Did you even read the article? It was Irans money in the first place, paid to the US for military hardware it never delivered, plus interest. Do you believe that Iran getting access to their own money is them being paid? Do you understand what these words mean? Or would you say that moving money between your own accounts paying yourself?

>The $400 million was Iran’s to start with, placed into a US-based trust fund to support American military equipment purchases in the 1970s. When the Shah was ousted by a 1979 popular uprising that led to the creation of the Islamic Republic, the US froze the trust fund. Iran has been fighting for a return of the funds through international courts since 1981.

>Are you able to state a truthful point at all?

Seems like a firm no on this one. All you have done is spout right wing talking points that are not based in reality and are even dismantled by the very article you sent but didn't read past the headline. Perhaps take a step back and consider what you are doing and if you are living in reality or not.

▲

tristanj a day ago | parent [-]

That $400M had been frozen and disputed since 1981. It's zero coincidence Obama settled it the same day American prisoners were released and the deal took effect.

But the rest of your argument doesn't hold up. The $100-150 billion in assets returned to Iran dwarfs everything else. Iran received an enormous amount of money contingent on nuclear compliance, which incentivizes every other country to start a nuclear program for future leverage. With JCPOA, Iran literally got paid for having a nuclear weapons program.

You still haven't addressed the JCPOA missile and drone issue. Seems like you're avoiding it. JCPOA had zero restrictions on missiles or drones. Iran used the tens of billions it received from the deal to build its Shahed drone fleet and tens of thousands of missiles specifically designed to overwhelm air defenses. Plus, the 15-year sunset clause on enrichment guaranteed the nuclear problem would return anyway. The 2026 war is the direct result of this failed deal.

▲

Hikikomori a day ago | parent [-]

Disputed? Its pretty clear that US took the money and didn't deliver goods.

The rest is Irans own money sitting in Irans own accounts that sanctions prohibited them from moving or using. Is your reasoning that the US paid Iran with Irans own money because they didn't decide to steal their money? You realize how insane this makes you look?

The deal was a first step in normalizing diplomatic relations with Iran, it wasn't perfect but its a good first step, and as US intelligence testified to congress, they were not working on a nuclear bomb. Or do you disagree with them? The war is a direct result of Trump/Israel starting the war after exiting the deal and ending diplomatic relationships. You see how its a situation entirely created by them?

I don't care about missiles or whatever else you bring up. If it wasn't nuclear programs, building missiles, you and Netanyahu would move the goalpost to something else.

▲

tristanj a day ago | parent | next [-]

So you "don't care about missiles." Convenient, because that's the entire argument you've been avoiding this whole time. JCPOA paused enrichment for 15 years and did nothing about the missiles and drones, the exact weapons hitting the every Gulf country, and the second I bring it up you just announce you don't care. And no, that's not a goalpost move, I raised missiles in my very first comment. You're the one who decided the strongest point against you isn't worth answering.

The money thing you keep circling back to doesn't matter either way. Whether it was technically Iran's own frozen assets or not, JCPOA gave Iran tens of billions dollars in liquidity, all of it tied to the JCPOA deal, and this money is what literally paid for the Shahed fleet and the missile stockpiles. JCPOA is how Iran paid for the tens of thousands of Iranian drones, and thousands of missiles. Money is fungible, the IRGC doesn't care where that money came from. It only matters to Iran that it received the money.

And "intelligence said they were complying" proves nothing. Complying with what? Enrichment limits that expire in 2030 and a stupid deal that never even mentioned drones or missiles.

	▲	Hikikomori a day ago \| parent [-]
		You mean responding to your point about ICBMs that was obviously wrong? If I were to provide a reasonable argument for you it would be that Iran would have received their money and refused additional diplomatic relations and negotiations and then when the prohibitions expired continued to work on a nuclear bomb. The goalpost was already moved long ago as they moved on to missiles after enrichment was stopped. If it had included missiles they would move on to something else. But we'll never know because Trump sabotaged the agreement and torched any potential future diplomatic solution, engineering the situation where war seems reasonable to people like you. And its not like Iran wouldn't want to continue selling their oil or continue trading globally. I keep "circling back" to the money as you keep spouting nonsense about it. Is your argument really that because the US didn't steal their money they "paid" it to Iran? Or would you like to explain yourself? Or are you just misunderstanding what the word paid means? Its irrelevant that US intelligence agencies said they were complying with JCPOA that could have been extended? Who should we listen to, Netanyahu? Who has been screeching about Iran having a nuke by next week for 4 decades.

▲

spiderfarmer a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Thanks for being a voice of reason. It's pretty clear the person you're responding is repeating talking points they only support because their cult demands that of them.