Alex Denethorn
, British, but heavily interested in US Politics
Answered May 27, 2018 · Upvoted by
Colin Riegels
, BCL Law, University of Oxford (1997) · Author has 4.2K answers and 18.8M answer views
It’s fairly simple, really:
• The money in question actually belonged to Iran in the first place, and existed as assets frozen by the United States as part of their sanctions against Iran.
• This includes money taken following the Iranian Revolution of 1979, as well as a far more significant amount that was frozen as a result of the sanctions on oil sales: although the oil had been sold, the money from those sales could not be transferred back to Iran due to US sanctions.
• In order to encourage Iran to participate in the JCPOA deal, Obama agreed that the US would release some Iranian assets, as well as allow US companies to engage in trade with Iran: a significant financial gain to a country in severe economic crisis. It was the ‘carrot’ that encouraged Iran to come to the table and stay there: to honour the agreement between themselves, the US, the UK, Germany, China and Russia.
• It’s worth bearing in mind that such funds are usually frozen via Executive Order: Jimmy Carter froze Iranian assets in 1979 via Executive Order 12170. As such, an executive (i.e. the President of the United States) can repeal, reverse or ignore such orders, as Obama did in releasing Iranian assets.
• Up until Trump arrived on the scene, Iran had been acting in good faith with regards to the JCPOA deal, and the idea of freezing further assets was not raised as a consideration.
Anyway, the money did not belong to the United States in the first place: it had always belonged to the Iranians, but was being held by the US and not released to Iran, primarily so it might be used as diplomatic leverage - precisely how Obama did use it.
Connect With Us