of work, strategy consulting, terms such as vision, goal, strategy and task have clear and precise meaning and place. For example:
Our vision is to have a free, democratic, secular and prosperous Iran. I think we can all agree on that.
Our goal is to achieve that vision through the participation of Iranians at home and abroad and the support of the international community. I think we can all agree on that too.
Our strategy is to achieve our goal through free elections, military coup, foreign intervention, etc. There is definitely no agreement on this one.
Our tactics are, based on the chosen strategy is for example to empower our people (your phrase) to do certain things.
Our tasks as dictated by our tactics are to have labor strikes, civil disobedience, work stoppage, etc.
Our monetary support (budget) will come from these sources and distributed in the following manner.
Our timeline is as follows.
So you see, things such as VoA, Afsheen Nariman, etc. become tasks that are driven by an overall strategy. In my question to you, I was hoping to get an outline of a strategy which I didn't.
The people mentioned do not worth 400000 much less 400 mill. I am quite sure the money already has left the country on its way back to London or New York.
And No the alternative is not bombing unless you do strategic bombing and hiting the right places such as (Tavielh majles, jamaran, basij and rev guard base,missile sylos, etc) but that is not going to happen at least not under the community organizer watch.
Best things for countries like Iran are coup. A Coup on Monday, arrest and execution leadership on Tuesday and Wednesday people going back to work.(yea I know I am simplyfying it!) any other method will take a long time, with tens of thousands of casualties, civil war, out of control fiasco to the point of not being able to restore control ever again.
The releasing of hostages in Iran for money or other means is not new. Reagan, still revered by most conservatives, gave mullahs arms in exchange for money for Contras. That still is the most ignominious avatar of the his administration. The details of his bargain as well as the hostage deal during his presidential power transfer went into obscurity forever.
Americans may have given money, but we know the Europeans have released professional Iranian assassins in exchange for their own citizens. For as long as Iranians with dual citizenship travel to Iran and are arrested, someone will bail them out. No government ever rested on its laurel, while its citizens detained in Iran.
In recent years, more Iranian Americans have traveled to Iran, some of whom have been detained for years by the security forces. Propagating a new open Iran under Rouhani, this trend has been encouraged and fostered by few groups such as NIAC, as well as nefarious individuals like Amir Ahmadi, Negahdar, etc.
It is very interesting that most of detainees have been either greenies or NIAC fans. Ayatollahs have pity on one.
This whole episode happened like this.
IR Regime: “We want $10 billion. Not a penny less.”
The Head of the Hague Tribunal: “I may be able to set the claim at $4 billion.”
US: “We will give you $1.7 billion. Take it or leave it.”
IR Regime: “OK, OK, we take it.”
US: “Cash or charge? Paper or plastic?”
IR Regime: “$400 million cash, the rest credit. Wrapped in plastic and on a pallet.”
US: “Good. Now let our people go.”
I can see why some concerned Iranians are worried about these issues, But then, there is Ollie North with his big mouth.
Mehrdad,
It amuses me when I see some "concerned Iranians" are not at all bothered by the fact that the Israeli government swaps 1000's of Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists for the dead body of one of its soldiers, while they are having a fit because Obama paid the Regime in cash vs bank-to-bank money transfer.
At least when the US releases some terrorists from the Guantanamo, they ship them to faraway places like Uruguay, Estonia and Albania. The Israelis ship them right back to their terrorist camps a few miles away.
Faramarz,
Actually, Israel is a very good example. It falls right in my category above. No western culture would let its citizens live their lives under these regimes. The longer they wait, the heftier the price they have to pay. It's because of the nature of the beast on the other side.
I totally agree. They do the right thing to bring their people home, even their dead bodies and we do the right thing to bring our people home when they should not have gone there in the first place.
"US cannot ‘generate’ a popular movement."
Benrose
The above statement contradicting to what user names GR and Sohrab_ Ferdown or other commentators were saying on my blog few days ago.
More the less, they all agreed that Americans teach some course about staging a revolution in third world countries. Furthermore, GR was saying that western powers had propagandas started in mid 70's against shah which leaded to his downfall or BBC radio was the main reason for the revolution in 1979.
All these conspiracy theories come SHORT when we discuss about toppling criminal mullahs from power these days.
The truth is that some Iranians give too much credit to U.S power and it's role in the other countries.
Many Iranians give too much credit to U.S for the event in 1953 , they give too much credit to U.S for the event in 1979 or they may even give too much credit for Green movement in 2009. The fact is U.S is not as powerful as they're thinking. They make it sounds like U.S is able to know any movement around the world and has highest intelligent to what is going on around the world or U.S has some kind of magical power.
The fact is that handful bare feet Arab desert got into the planes and hit the twin towers and other targets in one day and U.S didn't have any clue of what happened on their own soil. How could possibly U.S can play any leading role in other countries.
It was an opportunistic use of money U.S. was going to pay anyway, especially after nuke deal. However, it fits a pattern that is consistent from Bush to Obama. A velvet support for this regime that can only be explained in the context of middle East. Long before this Bush's comments days before s'election drove more people to vote in AN's first round. Prisoner exchange of islamist mercenaries (in Iraq) at the height of 2009 uprising, continuous lip service with absolutely no material action that can be constituted anti-IRI, Nuke deal and now 400 M
Nothing has changed and there is no surprise except this briefly made it to headlines because of Trump
"US cannot ‘generate’ a popular movement."
Benrose
The above statement contradicting to what user names GR and Sohrab_ Ferdown or other commentators were saying on my blog few days ago.
-Siavash
Dear Siavash this statement is meant for the current situation. Nevertheless it doesn't mean that US cannot STOP a popular movement! this is what they are actually doing by widely backing up the so called 'reformist' propaganda of the regime. But it is very good if we do understand that we are on our own to do something about our country. Nobody will do it for us. And we will actually be able to do it once we completely digest this self reliance.
The international support will follow.
"we do understand that we are on our own to do something about our country. Nobody will do it for us. And we will actually be able to do it once we completely digest this self reliance.
The international support will follow."
Benrose
INDEED, that is a fact.
News say Hilary had private email server against law for top secret emails. Her account was same the one we use daily to send emails.
She talks about OUR FRIEND ( The Iranian nuclear scientist ).
Her emails were hacked.
Now scientist murdered by Mullahs.