Sign in to follow this  
badlatitude

The World's Greatest Negotiator is Going To Bribe Iran With Cash.

Recommended Posts

Trump Flirts With $15 Billion Bailout for Iran, Sources Say

Source: Daily Beast

President Donald Trump has left the impression with foreign officials, members of his administration, and others involved in Iranian negotiations that he is actively considering a French plan to extend a $15 billion credit line to the Iranians if Tehran comes back into compliance with the Obama-era nuclear deal.

Trump has in recent weeks shown openness to entertaining President Emmanuel Macron’s plan, according to four sources with knowledge of Trump’s conversations with the French leader. Two of those sources said that State Department officials, including Secretary Mike Pompeo, are also open to weighing the French proposal, which would effectively ease the economic sanctions regime that the Trump administration has applied on Tehran for more than a year.

The deal put forth by France would compensate Iran for oil sales disrupted by American sanctions. A large portion of Iran’s economy relies on cash from oil sales. Most of that money is frozen in bank accounts across the globe. The $15 billion credit line would be guaranteed by Iranian oil. In exchange for the cash, Iran would have to come back into compliance with the nuclear accord it signed with the world’s major powers in 2015. Tehran would also have to agree not to threaten the security of the Persian Gulf or to impede maritime navigation in the area. Lastly, Tehran would have to commit to regional Middle East talks in the future.

While Trump has been skeptical of helping Iran without preconditions, In public, the president has in public at least hinted at an openness to considering Macron’s pitch for placating the Iranian government—a move intended to help bring the Iranians to the negotiating table and to rescue the nuclear agreement that Trump and his former national security adviser John Bolton worked so hard to torpedo.

Read more: https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-flirts-with-dollar15-billion-bailout-for-iran-sources-say?via=twitter_page

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why am I seeing Trump absorbing some of that cash?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Jules said:

Why am I seeing Trump absorbing some of that cash?

It will be totally win, win everyone is saying so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's French cash, so what?

If he plans to send another couple of plane loads of unmarked bills to circumvent our current banking laws as the last administration did;  I don't think I'd go for it.

What did we get for that BTW?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

If it's French cash, so what?

If he plans to send another couple of plane loads of unmarked bills to circumvent our current banking laws as the last administration did;  I don't think I'd go for it.

What did we get for that BTW?

I thought that money was already theirs.  

Granted, I've got three martinis in me right now and am working on a phone with a 3% charge. 

If I can compete here drunk with a dead phone, I think that says lot. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, benwynn said:

I thought that money was already theirs.  

Granted, I've got three martinis in me right now and am working on a phone with a 3% charge. 

If I can compete here drunk with a dead phone, I think that says lot. 

it was their money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

If he plans to send another couple of plane loads of unmarked bills to circumvent our current banking laws as the last administration did;  I don't think I'd go for it.

What did we get for that BTW?

Well, it appears that you got even more stupid.

After all this time and after having people with actual functioning brains explain it - several times - you still haven't been able to grasp that it was their fucking money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

If it's French cash, so what?

If he plans to send another couple of plane loads of unmarked bills to circumvent our current banking laws as the last administration did;  I don't think I'd go for it.

What did we get for that BTW?

Which then current banking laws did the Kenyan circumvent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Which then current banking laws did the Kenyan circumvent?

Banking while Black

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s working so well for No Korea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 billion to keep the Israelis from attacking Tehran would be money well spent.

The whole policy stinks.  The Iranians were willing to detach their nuclear program from their other shenanigans which was the real achievement of the nuclear deal.  That wasn't a 'win' but it was at least a tiny speed bump. Reverting back to the regime change philosophy was totally Bolton.

Let the French buy the Iranian oil and let Iran get back with the program.  Sometimes, status quo is a win :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

15 billion to keep the Israelis from attacking Tehran would be money well spent.

The whole policy stinks.  The Iranians were willing to detach their nuclear program from their other shenanigans which was the real achievement of the nuclear deal.  That wasn't a 'win' but it was at least a tiny speed bump. Reverting back to the regime change philosophy was totally Bolton.

Let the French buy the Iranian oil and let Iran get back with the program.  Sometimes, status quo is a win :)

 

So my foot up his ass would have been between 15,872 and 17,208 depending on what he had for breakfast.  

I hate where we are at and alone with a neuron would agree.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm ok with spending French money to get Iran back into compliance, and if Trump can spin it as a victory for him and save face, all the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

I'm ok with spending French money to get Iran back into compliance, and if Trump can spin it as a victory for him and save face, all the better.

Trumps just a firefighter who is also the arsonist.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Trumps just a firefighter who is also the arsonist.

That's a real thing. They like the excitement and the flames. It's destruction of property for their pleasure.

An apt description of Trump aided and abetted by the GOP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MakePHRFGreatAgain said:

Is extending a credit line secured by hard assets a 'bribe with cash'? 

