As a follow-up to its bombshell that the Obama administration airlifted $400 million in cold, hard cash to Iran — a fancy workaround of Iran’s barriers to using the dollar and other international currencies — comes this from the Wall Street Journal:
Senior Justice Department officials objected to sending a plane loaded with cash to Tehran at the same time that Iran released four imprisoned Americans, but their objections were overruled by the State Department, according to people familiar with the discussions. . . .
The timing and manner of the payment raised alarms at the Justice Department, according to those familiar with the discussions. “People knew what it was going to look like, and there was concern the Iranians probably did consider it a ransom payment,’’ said one of the people.
This is in accord with critics of the deal who asserted this was a ransom arrangement that will induce more hostage-taking. (“[Justice officials’] concerns show that even within the Obama administration there were worries that the pallets of cash could send the wrong signal to Iran—and potentially to others—about U.S. policy when it came to hostages.”) It is even more galling considering the administration provided “intelligence assistance to a U.S. family as it tried to buy the freedom of an American aid worker in Pakistan.” Our policy of not paying ransom to terrorists is now in tatters.
It also suggests that just as the Treasury Department went to bureaucratic war with leaks and objections to the State Department’s insistence on facilitating Iran’s ability to conduct dollar transaction, Justice too was aligned against the constant give-aways the White House and Secretary of State John F. Kerry backed to mollify the nonexistent “moderates” in Iran.
Elliott Abrams, who served in both the National Security Council and the State Department explains, “What we’ve been told is that Justice objected but was overruled by State. That can’t be right: they are two co-equal Cabinet departments.” He continues, “So what happened was that Justice objected and the White House said ‘Shut up.’ Obviously, the professional staff at DOJ, of whom I’d bet 100 percent voted for Obama, were so angry that people began to leak.” He adds, “Of course, discipline always breaks down as an administration ends, but this leak shows how rotten the Obama decision to bribe Iran and ransom hostages truly was. We can only hope that Clinton sees all of this, sees how rotten it looks and decides not to repeat it.”
In any event, the new revelation brought predictable reaction. Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), a staunch critic of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, released a statement: “With the news that the Department of Justice raised alarms about a $400 million cash ransom, the only way this gets worse is if Air Force One made the drop-off. It’s not hard to figure out why the DOJ sounded the alarm because President Obama said it himself: paying ransoms puts American lives at risk and bankrolls terrorism.”
It is hardly news that the State Department is more willing to accede to our foes’ demands for the sake of preserving its “diplomacy” (in this case, a horribly one-sided deal that has now distorted our approach to the region and horrified our allies).
Congress has a responsibility, too. Before the new president and Congress come into office, it is essential to conduct exacting oversight hearings, getting on record the administration’s own objections and extracting explanations from the State Department as to its officials’ rationale and legal basis for the cash-lift to the mullahs. Legislation prohibiting transfers of money to state sponsors of terror or designated terror groups seems the least Congress can do to try to signal an end to the Obama era of appeasement.
Source: Washington Post, 4 Aug. 2016
