Obama Administration Secretly Helped Iran Skirt Financial Sanctions

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

The Obama administration helped Iran utilize sanctioned oil revenue stranded in a foreign bank account in 2016 while actively misleading Congress about the cooperation, according to the results of a Republican led Senate investigation released Wednesday night.

 

 

After signing the 2015 nuclear deal, which unfroze Iran’s U.S. accounts in exchange for the regime’s non-proliferation pledge, the Obama administration publicly maintained that all non-nuclear sanctions barring Iran from operating within the U.S. financial system would remain in place.

 

 

“Senior U.S. government officials repeatedly testified to Congress that Iranian access to the U.S. financial system was not on the table or part of any deal,” congressional investigators wrote in the report.

Despite this pledge to the public and Congress, in February 2016 the administration assisted Tehran in recovering $5.7 billionheld in the Bank Muscat in the Persian Gulf state of Oman, according to the report, compiled by the Senate’s permanent subcommittee on investigations. And, according to the report, administration officials continued to misled Congress after the license was issued

 

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/obama-administration-secretly-helped-iran-skirt-financial-sanctions/

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

3 hours ago, IDWAF said:

The Obama administration helped Iran utilize sanctioned oil revenue stranded in a foreign bank account in 2016 while actively misleading Congress about the cooperation, according to the results of a Republican led Senate investigation released Wednesday night.

 

 

After signing the 2015 nuclear deal, which unfroze Iran’s U.S. accounts in exchange for the regime’s non-proliferation pledge, the Obama administration publicly maintained that all non-nuclear sanctions barring Iran from operating within the U.S. financial system would remain in place.

 

 

“Senior U.S. government officials repeatedly testified to Congress that Iranian access to the U.S. financial system was not on the table or part of any deal,” congressional investigators wrote in the report.

Despite this pledge to the public and Congress, in February 2016 the administration assisted Tehran in recovering $5.7 billionheld in the Bank Muscat in the Persian Gulf state of Oman, according to the report, compiled by the Senate’s permanent subcommittee on investigations. And, according to the report, administration officials continued to misled Congress after the license was issued

 

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/obama-administration-secretly-helped-iran-skirt-financial-sanctions/

When are him and she who we dare not mention gonna be held accountable 

[bcking 3,157]

In what way did they have "access to the US financial system"?

 

They offered a means to convert their assets (That at the time were banked in Rials) into US dollars using a US bank. US banks contacted declined, so they ended up using European banks and converted them into Euros.

 

They never had "access" to any part of the US financial system. From the articles I just read, it seems like they never even ended up using the "license" that was granted to convert the money since the banks they sought support with declined. Even if they had accepted, it would have been a one time license to convert money. It wasn't any "relationship" with a US bank or the US financial system. It was a one way trip for Rials. 

 

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/6/17433770/obama-iran-senate-ap-sanctions-republicans

 

"He continued, “What is being reported appears to be a limited authorization that would have allowed a one-time conversion of specific Iranian reserves held abroad, not something that allowed them to continue accessing the US financial system on a going-forward basis.” Kane also noted that Treasury can issue licenses based on America’s changing foreign policy needs.

 

Another "hoopla" over nothing, courtesy of our friendly "completely not biased" Senate Republicans

 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

5 minutes ago, bcking said:

In what way did they have "access to the US financial system"?

 

They offered a means to convert their assets (That at the time were banked in Rials) into US dollars using a US bank. US banks contacted declined, so they ended up using European banks and converted them into Euros.

 

They never had "access" to any part of the US financial system. From the articles I just read, it seems like they never even ended up using the "license" that was granted to convert the money since the banks they sought support with declined. Even if they had accepted, it would have been a one time license to convert money. It wasn't any "relationship" with a US bank or the US financial system. It was a one way trip for Rials. 

 

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/6/17433770/obama-iran-senate-ap-sanctions-republicans

 

"He continued, “What is being reported appears to be a limited authorization that would have allowed a one-time conversion of specific Iranian reserves held abroad, not something that allowed them to continue accessing the US financial system on a going-forward basis.” Kane also noted that Treasury can issue licenses based on America’s changing foreign policy needs.

 

Another "hoopla" over nothing, courtesy of our friendly "completely not biased" Senate Republicans

 

So if you only commit a crime once is it still a crime.