No more so than giving them back their own money, which is what the Kenyan Muslim did

I foresaw Trump going back to the Iran deal but not so publicly and not with a bribe, of all things.

It's also easily predictable that you knobs would suck it up

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

No more so than giving them back their own money, which is what the Kenyan Muslim did

I foresaw Trump going back to the Iran deal but not so publicly and not with a bribe, of all things.

It's also easily predictable that you knobs would suck it up

- DSK

Glad you agree 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, MakePHRFGreatAgain said:
23 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

No more so than giving them back their own money, which is what the Kenyan Muslim did

I foresaw Trump going back to the Iran deal but not so publicly and not with a bribe, of all things.

It's also easily predictable that you knobs would suck it up

 

Glad you agree 

Agree with what, that you and Saorsa (and no doubt many others, most of our resident Trumpalos haven't weighed in on this one yet) are knobs for sucking up this pap/propaganda?

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Saorsa said:

If it's French cash, so what?

If he plans to send another couple of plane loads of unmarked bills to circumvent our current banking laws as the last administration did;  I don't think I'd go for it.

What did we get for that BTW?

You know that it was their money, and it was released as a quid pro quo for their complying w/our request to release hostages, don't ya?   The transfer had nothing to do with "circumventing banking laws" - to the contrary, it was delivered in cash expressly because the banking sanctions were and continued to work as intended.   You can argue the point of whether we should or should not have paid Iran to release the hostages, but, that's a separate discussion. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Agree with what, that you and Saorsa (and no doubt many others, most of our resident Trumpalos haven't weighed in on this one yet) are knobs for sucking up this pap/propaganda?

- DSK

I try not to justify the ' right or wrong' actions based on what some Muslim Kenyan did in some other situation.  The default debate tactic for political discussions on sailing websites is two wrongs make a right,  ' 'Yeah, well  (fill in opposition party)  did this last time'. 
Trump fucked up  this agreement reversal for many reasons, not to  mention destroying credibility. The deal should have been left in place and then improved at the right time.  If they cheat there is always the option left to bomb the shit out of them and take their oil, as they say.  So if a negotiation takes place or is taking place, and Iran is de-sanctioned and allowed to freely sell their oil again (which man of our allies dearly want), you can't out of the same side of your mouth restrict them in doing so.  The terms of this deal, which isn't even in place,  are not fully known.  But this Line of Credit seems to be a secured loan made by a syndicate of  countries/banks and is not a 'cash bribe'. So the O.P.'s title of the thread is false and disingenuous and he shouldn't' rely so much on half baked articles in the Daily Beast which rely on reports of Trump 'leaving impressions'.  Trump was openly quoted at the G7 saying 'Iran would probably need a short term loam or letter of credit'. So where is the news here?       

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like I took too much LSD. Trump is a moron supreme, but somewhere in whatever is left of his brain he has got the idea that "War is bad, financial shenanigans are good, and any photo op is great even if it is with the mutant love child of Hitler and Stalin". So in his own weird way he goes and kicks Bolton in the nuts and decides he really actually doesn't have to have a war. This is actually not the worst thing he could do, he might, if he in incredibly lucky, maybe un-fuck the situation to being almost as good as before he screwed it all up in the first place!

edit - The long game with Iran should be harm reduction. Try to have them cause the least problems possible until the old shitheads that run the place die off.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MakePHRFGreatAgain said:

I try not to justify the ' right or wrong' actions based on what some Muslim Kenyan did in some other situation.  The default debate tactic for political discussions on sailing websites is two wrongs make a right,  ' 'Yeah, well  (fill in opposition party)  did this last time'. 
...    ...

No, that's the default debate tactic for Trumpublicans (dang, I miss saying "TeamR!") because it's the best they (you) got.

But appreciate you're trying to be serious, so.....

6 minutes ago, MakePHRFGreatAgain said:

...    ...
Trump fucked up  this agreement reversal for many reasons, not to  mention destroying credibility. The deal should have been left in place and then improved at the right time.  If they cheat there is always the option left to bomb the shit out of them and take their oil, as they say.  So if a negotiation takes place or is taking place, and Iran is de-sanctioned and allowed to freely sell their oil again (which man of our allies dearly want), you can't out of the same side of your mouth restrict them in doing so.  The terms of this deal, which isn't even in place,  are not fully known.  But this Line of Credit seems to be a secured loan made by a syndicate of  countries/banks and is not a 'cash bribe'. So the O.P.'s title of the thread is false and disingenuous and he shouldn't' rely so much on half baked articles in the Daily Beast which rely on reports of Trump 'leaving impressions' .       

Ditching the Iran deal -was- a fuckup, Sec'y of State Tillerson said so at the time. The US does have the unilateral option to bomb suspected nuke sites, although that's really a bad option with no good outcome. That's a past-the-last-resort scenario for any rational policy process.

