Early in August it was revealed that the U.S. secretly airlifted $400 million dollars to Iran on the same day that it released four of its U.S. hostages, back in January. As soon as the highly-suspicious details came out, conservatives noted the exchange certainly looked like a ransom payment. Donald Trump thought the same thing and called it that at a rally on August 21:
“Iran, the world's top state sponsor of terrorism, has been put on the path to nuclear weapons, was given $400 million in ransom payment cash, where they just yesterday caught Obama in yet another lie."
For that plainly obvious observation, Politifact, the liberal fact-checker which conveniently ignores liberal lies, yesterday rated this statement as “Mostly False.”
In Politfact's article, they peddle the same story told by President Obama at a press conference August 4, claiming this secret exchange was actually money owed from an agreement with Iran made back in 1979, and had nothing to do with the hostages released the same day.
Just a week ago, the Wall Street Journal broke the news that the the $400 million dollar payment was actually contingent on Iran releasing the hostages. In a bind, State Department spokesperson John Kirby admitted the payment was “leverage” for the hostages, stopping short of calling it “ransom.”
Even with these new details, that didn’t stop Politifact from repeating the Obama Admin’s spin from three weeks ago. Despite the fact that the money was secretly airlifted in the dead of night, filled with non-U.S. currency and the hostages wouldn’t be released until the money was given. But okay, not ransom?
Not to be outdone, several media outlets tried to fact-check Trump’s statement before even Politifact did.
Allen S. Weiner and Duncan Pickard of the Washington Post called it “American diplomacy at its finest,” glowingly praising President Obama as pulling off a “masterful feat of American diplomacy” and “peaceful resolution” to an agreement from over 3 decades ago. The New York Times’ editorial board was more blunt, calling it “The Fake $400 Million Iran ‘Ransom’ Story,” also brushing off the shadiness of the payment exchange, calling it “remarkable,” and “pragmatic diplomacy.”
Vox’s Zach Beauchamp similarly scoffed at Trump’s statement, saying Obama’s critics were “wrong”and “Once you understand these facts,” of the 1979 agreement, you’ll come around to deny that it was a “ransom.”
Ironically, all of these outraged, patronizing articles from the media repeat the same story without actually making any kind of convincing argument or denying that the hostages were released on contingency to the payment being received by Iran.
Politifact ended their analysis by cautiously admitting the situation was a “quid pro quo,” since the U.S. would only pay Iran if the hostages were released. But, they insisted, it wasn’t technically “ransom,” thus earning it a “mostly false” rating.
The real question is, isn’t it “mostly true” that semantics are the only thing distinguishing what is called “leverage” and “quid pro quo” from “ransom?”
