IRAN: Latest and Breaking News

Bit more on the Airbus purchase

In a move that was doing the rounds immediately after international sanctions against Iran were lifted recently, the country on Sunday 24 January confirmed it is buying 114 Airbus airliners to replace its current, dangerously tired fleet of commercial aircraft. The Airbus jets will be used buy Iran Air.

The deal will be signed on Wednesday during a visit to Paris by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, the Iranian government confirmed.

Iran is looking for A320s and A340s, which is remarkably and a challenge by itself as the A340 is out of production. Teheran said the first aircraft are to be delivered in months, which could indicate the A340s are actually used aircraft. Iran states it is also looking at the A380 for long routes.
Fleet & spare parts

Right now, Iran Air used older A300, A310 and A320 aircraft, along with several Boeing 747-200s and a dozen or so Fokker 100s. Commercial aviation in Iran over the last two decades was known to be a dangerous undertaking due to lack of spare parts. Several deadly crashes have plagued the country. The order for new aircraft is therefore no surprise.

Iran is expected to need several hundred more airplanes to get its commercial fleet into shape.

http://airheadsfly.com/2016/01/24/sanctions-lifted-iran-buys-114-airbus-jets/

IranAir contract now seems to be underway.

Iran Air has signed an acquisition agreement with Airbus covering an extensive fleet modernisation, including 12 A380s and 16 A350-1000s.

The plan also features 45 A330s of which 18 are the re-engined -900neo version. In addition to the 73 long-haul jets Iran Air is also intending to take 45 single-aisle aircraft including 24 A320neos.

No engine selection has been disclosed, although the A350s and A330neos are available only with Rolls-Royce powerplants.

Airbus says the 118-aircraft agreement was signed by Iran Air chief Farhad Parvaresh. Parvaresh says that the deal is “the start of re-establishing our civil aviation sector into the envy of the region”.

Iranian authorities had previously signalled that Airbus would supply 114 aircraft to the country’s operators following the lifting of sanctions which had blocked a fleet renewal for decades.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/a380s-and-a350-1000s-among-118-jets-for-iran-air-421355/

Burning through the released sanction money, before it can be seized again perhaps. Yet more civil aircraft.

Following last week’s order for 118 Airbus airliners, Iran on Monday 1 February ordered yet more new Western-made aircraft. This time, it’s 20 new ATR 72-600s plus options for 20 more in a contract worth 1 billion EUR.

According to ATR Aircraft, the deal marks the arrival of the newest generation ATRs in Iran, where the first ATR turboprops have been operating since 1992. The aircraft manufacturers sees potential for even more regional growth.

Patrick de Castelbajac, Chief Executive Officer of ATR, said: “We are honored to take part in this new era in Iran by providing the national airline with aircraft that will strongly contribute to reinforce and boost regional transportation across the country. We are pleased to offer to the passengers of Iran Air the highest standards of comfort and reliability, as well as the outstanding operational flexibility of the ATR 72-600s”.

http://airheadsfly.com/2016/02/01/yet-more-new-western-aircraft-for-iran-air/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-10/iran-told-to-pay-10-5-billion-to-sept-11-kin-insurers

Iran was ordered by a U.S. judge to pay more than $10.5 billion in damages to families of people killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and to a group of insurers.

U.S. District Judge George Daniels in New York issued a default judgment Wednesday against Iran for $7.5 billion to the estates and families of people who died at the World Trade Center and Pentagon. It includes $2 million to each estate for the victims’ pain and suffering plus $6.88 million in punitive damages.

What's that all about? Some bogus smear campaign against Iran?

Meanwhile Russia is looking at Iran increasing it's military purchases.

Erk wrote:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-10/iran-told-to-pay-10-5-billion-to-sept-11-kin-insurers

Iran was ordered by a U.S. judge to pay more than $10.5 billion in damages to families of people killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and to a group of insurers.

U.S. District Judge George Daniels in New York issued a default judgment Wednesday against Iran for $7.5 billion to the estates and families of people who died at the World Trade Center and Pentagon. It includes $2 million to each estate for the victims’ pain and suffering plus $6.88 million in punitive damages.

What's that all about? Some bogus smear campaign against Iran?

Meanwhile Russia is looking at Iran increasing it's military purchases.