If Trump is going back to the Iran deal, I would say that's a good example of them doing something right, but only after doing a shitload of things wrong before getting to this point. Will he and his minions recognize that the US is more powerful as leader of a group of like-interest allies than going it alone? Will Trump have a tantrum and reject this approach (again) because he's on Putin's leash and he wants to use the Presidency to make lucrative real-estate deals, like in North Korea?

"Bribe"? Really? You object to using an exaggeration to define a political action? OK, let's check back with you after the next Fox'n Friends broadcast...

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

No, that's the default debate tactic for Trumpublicans (dang, I miss saying "TeamR!") because it's the best they (you) got.

But appreciate you're trying to be serious, so.....

Ditching the Iran deal -was- a fuckup, Sec'y of State Tillerson said so at the time. The US does have the unilateral option to bomb suspected nuke sites, although that's really a bad option with no good outcome. That's a past-the-last-resort scenario for any rational policy process.

If Trump is going back to the Iran deal, I would say that's a good example of them doing something right, but only after doing a shitload of things wrong before getting to this point. Will he and his minions recognize that the US is more powerful as leader of a group of like-interest allies than going it alone? Will Trump have a tantrum and reject this approach (again) because he's on Putin's leash and he wants to use the Presidency to make lucrative real-estate deals, like in North Korea?

"Bribe"? Really? You object to using an exaggeration to define a political action? OK, let's check back with you after the next Fox'n Friends broadcast...

- DSK

It’s a French plan. They are HEAVILY invested in Iran.  BNP, Total. they would not like to see all that  get fucked.  $15B LOC is lunch money in this. Less than 2 months worth of oil exports   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You know that it was their money, and it was released as a quid pro quo for their complying w/our request to release hostages, don't ya?   The transfer had nothing to do with "circumventing banking laws" - to the contrary, it was delivered in cash expressly because the banking sanctions were and continued to work as intended.   You can argue the point of whether we should or should not have paid Iran to release the hostages, but, that's a separate discussion. 

I t seemed there was a lot of maneuvering to avoid laws and regulations.  For example, paying out a sum in excess of ten million from the litigation fund so, a lot of 10 million charges were made to avoid congressional oversight.  Also, the Iranian funds were frozen, not confiscated.  Ultimately, those funds were converted to cash and paid to the Iranians by a country not subject to the sanctions and embargo.

All of those funds were subject to plenty of ligitation and tribunals most of which had not yet been resolved in their respective jurisdictions.

OK, I suppose technically there may not have been a specific banking law invoked but it looks like something that should be covered by R.I.C.O. and money laundering statutes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Saorsa said:

I t seemed there was a lot of maneuvering to avoid laws and regulations.  For example, paying out a sum in excess of ten million from the litigation fund so, a lot of 10 million charges were made to avoid congressional oversight.  Also, the Iranian funds were frozen, not confiscated.  Ultimately, those funds were converted to cash and paid to the Iranians by a country not subject to the sanctions and embargo.

 All of those funds were subject to plenty of ligitation and tribunals most of which had not yet been resolved in their respective jurisdictions.

OK, I suppose technically there may not have been a specific banking law invoked but it looks like something that should be covered by R.I.C.O. and money laundering statutes.

I don't mean to be argumentative, but, I'm not seeing that in the same light.  Can you help me understand why you think that the constraints you mentioned applied and were violated? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

OK, I suppose technically there may not have been a specific banking law invoked but it looks like something that should be covered by R.I.C.O. and money laundering statutes.

RICO? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of this matters, Trump has the attention span of a gnat on meth so this may well all change by Monday. Or Hannity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2019 at 2:17 PM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I don't mean to be argumentative, but, I'm not seeing that in the same light.  Can you help me understand why you think that the constraints you mentioned applied and were violated? 

To begin with, the funds were frozen in 1979 and over the decades used to settle any number of suits brought against the Iranian government.

They were called the Iran FMS (Foreign Military Sales) accounts.  Over the decades those funds were allocated and spent under various presidential , congressional and court actions.  There is 40 years of activity there that was set aside and handed over to free hostages (purely coincidence that they weren't released until the second plane showed up).  I will not rehash it here.

The original 400 million was long gone.

image.thumb.png.3e13f0cf24b9c8f43e5baf4c03224f34.png

image.thumb.png.30b43514bca91d22ec02d8facbd47f71.png

The relevant section of the cited act is

(Sec. 2002) Provides for the payment by the Secretary of the Treasury of certain anti-terrorism judgments, including with respect to claims against Iran or Cuba. Expresses the sense of Congress that the President should not normalize U.S. relations with Iran until the claims subrogated have been dealt with to the satisfaction of the United States. Reaffirms the President's statutory authority to manage and vest foreign assets located in the United States for purposes of assisting and making payments to victims of terrorism. Amends the Federal judicial code to authorize the President to waive certain provisions regarding exceptions to immunity from attachment or execution relating to a claim in the interest of national security.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this