UAE to unlock billions of dollars for Iran

More from the article ...

... Word of the move by the UAE to seek de-escalation and which has not been previously reported, coincides with the final stages of broader negotiations between Tehran and Washington on ending the war, talks that diplomats say could involve the release of tens of billions of dollars in Iranian oil revenues frozen in foreign banks under U.S. sanctions.

In the past month, the UAE, which was heavily targeted by Iran at the height of the war, has been spared fresh strikes, while Iran has trained its missiles and drones on Kuwait and Bahrain. The last known direct attack by Iran on the UAE was more than a month ago -- a May 4 strike on the Gulf state's Fujairah port on the Gulf of Oman.

Two regional sources told Reuters the UAE had agreed to release a total of $10 billion, more than $3 billion of which had already been delivered.

Two other sources with knowledge of the arrangement put the total funds involved at $20 billion, adding that the move had been agreed in return for a halt to Iranian attacks on the UAE.

One of the sources with knowledge of the arrangement also said a first tranche of $3 billion had already been made available.

Reuters could not establish whether the funds earmarked for the transfers belong to the UAE or originate in long-blocked Iranian accounts in the UAE banking system, or elsewhere. ...

@#2 ... It should be out of the paint shop by now. ...

It was subject to more than a paint job. :)

@#2

But more to what I see as the point of your comment ...

The Emoluents Clause in the Constitution.

What Is the Emoluments Clause?
www.britannica.com

... The emoluments clause, also called the foreign emoluments clause, is a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8) that generally prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or other object or service of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives. ...

@#6 ... Subtle difference ...

Yeah, subtle or technical?

US begins preparing Qatari jet to be used as Air Force One (2025)
www.bbc.com

... News that the US was accepting the Qatari plane earlier this year sparked fierce and immediate backlash from both sides of the US political spectrum - including from Trump's conservative base.

"I think the technical term is 'skeezy'," said conservative Daily Wire commentator Ben Shapiro on his podcast.

"Qatar is not allegedly giving President Trump a $400m jet out of the goodness of their sweet little hearts," he said. "They try to stuff money into pockets in totally bipartisan fashion."

Laura Loomer, an influential right-wing social media influencer, has said that accepting the plane would be a "stain" on the administration. ...

@#9

Agreed.

But then there's things like this ...

Trump plans to accept plane to replace Air Force One from Qatar as personal gift (2025)
www.wcnc.com

... For President Donald Trump, accepting a free Air Force One replacement from Qatar is a no-brainer.

"I would never be one to turn down that kind of an offer," the Republican told reporters on Monday. "I could be a stupid person and say, No, we don't want a free, very expensive airplane.'"

Critics of the plan worry that the move threatens to turn a global symbol of American power into an airborne collection of ethical, legal, security and counterintelligence concerns.

"This is unprecedented," said Jessica Levinson, a constitutional law expert at Loyola Law School. "We just haven't tested these boundaries before."

Trump tried to tamp down some of the opposition by saying he wouldn't fly around in the gifted Boeing 747 when his term ends. Instead, he said, the $400 million plane would be donated to a future presidential library, similar to how the Boeing 707 used by President Ronald Reagan was decommissioned and put on display as a museum piece.

"It would go directly to the library after I leave office," Trump said. "I wouldn't be using it." ...

@#11 ... Make one wonder what Qatar has received from the US taxpayers for their largesse...? ...

You and me both.