This is a reflection on the 'creative quirks' of the US legal system, especially the default judgement.

i) anyone can sue anyone for anything irrespective of merit.
ii) lawyers frequently offer 'no win, no fee' deals as encouragement for frivolous cases.
iii) if the defendent doesn't turn up to court then a default judgement is given.

So, pick on a foreign boogie man who you are sure won't turn up at the trial. That may be because they may not even have been served papers about the trial, can't afford to go to the US to defend themslves, or are ignorant of the US legal system. Hey presto, default judgement, mucho wonga for the lawyers (possibly 50%) - all assuming the penalty can be recovered.

short_fuze wrote:

Erk wrote:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-10/iran-told-to-pay-10-5-billion-to-sept-11-kin-insurers

Iran was ordered by a U.S. judge to pay more than $10.5 billion in damages to families of people killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and to a group of insurers.

U.S. District Judge George Daniels in New York issued a default judgment Wednesday against Iran for $7.5 billion to the estates and families of people who died at the World Trade Center and Pentagon. It includes $2 million to each estate for the victims’ pain and suffering plus $6.88 million in punitive damages.

What's that all about? Some bogus smear campaign against Iran?

Meanwhile Russia is looking at Iran increasing it's military purchases.

This is a reflection on the 'creative quirks' of the US legal system, especially the default judgement.

i) anyone can sue anyone for anything irrespective of merit.
ii) lawyers frequently offer 'no win, no fee' deals as encouragement for frivolous cases.
iii) if the defendent doesn't turn up to court then a default judgement is given.

So, pick on a foreign boogie man who you are sure won't turn up at the trial. That may be because they may not even have been served papers about the trial, can't afford to go to the US to defend themslves, or are ignorant of the US legal system. Hey presto, default judgement, mucho wonga for the lawyers (possibly 50%) - all assuming the penalty can be recovered.

Sounds corrupt, hopefully other countries wont follow.

"A US judge ordered Iran to pay over $10 billion in damages to families of victims who died on September 11, 2001 – even though there is no evidence of Tehran’s direct connection to the attack. The same judge earlier cleared Saudi Arabia from culpability. The default judgement was issued by US District Judge George Daniels in New York on Wednesday. Under the ruling, Tehran was ordered to pay $7.5 billion to 9/11 victims’ families, including $2 million to each victim’s estate for pain and suffering, and another $6.88 million in punitive damages. Insurers who paid for property damage and claimed their businesses were interrupted were awarded an additional $3 billion in the ruling.

The ruling is noteworthy particularly since none of the 19 hijackers on September 11 were Iranian citizens. Fifteen were citizens of Saudi Arabia, while two were from the United Arab Emirates, and one each from Egypt and Lebanon. Saudi Arabia was legally cleared from paying billions in damages to families of 9/11 victims last year, after Judge Daniels dismissed claims that the country provided material support to the terrorists and ruled that Riyadh had sovereign immunity. Saudi attorneys argued in court that there was no evidence directly linking the country to 9/11. In response to the latest ruling, Hossein Sheikholeslam, a senior aide to Iran’s parliamentary speaker, called the decision “absurd and ridiculous.” “I never heard about this ruling and I’m very much surprised because the judge had no reason whatsoever to issue such a ruling… Iran never took part in any court hearings related to the events of September 11, 2001,” he told Sputnik. “Even if such an absurd and ridiculous decision has been made, the charges simply hold no water because Iran has never been mentioned at any stage of the investigation and the trials that followed.”

While Sheikholeslam argued that Iran didn’t take part in related hearings, that lack of participation may have contributed to the decision. A default judgment is typically issued when one of the parties involved in a case does not respond to court summons or appear in court to make their case. Judge Daniels found that Iran failed to defend itself against claims that it played a role in 9/11. Iran believes the lawsuit is unnecessary because it says it did not participate in the attack. In the US, Tehran’s role in 9/11 has been debated heavily over the years. The 9/11 Commission Report stated that some hijackers moved through Iran and did not have their passports stamped. It also stated that Hezbollah, which the US designates as a terrorist organization supported by Iran, provided “advice and training” to Al-Qaeda members.

