Payment to Iran wasn’t ransom or coincidence

Regarding the Aug. 24 Los Angeles Times editorial on The Bee’s Opinion page: Payment to Iran wasn’t ransom or coincidence.

It’s interesting that the $400 million payment to Iran was described as “actually part of the settlement of a dispute over a failed arms deal...” What deal, made by President Jimmy Carter with the Shah? Why is there no elaboration of what and when such an arms deal was made?

Any arms deal or any agreements made with the previous Iranian regime were negated when the present regime came into power. The excuse for ransom payments rides on an old, forgotten, nonenforceable agreement?

Let’s be honest about the exchange for the prisoners and why. Agreed, we should do everything possible to get Americans released from Iranian custody. But if subterfuge is being used to justify a payment, questions are raised as to what other “deals” have been made and not fully disclosed?

We are advised the ransom payment may have been a detail included in the agreement placing limitations on Iran’s nuclear program. But, there is no agreement. Only an agreement between two heads of state. This was an agreement never approved by the Iranian Parliament or the U.S. Congress. Only one party acts as if there is an agreement, the Obama Administration.

This story was originally published September 7, 2016 at 3:49 PM with the headline "Payment to Iran wasn’t ransom or coincidence."