Iran’s £400 Million Bribe

Supporters hold a photo, candles and signs during a vigil for British-Iranian mother Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, a hostage in an Iranian prison.
Chris J Ratcliffe/Getty Images

Iran’s £400 Million Bribe

Britain is planning to present the Islamic Republic with a ‘goodwill offering.’

The Telegraph reported on November 15 that Britain is planning to pay £400 million (us$528.6 million) to Iran as a “goodwill” offering. This comes at a perhaps-not-so-coincidental time, as British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson is reportedly working to doing “everything he can” to release British-Iranian Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe from Iranian prison. There are claims that Mrs. Zaghari-Ratcliffe is being held as collateral and that the payment is effectively a ransom.

This money is being tied to a 1970s arms deal between Britain and Iran. Between 1971 and 1976, the former shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, signed an agreement to buy 1,500 Chieftain battle tanks and 250 repair vehicles from Britain, amounting to £650 million; and it was all paid up front. When only a portion of the tanks were en route in 1979, Shah Pahlavi was ousted and the newly instated Islamic Republic demanded the money be returned. Britain refused and held onto the money, leading to an ongoing legal battle for 30 years. Now Britain is considering paying it back. One British source said that this deal looks like a “propaganda gift” that will only “embarrass” Britain further in its dealings with the Islamic regime.

The latest rumor, which Downing Street denies, is that this inconspicuous deal is linked with the impending release of Zaghari-Ratcliffe. The spokesman for Iran’s Foreign Ministry, Bahram Ghasemi, stated that “repaying the UK debt to Iran is not related to the case of Mrs. Naznin Zaghari; these are two separate issues.”

Does this situation sound at all familiar?

Back in January 2016, the Obama administration secretly loaded up pallets of $400 million cash and airlifted it to Iran. Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry recounted the story in his article:

According to the Wall Street Journal, the cash payment was the first installment of a $1.7 billion settlement that the Obama administration had agreed to pay Iran. … The Obama administration denied that the cash was a payment for the release of the four prisoners.

[B]ut in August the truth came out. First, an interview with one of the hostages, Pastor Saeed Abedini, revealed that the plane carrying the Americans was not permitted to leave until another plane arrived. … The plane they were waiting for was the one full of cash—the pallets loaded with Swiss francs, euros and a few other foreign currencies. U.S. law forbids any transaction with Iran in U.S. dollars. So the Obama administration used a mix of international currencies.

State Department spokesman John Kirby told the Wall Street Journal: “As we’ve made clear, the negotiations over the settlement of an outstanding claim … were completely separate from the discussions about returning our American citizens home. Not only were these two negotiations separate, they were conducted by different teams on each side.” The U.S.’s rhetoric is uncannily similar to Downing Street’s “no link between disputes.”

Despite the counterclaims, the Telegraph reported that some British government sources have confirmed that Zaghari-Ratcliffe is indeed being held as collateral to get the money released.

Continuing in Gerald Flurry’s article: “The U.S. government has had a no-ransom policy in the past. … How can we consider ourselves a superpower when we make such a ridiculous deal? How can you explain America now being the number one state sponsor of the number one state sponsor of terrorism?”

Britain is going down a road that America paved during its eight years under the Obama administration. The results reveal a lack of willpower and failure to uphold anti-terrorist policies. These Western nations are unable to see Iran’s “pushy” terrorists policies for what they are.

Mr. Flurry exposes Iran’s mentality in his booklet The King of the South:

History teaches us some powerful lessons—if we are willing to learn. For example, history teaches us that America and its allies [which includes Britain] cannot win their war against terrorism. …

Israel is losing its war with the terrorists, and so will the U.S. and Britain. Such terrorism will tear any free society apart. Israel is a classic example.

The only way to win such a war is to deal with the main source of the terrorism, or cut off the head of the terrorist snake. But neither the U.S. nor Israel has the will to tackle Iran—even though it is the key part of the “axis of evil” in the Middle East.

Iran has a foreign policy with a lot of “push.” And since the end of its war with Iraq in 1988, Iran has accumulated a massive arsenal of weapons to back up its aggressive foreign policy, and that arsenal includes chemical and biological weapons.

The blatantly bold and aggressive foreign policy of Iran must lead to war. It will either conquer or be conquered. Bible prophecy makes it clear that Iran will be conquered—but not at the hand of America and Britain. These latter two countries are going to fall into social and economic ruin before this prophecy is even fulfilled.

To continue reading Mr. Flurry’s booklet, request your free copy of The King of the South and learn what will ultimately come of Britain’s collaboration with Iran.