In a court document filed in 2011 regarding the latest case, plaintiffs claimed Hezbollah “provided material support” to Al-Qaeda, such as facilitating travel, plus “direct support” for the 9/11 attacks. As a result, the plaintiffs argued Iran was liable. However, the commission report itself found no evidence to suggest Iran was aware of the 9/11 plot, and suggested the possibility that if Hezbollah was tracking the movements of Al-Qaeda members, it may not have been eyeing those who became hijackers on 9/11. While the report suggested further investigation into the issue, President George W. Bush has said, “There was no direct connection between Iran and the attacks of September 11.” Iran, inhabited mostly by Shia Muslims, has also denied any connection to Al-Qaeda – a militant Sunni group – and cooperation between the two has been questioned due to religious differences. Al-Qaeda views the Shia as heretics, for example.

“The people who committed those terrorist attacks were neither friends nor allies of Iran,” Iran Press Editor-in-Chief Emad Abshenas told Sputnik. “They were our sworn enemies, members of Al-Qaeda, which considers Iran as their enemy. Fifteen out of the 19 terrorists were Saudi citizens, which happens to be America’s best friend. The remaining four terrorists lived in Saudi Arabia and enjoyed Saudi support. Therefore the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks had nothing to do with Iran.” How the case moves forward after Daniels’ ruling is unclear. According to Bloomberg, it can be very hard to obtain damages from another country, but plaintiffs might try to do so by targeting Iranian funds frozen by the US."

Worst part is that US can simply remove money from Iranian frozen accounts, as they did before with Yugoslavia post WW2 for an example, claiming that they just "took what is theirs".

Source: https://www.rt.com/usa/335174-iran-damages-september-911-victims/

So the Iranian government should start a case in Iran against the US and all the American people the US government represents.

The case could be based on interference of democracy with the Shah installed in power illegally by the CIA, and follow that up with a claim regarding the financial hardship created by US sanctions and of course the US Navy shoot down of an Iranian Airbus from Iranian waters.

I reckon 500 Trillion would be a starting figure.

BTW I have read about the US court system... the lawyers tend to file cases out in the sticks where big companies are not popular and likely to lose.

The critical thing is that it is the jury that decides the level of damages... if the lawyer can make the company on trial seem heartless and "an international bully" they can get huge payouts for trivial things... I remember reading about a guy who got a BMW that had a scratch in transit. He claimed he was expecting perfection from such a brand and got awarded several million dollars for something that could have been fixed with a few grands worth of paint.

Only the lawyers thrive in such environments...

GarryB wrote:So the Iranian government should start a case in Iran against the US and all the American people the US government represents.

The case could be based on interference of democracy with the Shah installed in power illegally by the CIA, and follow that up with a claim regarding the financial hardship created by US sanctions and of course the US Navy shoot down of an Iranian Airbus from Iranian waters.

I reckon 500 Trillion would be a starting figure.

BTW I have read about the US court system... the lawyers tend to file cases out in the sticks where big companies are not popular and likely to lose.

The critical thing is that it is the jury that decides the level of damages... if the lawyer can make the company on trial seem heartless and "an international bully" they can get huge payouts for trivial things... I remember reading about a guy who got a BMW that had a scratch in transit. He claimed he was expecting perfection from such a brand and got awarded several million dollars for something that could have been fixed with a few grands worth of paint.

Only the lawyers thrive in such environments...

The decision against Iran is laughable and tragic. It relies on the ignorance of the average US citizen. Firstly, al Qaeda is Sunni, Iran is Shia so the idea that Iran supporting al Qaeda is about as likely as an honest politician becoming US President. Secondly, Iran actually captured al Qaeda figures escaping from Afghanistan around the time the US invaded. Thirdly, Iran along with most Muslim countries, expressed their condolences to the US for their loss after 911.

F*ck the US.

Well according to the same cycles Assad is supporting ISIS. Don't pay attention to those suckers, actions are louder than words.

Militarov wrote:

"A US judge ordered Iran to pay over $10 billion in damages to families of victims who died on September 11, 2001 – even though there is no evidence of Tehran’s direct connection to the attack. The same judge earlier cleared Saudi Arabia from culpability. The default judgement was issued by US District Judge George Daniels in New York on Wednesday. Under the ruling, Tehran was ordered to pay $7.5 billion to 9/11 victims’ families, including $2 million to each victim’s estate for pain and suffering, and another $6.88 million in punitive damages. Insurers who paid for property damage and claimed their businesses were interrupted were awarded an additional $3 billion in the ruling.

