The House on Thursday passed a bill that would force the president to permanently freeze $6 billion in Iranian funds that were briefly made available to Tehran as part of a prisoner swap deal.
Under the deal, the US and Iran exchanged prisoners, and the US allowed the transfer of the $6 billion from South Korea to Qatar, where Iran would receive access to the money. But shortly after the October 7 Hamas attack on southern Israel, the Biden administration decided to go back on the deal and cut off Iran’s access to the money.
The administration made the move due to pressure from Congress over claims that Iran was involved in the October 7 attack, even though there’s no indication it was. US intelligence determined Tehran was surprised by the Hamas assault, and Israel said it had no evidence of Iranian involvement.
The bill passed by the House on Thursday would make the administration’s move to freeze the Iranian funds permanent by requiring sanctions on any foreign entity that moves to make them available for Iran.
The legislation passed in a vote of 307-119 with 118 Democrats and one Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) opposing the bill.
“There’s no legal or moral authority for us to freeze or steal assets of other countries we are not at war with,” Massie wrote on X. “It’s also shortsighted for us to use our super-power status to force foreign banks to freeze assets of sovereign countries.”
Democrats defended President Biden’s diplomatic maneuvering that led to the deal and got five Americans out of prison. Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) argued going back on the agreement would hurt US credibility.
The $6 billion was frozen in South Korea due to US sanctions on Iran that were re-imposed after the Trump administration unilaterally withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal, known as the JCPOA, in 2018.
The U.S. is hopelessly corrupt. Easy to tell when they are lying … just see if they are talking or writing!!!!!
When Mr. Biden squints at his teleprompter, you just know he will vomit nonsensical word salad.
You might be right. But note that ALL Democrats opposed this bill.
No, not all the Democrats voted nay. But 117 of them and only one Republican.
De-dollarization will accelerate as a result of this action. The War Party only isolating our country
Next on the agenda: Israel will use tactical nukes on Iran, a country with no program to make its own nuclear bomb. We, the “indispensable nation”, will will allow it to happen, just as we are allowing the Zionists in Israel ethnically cleanse Gaza and the West Bank. I love my country (America), because, of course, I was born here. I do not like it.
“There’s no legal or moral authority for us to freeze or steal assets of other countries we are not at war with,” Massie. Agree with the legal part, but as to “moral authority,” my toilet is full of it right now. How much do we need?
Does it ever occur to these idiots that countries aren’t going to keep any foreign reserves in Western banks? If Uncle Scam decides to confiscate anything it’s gone.
Then again, the DC establishment doesn’t have any problem robbing the American people via taxes and inflation for endless wars and other odious endeavours.
The Saudis and others have been taking notes since the confiscation of Russian reserves last year … the $ will feel it one of these days. This is how empires end.
2022: China’s USA dollar reserves stood at $3.120 trillion.
As always the US honors its promises.
This money belongs to Iran, we should not be in the business of confiscating assets of people, or countries we do not like. Our Government illegally confiscates assets of Americans, so those of you who think it is OK to do it to Iran, your turn will come. Our rights are slowing being taken away, from peaceful protest to free speech and it is happening, because we allowed our Government to suppress the RIGHTS of others around the world for decades.
Well, the money belonged to the previous Iranian regime.
Question: If the Weather Underground reorganizes tomorrow, gains popular support, overthrows the US regime, and sets itself up in charge of the US with a new system of government, are foreign creditor governments and banks obligated to pay debts that were owed to the former regime to the new regime, or give the former regime’s deposits to the new regime?
Historically, on the basis of very light reading, the answer to that question seems to depend on whether other regimes recognize the new regime and set up relations with it.
“Well, the money belonged to the previous Iranian regime.”
No. The money in question was in South Korean accounts set up to pay for Iranian oil while SK had a temporary waiver of US sanctions. It was left over when the waiver expired.
Sounds like South Korea can solve the problem, then.
Nope. The funds were transferred from (US vassal) South Korea to (US semi-vassal) Qatar in mid-September.
Then it’s a problem for Qatar?
Everyone who follows these things knows that the problem is that the US bullies the world to join in its bullying of selected victims. You know it also.
South Korea cannot do anything about it. The money is no longer in South Korean banks. South Korea is no longer involved.