[Boiler 43,425]

3 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

So if you only commit a crime once is it still a crime.

What European Bank does not have US ties?

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

20 minutes ago, bcking said:

In what way did they have "access to the US financial system"?

 

They offered a means to convert their assets (That at the time were banked in Rials) into US dollars using a US bank. US banks contacted declined, so they ended up using European banks and converted them into Euros.

 

They never had "access" to any part of the US financial system. From the articles I just read, it seems like they never even ended up using the "license" that was granted to convert the money since the banks they sought support with declined. Even if they had accepted, it would have been a one time license to convert money. It wasn't any "relationship" with a US bank or the US financial system. It was a one way trip for Rials. 

 

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/6/17433770/obama-iran-senate-ap-sanctions-republicans

 

"He continued, “What is being reported appears to be a limited authorization that would have allowed a one-time conversion of specific Iranian reserves held abroad, not something that allowed them to continue accessing the US financial system on a going-forward basis.” Kane also noted that Treasury can issue licenses based on America’s changing foreign policy needs.

 

Another "hoopla" over nothing, courtesy of our friendly "completely not biased" Senate Republicans

 

I keep reading the original post to see where it says Obama gave Iran access to our banks. What is said was "Obama Administration Secretly Helped Iran Skirt Financial Sanctions"

Which is 100 accurate 

 

 

 

[bcking 3,157]

9 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

I keep reading the original post to see where it says Obama gave Iran access to our banks. What is said was "Obama Administration Secretly Helped Iran Skirt Financial Sanctions"

Which is 100 accurate 

 

 

 

The financial systems sanctions involve not allowing them access to our financial systems. A one time license JUST to transfer money THROUGH US dollars (but not remaining in US dollars) wouldn't count, for me, as giving them "access to our financial systems".

 

Not to mention it's my understanding that they didn't actually use the one time license...since they couldn't find a US Bank to help transfer the money.

 

 

[bcking 3,157]

If someone welcomes me into their house one time on a supervised guided tour, I wouldn't claim to have "access to their home".

 

I got inside once, with supervision.

[bcking 3,157]

The metaphor can be even more specific - 

If's like someone welcoming me into their house one time on a supervised visit to a single toilet, used once, and then led out the front door, never to return to their home again".

 

That doesn't mean I have access to their house. They let me in once to pee. 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

48 minutes ago, bcking said:

The metaphor can be even more specific - 

If's like someone welcoming me into their house one time on a supervised visit to a single toilet, used once, and then led out the front door, never to return to their home again".

 

That doesn't mean I have access to their house. They let me in once to pee. 

Add you agree the OP article never said they had access to our systems? Cool 

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Add you agree the OP article never said they had access to our systems? Cool 

Ya absolutely. When I replied I was actually thinking about a fox article that had popped up on my phone like 30 minutes earlier.

 

 https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/06/obama-administration-allegedly-gave-iran-access-to-us-financial-system.amp.html

 

I admit I was mostly responding to that. Apologies. I believe the sanctions specifically being skirted in this situation would be the blocks to our financial statement, which I'd still argue they didn't necessarily violate. They offered to hold them by the hand and lead them through one specific transaction. 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Hmm makes Iran Contra look like reindeer games 

[bcking 3,157]

18 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Hmm makes Iran Contra look like reindeer games 

I care slightly more about our government selling weapons than I do allowing a one time financial transaction to convert money.

Edited June 6, 2018 by bcking

[Boiler 43,425]

4 hours ago, bcking said:

I care slightly more about our government selling weapons than I do allowing a one time financial transaction to convert money.

Obama certainly did do that.

[Dashinka 23,234]

14 hours ago, bcking said:

The financial systems sanctions involve not allowing them access to our financial systems. A one time license JUST to transfer money THROUGH US dollars (but not remaining in US dollars) wouldn't count, for me, as giving them "access to our financial systems".

 

Not to mention it's my understanding that they didn't actually use the one time license...since they couldn't find a US Bank to help transfer the money.

 

 

It doesn't?  It seems that Iran needed access to the US banks even if only for one time to convert their money.  However, I believe the bigger issue is the previous administration lying to congress.  I guess that is OK for some.