The ruling is noteworthy particularly since none of the 19 hijackers on September 11 were Iranian citizens. Fifteen were citizens of Saudi Arabia, while two were from the United Arab Emirates, and one each from Egypt and Lebanon. Saudi Arabia was legally cleared from paying billions in damages to families of 9/11 victims last year, after Judge Daniels dismissed claims that the country provided material support to the terrorists and ruled that Riyadh had sovereign immunity. Saudi attorneys argued in court that there was no evidence directly linking the country to 9/11. In response to the latest ruling, Hossein Sheikholeslam, a senior aide to Iran’s parliamentary speaker, called the decision “absurd and ridiculous.” “I never heard about this ruling and I’m very much surprised because the judge had no reason whatsoever to issue such a ruling… Iran never took part in any court hearings related to the events of September 11, 2001,” he told Sputnik. “Even if such an absurd and ridiculous decision has been made, the charges simply hold no water because Iran has never been mentioned at any stage of the investigation and the trials that followed.”

While Sheikholeslam argued that Iran didn’t take part in related hearings, that lack of participation may have contributed to the decision. A default judgment is typically issued when one of the parties involved in a case does not respond to court summons or appear in court to make their case. Judge Daniels found that Iran failed to defend itself against claims that it played a role in 9/11. Iran believes the lawsuit is unnecessary because it says it did not participate in the attack. In the US, Tehran’s role in 9/11 has been debated heavily over the years. The 9/11 Commission Report stated that some hijackers moved through Iran and did not have their passports stamped. It also stated that Hezbollah, which the US designates as a terrorist organization supported by Iran, provided “advice and training” to Al-Qaeda members.

In a court document filed in 2011 regarding the latest case, plaintiffs claimed Hezbollah “provided material support” to Al-Qaeda, such as facilitating travel, plus “direct support” for the 9/11 attacks. As a result, the plaintiffs argued Iran was liable. However, the commission report itself found no evidence to suggest Iran was aware of the 9/11 plot, and suggested the possibility that if Hezbollah was tracking the movements of Al-Qaeda members, it may not have been eyeing those who became hijackers on 9/11. While the report suggested further investigation into the issue, President George W. Bush has said, “There was no direct connection between Iran and the attacks of September 11.” Iran, inhabited mostly by Shia Muslims, has also denied any connection to Al-Qaeda – a militant Sunni group – and cooperation between the two has been questioned due to religious differences. Al-Qaeda views the Shia as heretics, for example.

“The people who committed those terrorist attacks were neither friends nor allies of Iran,” Iran Press Editor-in-Chief Emad Abshenas told Sputnik. “They were our sworn enemies, members of Al-Qaeda, which considers Iran as their enemy. Fifteen out of the 19 terrorists were Saudi citizens, which happens to be America’s best friend. The remaining four terrorists lived in Saudi Arabia and enjoyed Saudi support. Therefore the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks had nothing to do with Iran.” How the case moves forward after Daniels’ ruling is unclear. According to Bloomberg, it can be very hard to obtain damages from another country, but plaintiffs might try to do so by targeting Iranian funds frozen by the US."

Worst part is that US can simply remove money from Iranian frozen accounts, as they did before with Yugoslavia post WW2 for an example, claiming that they just "took what is theirs".

Source: https://www.rt.com/usa/335174-iran-damages-september-911-victims/

Murrica...

Hannibal Barca wrote:Well according to the same cycles Assad is supporting ISIS. Don't pay attention to those suckers, actions are louder than words.

"Actions speak louder than words"

The judge involved, District Court Judge George B. Daniels, declared that Saudi Arabia (also listed as a defendent) had sovereign immunity, so was excluded from the case. This judge also declared that Iran didn't prove it wasn't involved in the 2011 attack. The case, which has been running from 2011 if not before, has a clear and explicit underlying political driving force.

In short, in the US, Saudi Arabia has sovereign immunity from involvement in 911 and Iran is guilty because it didn't prove it wasn't involved.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/u-s-judge-orders-iran-pay-10-billion-fine-didnt-prove-wasnt-behind-911-attacks/214672/

short_fuze wrote:

Hannibal Barca wrote:Well according to the same cycles Assad is supporting ISIS. Don't pay attention to those suckers, actions are louder than words.

"Actions speak louder than words"

The judge involved, District Court Judge George B. Daniels, declared that Saudi Arabia (also listed as a defendent) had sovereign immunity, so was excluded from the case. This judge also declared that Iran didn't prove it wasn't involved in the 2011 attack. The case, which has been running from 2011 if not before, has a clear and explicit underlying political driving force.