There is no gray area in my mind. It’s not our money. It never was our money.
I am not aware of any international law or agreement that legitimizes the taking of this money.
Well, that’s the thing:
SOMEONE is going to take it. The three candidates in the case of Iran would seem to be:
1) The estate or residual regime-in-exile of the Shah;
2) The regime that overthrew the Shah; or
3) the US regime.
Do you have some particular preference as to which of those parties should have control of the funds. If so, why?
2. Because of the people in Iran.
What makes you think that either the old regime or the new regime are legitimate agents of “the people in Iran?”
Nietzsche: “Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.”
The Shah stole the money from the people of Iran.
The new regime doesn’t propose to give it back to the people of Iran.
The choice is between three thieves.
I personally FAVOR the US regime giving the new Iranian regime the money that the old Iranian regime stole, since it can’t give the money back to “the people of Iran” and since states getting along to some reasonable degree seems like a better outcome than states not getting along up to and including the level of military belligerence.
But it’s not obvious that Thief #3 owes the money that Thief #1 stole to Thief #2.
The reality-denying fantasies of anti-government libertarianism are really silly.
So are the reality-denying fantasies of statists.
I never said they were, but it is always ordinary people who suffer from sanctions and freezes.
What makes you think that either the Democratic or the Republican parties are legitimate agents of the citizens of the U.S.?
I don’t think that. Why on earth would you think that I think that?
The point I’m making is that it isn’t ours. For all I care, we spend it on a potters field.
Yes, I much prefer Number Two. They are the internationally recognized, including by the UN, government of Iran. They are also the government that authorized and enabled the transactions that the money in question was intended to pay for.
You gotta problem with that?
# 3 has no business holding or taking the money. It is in violation of the 4th and 5th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
The 4th Amendment specifies a right “of the people.” For what that means, see Rehnquist’s opinion in US v. Verdugo-Urquidez.
The Fifth Amendment prohibits the taking of “private property,” which government assets most manifestly are not.
What else you got?
Of “persons”. That is why sanctions and the taking of property of “persons”, of which the Iranian money belongs to , is illegal. Under the Constitution the only time where it may be justified is if we were at war (a declared war, as voted by Congress), which we are not with Iran. Our use of sanctions is just part of the tactics that tramples the Constitution. And why do you use the opinion of the pole watching, racist Rehnquist.
It is not up to the thief to decide which of the victims is the most worthy of restitution.
This money from the sales of Iranian oil in recent years to south Korea with approval from the Trump’s administration:
“ Under the terms of the prisoner deal last month, the money was transferred from South Korean banks, where it accumulated as Seoul purchased Iranian oil under an agreement with the Trump administration “
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/12/world/middleeast/us-qatar-iran-prisoner-deal.html
Sounds like South Korea and Qatar need to stop letting the US order them around.
That is funny, right there…………..
1. I don’t know about Rep. Massie’s social or domestic policies, but lately he’s a shining star in the foreign policy department.
2. BRICS and associates – how soon can all-y’all have a common currency in circulation ? I will no longer buy US Dollars to travel with (am Canadian and it’s often a thing we do) and would LOVE to support yours.
Sorry, the president already did that by going back on his own agreement. He could have easily claimed after Oct 7 that we had a deal and for the credibility of the US in future deals we have to live up to it, but instead he folded like a wet napkin.
The U.S. State Department has said that Iran provides up to $100 million annually in support to Palestinian groups including Hamas
Qatar has been providing aid to Gaza since 2012. According to the Associated Press, Qatar has provided a total of $1.3 billion
So, that’s around $1.1 billion from Iran and $1.3 billion from Qatar. One is a sworn enemy, and the other is a “major non-NATO ally” that hosts US troops.
Thievery. A violation of the 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution.
Why is it, I sense this is Israel’s bs?….
False statement! Iran had full access to its money from Day One…!
1796: President George Washington in his farewell address: counseled the new nation that in shaping its international relations, it should abjure any “passionate attachment” to, or “inveterate hatred” of, any other nation. Insteads, it should “cultivate peace and harmony with all. ” (The Passionate Attachment, George W. Ball and Douglas B. Ball, W W Norton & Company)
Well, they need money. With government running on month-to-month budget, it may be tempting to have a slush fund.
The yank stealing other countries money / , well i never lol.