Fact check: Obama paid Iran $100 billion at night on the tarmac in Tehran in what year?

1. Summary of the results

The original question contains multiple factual inaccuracies based on the available evidence. The analyses consistently show that:

• No $100 billion cash payment occurred - Instead, sources report a $400 million cash payment that was part of a larger $1.7 billion settlement ^[1]
• The payment was not made "at night on the tarmac in Tehran" - All sources analyzing this specific claim found no evidence supporting this characterization ^{[2] [1]}
• The $150 billion figure often cited refers to unfrozen Iranian assets, not a direct payment - These were Iran's own previously frozen assets that were released as part of the Iran nuclear deal, not money "given" by the Obama administration ^{[2] [3]}

The actual documented payment was $1.7 billion total: $400 million in cash followed by $1.3 billion in interest payments, which represented a settlement of claims at an international tribunal over a failed arms deal from the Shah era ^{[1] [4] [5]}.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several important contextual elements are absent from the original question:

• Legal settlement context - The $1.7 billion was not a gift but a settlement resolving decades-old claims at an international tribunal regarding a failed arms deal under the Shah's regime ^[1]
• Prisoner release timing - The $400 million cash payment was strategically withheld until American prisoners were released, suggesting it was used as diplomatic leverage ^{[6] [7]}
• Currency restrictions - The payment was made in non-U.S. currency due to sanctions restrictions that prevented normal banking transfers ^[5]
• Asset unfreezing vs. direct payments - The larger $150 billion figure represents Iranian assets that were unfrozen, not money transferred from U.S. taxpayers ^[3]

Political figures and organizations who benefit from promoting the "$100 billion cash payment" narrative include critics of the Iran nuclear deal and those seeking to portray the Obama administration's Iran policy as reckless or corrupt.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains several elements that suggest deliberate misinformation or significant bias:

• Inflated dollar amount - Claiming $100 billion when documented payments were $1.7 billion represents a 5,800% exaggeration ^{[2] [1]}
• Dramatic imagery - The phrase "at night on the tarmac in Tehran" creates a cinematic, clandestine impression not supported by any evidence in the analyses ^{[2] [1]}
• Loaded framing - Presenting the question as fact ("in what year?") rather than asking whether such an event occurred demonstrates presumptive bias
• Conflation of separate issues - Mixing the documented $1.7 billion settlement with the separate $150 billion in unfrozen assets creates confusion that serves political narratives rather than factual understanding ^[3]

This type of framing benefits political opponents of the Iran nuclear deal and those seeking to characterize Obama-era foreign policy as secretive or corrupt, regardless of the actual documented facts.