In short, in the US, Saudi Arabia has sovereign immunity from involvement in 911 and Iran is guilty because it didn't prove it wasn't involved.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/u-s-judge-orders-iran-pay-10-billion-fine-didnt-prove-wasnt-behind-911-attacks/214672/

The US must proof it wasn't involved in 911 it is and will always be the suspect, most educated would right away know who it was. The US exposes itself for what it is a terrorist nation without any rationality. "Proof that you were not involved" what kind of horse shit is that can only come from scum regime that is a result of incestous relationship that has become the most irrational being and incapable of existince due to its mongrelization of beasts without any morality, intelligence or any naturality. A true monster psychopaths amongst humans have bred.

You are refering to Bavar 373 i assume. "Long range strategic SAM" ment to fill the gap instead of S300PMU when delivery was halted. However i dont think it entered service.

Exactly... when there was a problem delivering S-300 the Iranians said they didn't care because they don't need them anyway... the product XYZ they produce is already hundreds of times better than S-300 so they will just make XYZ instead. A little while later they tried to sue Russia for not delivering S-300s.

Put into the current situation, will they put their own new tank into production or will they try a different tack and create a joint venture to upgrade their existing production tanks using technology th T-90MS uses to improve its performance?

Personally I would prefer if they could licence produce T-90MSs as that will likely turn out cheaper for them and would be in service faster...

Q: Is Iran honoring the agreement?

A: Yes, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the nuclear-monitoring arm of the United Nations. The agency reported Feb. 26, in its first assessment since the deal took effect, that Iran is complying with the terms that are meant to block pathways to a nuclear weapon.

Q: How do we know Iran is not cheating?

The agency has a detailed accounting of Iran's sharply reduced supply of nuclear fuel, working centrifuges and other equipment, and is empowered to monitor them.

"The agency's job is to make sure there is no backsliding," said Daryl G. Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association, a Washington-based nonproliferation advocacy group.

Q: Are the missile tests prohibited under the nuclear agreement?

A: No. Such launchings are considered a separate issue.

Q: Are critics correct that Iran has violated provisions of a Security Council resolution banning missile launchings?

A: That depends on your interpretation of the resolution, 2231, adopted in July, that put the nuclear agreement into effect. That measure terminated all other resolutions that had penalized Iran for its nuclear program, but it called on the country to refrain from engaging in ballistic missile activity "designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapon". Iran contends that the wording does not prohibit launchings and that since it has no nuclear weapons, there is no violation.

Q:How does Iran justify the missile tests?

A: Iran says it is a peaceful nation surrounded by hostile powers. The US Navy's 5th Fleet patrols the Persian Gulf. US forces are deployed in Iraq to the east, Afghanistan to the west, and in other regional neighbors including Turkey, Bahrain and Qatar. Iran has especially poor relations with Saudi Arabia, its biggest regional rival. And Iran regards Israel, which possesses nuclear weapons, as its most intractable enemy.

Iranian TV claims that Iran has retrieved thousands of pages of info from devices used by US Navy sailors. Information filling about 13,000 pages was retrieved from laptops, GPS devices and maps.

Top U.S. official: U.S. would block sale of Russian Su-30 aircraft to Iran

WASHINGTON Thomas Shannon, the U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, said on Tuesday the United States would use its veto power in the U.N. Security Council to block any sale of Su-30 fighter aircraft to Iran.

"We would block the approval of fighter aircraft," he told a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, noting that any such sale would have to be approved by the Security Council.

Solncepek wrote:Top U.S. official: U.S. would block sale of Russian Su-30 aircraft to Iran

WASHINGTON Thomas Shannon, the U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, said on Tuesday the United States would use its veto power in the U.N. Security Council to block any sale of Su-30 fighter aircraft to Iran.

"We would block the approval of fighter aircraft," he told a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, noting that any such sale would have to be approved by the Security Council.

Bullshit from war-(shing)-torn DC! They are no more sanctions against Iran, the dispute was settled out with the atomic deal. Russia can sell whatever they want to Iran, Su-30, S-300, T-90 etc. Russia need not the approval of the security council.

Azi wrote:

Solncepek wrote:Top U.S. official: U.S. would block sale of Russian Su-30 aircraft to Iran

WASHINGTON Thomas Shannon, the U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, said on Tuesday the United States would use its veto power in the U.N. Security Council to block any sale of Su-30 fighter aircraft to Iran.

"We would block the approval of fighter aircraft," he told a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, noting that any such sale would have to be approved by the Security Council.

Bullshit from war-(shing)-torn DC! They are no more sanctions against Iran, the dispute was settled out with the atomic deal. Russia can sell whatever they want to Iran, Su-30, S-300, T-90 etc. Russia need not the approval of the security council.

Actually russia and any other non "civilized world" member could sell whenever they wanted. Those sanctions are illegal and one-sided and i still do not understand why such big players and defacto super powers like Russia and China give a fucking crap about such Washington sanctions.

Werewolf wrote:

Azi wrote:

Solncepek wrote:Top U.S. official: U.S. would block sale of Russian Su-30 aircraft to Iran

WASHINGTON Thomas Shannon, the U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, said on Tuesday the United States would use its veto power in the U.N. Security Council to block any sale of Su-30 fighter aircraft to Iran.

"We would block the approval of fighter aircraft," he told a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, noting that any such sale would have to be approved by the Security Council.

Bullshit from war-(shing)-torn DC! They are no more sanctions against Iran, the dispute was settled out with the atomic deal. Russia can sell whatever they want to Iran, Su-30, S-300, T-90 etc. Russia need not the approval of the security council.

Actually russia and any other non "civilized world" member could sell whenever they wanted. Those sanctions are illegal and one-sided and i still do not understand why such big players and defacto super powers like Russia and China give a fucking crap about such Washington sanctions.

Quite simple, if it is deemed illegal, bank assets etc can be frozen. Don't underestimate the power. One sided or not, it doesn't come in to it. Like it or not, Russia has abided by it for the past few years. Whether or not the above link means these fighters and other are not considered part of the recent developments remains to be seen. One would hope Russia will sell to Iran whatever the hell it wants as long as Iran pays for them.

MidEast’s Largest Metro Station Opens in Tehran





http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20160427/1038703013/iran-metro-station.html

The Drudge Report, Fox News, Donald Trump, and a host of other right-wing institutions are in a tizzy today over a report in the Wall Street Journal that the United States government sent a secret plane stuffed with $400 million in Swiss francs and euros directly to Tehran back in January, at precisely the same time Iran agreed to release four American detainees. “Obama Paid $400M ‘Ransom’ to Iran,” is how the New York Post is playing the story. Trump himself is calling it a “scandal.” What people seem to be missing is the fact that, while the Journal is the first to report that the payment was made in cash, literally everything else about the story—the money, the prisoner release, the quid pro quo allegations—was reported back in January.

First, a little backstory to explain how we got to this point: Earlier this year, the United States entered into an agreement with the Iranian government aimed at freezing Iran’s nuclear weapons program. As part of a whole bunch of peripheral issues surrounding that deal, there was a matter of four American citizens that were being detained in Iran on rather dubious charges, as well as $1.7 billion that Iran was demanding from the U.S. in restitution for an arms deal that went south back in the 1970s.

Back then, the U.S. and the government of the Shah agreed on a $400 million deal for fighter jets. The Shah delivered the money, but then he was deposed in the Iranian Revolution of 1979, so the Americans never delivered the jets. The American government did, however, hang on to the cash.

Ever since, the Iranian government has been trying to re-claim the payment in international courts, along with $1.3 billion in interest that’s accumulated over that time. As one of those peripheral issues, the U.S. agreed to pay the money back. This was pretty well known among people paying close attention, because President Obama said as much when it was all announced back in January. The New York Times reported at the time:

Mr. Obama also announced the resolution of another argument between Tehran and Washington that dates to the Iranian revolution, this one over $400 million in payments for military equipment that the United States sold to the shah of Iran and never delivered when he was overthrown. The Iranians got their money back, with $1.3 billion in interest that had accumulated over 37 years.

On or about the same day that the initial payment of $400 million was made, the four Americans were released, with three on a Swiss Air Force plane headed to Geneva, and one headed back to the United States.

At the time, there was speculation from U.S. Speaker Paul Ryan and others that the payment amounted to a ransom for the four Americans. White House press secretary Josh Earnest attempted to deflect those charges in press conference on January 19, 2016:

Q: On Sunday, we learned that the United States made a payment to the government of Iran of $1.7 billion. Was this tied to the deal that led to the freedom of the Americans that were being held in Iran?

MR. EARNEST: Jon, this is actually the result of a long-running claims process that had been at The Hague. In 1979, there was obviously an Iranian revolution that abruptly severed relations between our two countries. And prior to that revolution, the U.S. government had entered into an agreement with the then-Iranian government to transfer about $400 million in military equipment to the Iranian government. Once the revolution took place, obviously that equipment was not transferred, but we also didn’t return Iran’s money either.... And for more than 30 years now, the Iranians have been using this claims process at The Hague to try to recover that $400 million....

Q: Okay, but as I understand it, the Department of State announced this payment of $1.7 billion to the government of Iran just before the plane carrying the freed Americans landed in Geneva. You’re really telling me that this is an absolute coincidence that this payment just happened to coincide with the precise moment when the American prisoners were flying to freedom?

MR. EARNEST: Jon, I think we’ve made pretty clear that this is not a coincidence. The fact is, these kinds of diplomatic opportunities—

Q: [B]ecause Paul Ryan has suggested this was a ransom payment. You saw his statement.

MR. EARNEST: He’s wrong about that.

Of course, it’s tough to take those denials without a large grain of salt. A deal was signed, a payment was made, four Americans were released, the U.S. released seven Iranians on its own—things like that happen coincidentally every day. But whether you believe it or not, the issue of whether the $400 million payment to the Iranians was ransom was very publicly discussed seven months ago.

You wouldn’t know that to read the Journal story, though, which opens with the news that the payment took the form of a cash airlift:

The Obama administration secretly organized an airlift of $400 million worth of cash to Iran that coincided with the January release of four Americans detained in Tehran, according to U.S. and European officials and congressional staff briefed on the operation afterward.

The story makes no reference, aside from single a link to the Journal’s prior coverage of the deal, to the fact that the payment was a matter of public record. The cash bit was indeed secret, but reasonable (and unreasonable!) readers are interpreting the story as a scoop about a previously unreported payoff.

Politico, for example, covered Trump’s attack over the deal by saying “the previously unreported $400 million sent in January was the first installment of the White House’s $1.7 billion settlement with Iran.” Foreign Policy wrote that “Republican lawmakers are fuming Wednesday over a report that the U.S. government secretly sent the equivalent of $400 million to Iran last January.”

As for the quid pro quo allegations, the Journal story also brings nothing new to the table. It helpfully relays that, while the White House denied that the payment was related to the detainee release, the Iranian government boasted of precisely the opposite:

Revolutionary Guard commanders boasted at the time that the Americans had succumbed to Iranian pressure. “Taking this much money back was in return for the release of the American spies,” said Gen. Mohammad Reza Naghdi, commander of the Guard’s Basij militia, on state media.

But those claims were made at the time, in public, back in January.

The Journal’s overreach is unfortunate, because the details on how the cash made its way to Tehran are interesting, to say the least:

President Obama approved the shipment of the $400 million. But accumulating so much cash presented a logistical and security challenge, said U.S. and European officials. One person briefed on the operation joked: “You can’t just withdraw that much money from ATMs.”

Mr. Kerry and the State and Treasury departments sought the cooperation of the Swiss and Dutch governments. Ultimately, the Obama administration transferred the equivalent of $400 million to their central banks. It was then converted into other currencies, stacked onto the wooden pallets and sent to Iran on board a cargo plane.

The cash was made up of Swiss francs, euros, and other non-dollar currencies and was loaded aboard the unmarked cargo plane which landed in Iran. Because apparently electronic wire transfers aren’t good enough anymore, or something, and we want our diplomatic payments to be made in as untraceable manner as possible.

(As an aside, countries do maintain gold and foreign currency reserves as a matter of due course, so the fact that governments have any cash at all isn’t so strange.)

No, there’s no real way to prevent any government from spending money how it pleases. But when Iran is propping up Syria’s Bashar al-Assad regime and funding terrorists the world over, making a cash payment out of Swiss bank accounts probably wasn’t the best idea.

Nor is it a good idea to misleadingly frame a good little scoop about a cash delivery as a blockbuster revelation of a $400 million payment. Some readers aren’t smart enough to tell the difference.

The Wall Street Journal did not respond to a request for comment.