• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Iran Official Claims U.S. Republicans Asked to Delay Prisoner Release Until After Presidential Election

 
 
 
Nice Squirrel

Nice Squirrel

Contributor
Joined
Jun 15, 2004
Messages
6,083
Location
Minnesota
Basic Beliefs
Only the Nice Squirrel can save us.
http://gawker.com/iran-official-claims-u-s-republicans-asked-to-delay-pr-1758491133

Iran Official Claims U.S. Republicans Asked to Delay Prisoner Release Until After Presidential Election

“In the course of the talks for exchanging prisoners, the Republican rivals of the current US administration who claim to be humanitarians and advocates of human rights sent a message telling us not to release these people (American prisoners) and continue this process (of talks) until the eve of US presidential elections...However, we acted upon our independent resolve and moved the process forward.” Shamkhani said at a rally yesterday, according to the Tasnim News Agency, a firmly pro-regime organization.
Click to expand...
 
Definitely a grain of salt here. A lie or the truth, pretty much equal in chances. But who would have the clout to demand such a thing and not be laughed at?
 
The EVE of the election? That doesn't sound right. Too late to do much to voters one way or another.

Either tie it to one of the televised debates, for maximum impact ("i can tell you, the Iranian's will be watching tonight, and i promise you and them that I shall...")

or wait until after the election so the Repubs can get the maximum credit. The eve doesn't really make sense.
 
Horatio Parker said:
Why should the Iranians do that? What was in it for them?
Click to expand...

If the Iranians thought the GOP (or perhaps whichever GOP candidate the gobetweens appeated to be linked to) had a good chance of winning in November, they might get a cake and some F-14 parts by cooperating...
 
jonatha said:
Horatio Parker said:
Why should the Iranians do that? What was in it for them?
Click to expand...

If the Iranians thought the GOP (or perhaps whichever GOP candidate the gobetweens appeated to be linked to) had a good chance of winning in November, they might get a cake and some F-14 parts by cooperating...
Click to expand...

"Might"? Who'd accept a deal like that?

Now Reagan knew how to get things done. He sold arms for hostages, like a red blooded capitalist.

No wonder the GOP has lost its way.
 
Keith&Co. said:
The EVE of the election? That doesn't sound right. Too late to do much to voters one way or another.
Click to expand...
Too late? It'd be a flat out win for the Democrats. It really doesn't make sense from a Republican perspective.
 
Horatio Parker said:
jonatha said:
If the Iranians thought the GOP (or perhaps whichever GOP candidate the gobetweens appeated to be linked to) had a good chance of winning in November, they might get a cake and some F-14 parts by cooperating...
Click to expand...

"Might"? Who'd accept a deal like that?

Now Reagan knew how to get things done. He sold arms for hostages, like a red blooded capitalist.

No wonder the GOP has lost its way.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure there was a cake involved in 1980...
 
Anyone remember that Iran released the US hostages right after President Carter lost his re-election bid? That could not have been a coincidence.
 
laughing dog said:
Anyone remember that Iran released the US hostages right after President Carter lost his re-election bid? That could not have been a coincidence.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's obviously what this rumour is alluding to, whether it's true or not.

But the situation is different. This time, there was an actual negotiation for a prisoner exchange. Back then, Iran was just holding hostages but had no realistic demands. They couldn't let them go without losing face, they couldn't swap them for their own prisoners because there were none, and they couldn't keep them indefinitely because that would just invite endless wrath from America. Their out was to wait until after the election to score points against America and appear not giving in to Carter's demands. There are some rumours that maybe Reagan campaign communicated their preferences to Iran, but even if it didn't, the revolutionaries didn't really have any other realistic options that wouldn't make them look weak.
 
Nice Squirrel said:
http://gawker.com/iran-official-claims-u-s-republicans-asked-to-delay-pr-1758491133

Iran Official Claims U.S. Republicans Asked to Delay Prisoner Release Until After Presidential Election

“In the course of the talks for exchanging prisoners, the Republican rivals of the current US administration who claim to be humanitarians and advocates of human rights sent a message telling us not to release these people (American prisoners) and continue this process (of talks) until the eve of US presidential elections...However, we acted upon our independent resolve and moved the process forward.” Shamkhani said at a rally yesterday, according to the Tasnim News Agency, a firmly pro-regime organization.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

We need Congressional hearings. Thorough and without end. America deserves the facts and the truth. Who messaged this to the Iranians? Who knew this was being done?
 
http://www.christianpost.com/news/p...ns-stall-release-until-2016-elections-157430/

A top Iranian official claims that Republican members of Congress directly asked the Iranian administration to hold off on releasing Pastor Saeed Abedini and three other American hostages until the eve of the 2016 elections.
"In the course of the talks for exchanging prisoners, the Republican rivals of the current U.S. administration who claim to be humanitarians and advocates of human rights sent a message telling us not to release these people (American prisoners) and continue this process (of talks) until the eve of U.S. presidential elections," said Ali Shamkhani, Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, according to Tasnim News Agency, a privately owned news agency whose stated aim is "defending the Islamic Revolution against negative media propaganda."

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/p...il-2016-elections-157430/#39O4yAS0JSJRaSh2.99


Christian Post seems to be one of the sources for this claim.

CP is a newspaper based in Washington D.C.
 
Cheerful Charlie said:
Nice Squirrel said:
http://gawker.com/iran-official-claims-u-s-republicans-asked-to-delay-pr-1758491133

Iran Official Claims U.S. Republicans Asked to Delay Prisoner Release Until After Presidential Election
Click to expand...

We need Congressional hearings. Thorough and without end. America deserves the facts and the truth. Who messaged this to the Iranians? Who knew this was being done?
Click to expand...
There can be only one devil who is responsible:


hillary-clinton-devil-33962.jpg
 
Jayjay said:
laughing dog said:
Anyone remember that Iran released the US hostages right after President Carter lost his re-election bid? That could not have been a coincidence.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's obviously what this rumour is alluding to, whether it's true or not.

But the situation is different. This time, there was an actual negotiation for a prisoner exchange. Back then, Iran was just holding hostages but had no realistic demands. They couldn't let them go without losing face, they couldn't swap them for their own prisoners because there were none, and they couldn't keep them indefinitely because that would just invite endless wrath from America. Their out was to wait until after the election to score points against America and appear not giving in to Carter's demands. There are some rumours that maybe Reagan campaign communicated their preferences to Iran, but even if it didn't, the revolutionaries didn't really have any other realistic options that wouldn't make them look weak.
Click to expand...

Actually their big demand was that the Shah be returned to Iran to stand trial for his crimes.
 
Jayjay said:
laughing dog said:
Anyone remember that Iran released the US hostages right after President Carter lost his re-election bid? That could not have been a coincidence.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's obviously what this rumour is alluding to, whether it's true or not.

But the situation is different. This time, there was an actual negotiation for a prisoner exchange. Back then, Iran was just holding hostages but had no realistic demands. They couldn't let them go without losing face, they couldn't swap them for their own prisoners because there were none, and they couldn't keep them indefinitely because that would just invite endless wrath from America. Their out was to wait until after the election to score points against America and appear not giving in to Carter's demands. There are some rumours that maybe Reagan campaign communicated their preferences to Iran, but even if it didn't, the revolutionaries didn't really have any other realistic options that wouldn't make them look weak.
Click to expand...
Releasing them made them look weak, regardless when they did it. So your argument is not terribly convincing. Keeping the hostages hostage embarrassed Carter and helped Reagan, and the Iranians knew it.

I don't know if this current report is true or not. If it is, whoever approached the Iranians is an idiot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom