Let's get the right Facts

Is it true that Hilary Clinton supplied Iran with uranium for their nuclear program?

No, the claim that Hillary Clinton supplied Iran with uranium for their nuclear program is false and has been repeatedly debunked by fact-checkers and official records.

As much as I can't stand the woman, the truth must be the most important thing here.

Where the Rumor Came From

This conspiracy theory often stems from a distorted interpretation of the “Uranium One” deal, a 2010 transaction in which the U.S. government—via the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)—approved the partial sale of a Canadian mining company (Uranium One) to Russia’s Rosatom, a state-owned nuclear energy firm.

Hillary Clinton, then Secretary of State, was one of nine CFIUS members involved in the review, and there’s no evidence she played a special or decisive role in the approval.

The uranium mined under Uranium One’s U.S. operations never left the country for Iran—or even Russia. U.S. law prohibits uranium exports without a special license, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission confirmed that no uranium from the deal was exported abroad.

As for Iran:

• Iran’s nuclear program used uranium enriched within its own territory and previously acquired materials, many predating modern agreements.

• The Obama administration, which Hillary Clinton served in, did enter the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015—a nuclear deal designed to limit Iran's enrichment activities, not fuel them.

• There is no documented evidence that Clinton or any U.S. official transferred uranium to Iran.

 Conclusion

There is no factual basis for the claim that Hillary Clinton supplied Iran with uranium. The rumor appears to be a misrepresentation of complex events—chiefly the Uranium One deal—distorted to suggest secret collusion where none has been proven.

That claim is misleading. Here’s what actually happened:

 What the $1.7 Billion Was

• In January–February 2016, the Obama administration transferred $1.7 billion in cash to Iran. This was not a gift—it paid off a decades-old arbitration claim related to a 1979 arms deal and the value of the funds with interest accruing over time brookings.edu+10apnews.com+10latimes.com+10.

• About $400 million was the original principal; the remaining $1.3 billion was interest latimes.com+3apnews.com+3armscontrolcenter.org+3.

• The cash delivery aligned with Iran’s release of four American prisoners, but officials said the payments were tied to the arbitration, not a direct ransom brookings.edu+10apnews.com+10ballotpedia.org+10.

What It Was Not

• It was not directed toward Iran’s nuclear program.

• It was not a reward for compliance with the JCPOA, though media often conflate the two.

• It was not secret funding—the transaction was fully acknowledged by U.S. agencies at the time en.wikipedia.org.

In Summary

• Yes, Obama’s administration paid $1.7 billion—but as a settlement for a legal arbitration, not as funding for nuclear development.

• No, it was not intended to support Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

The claim that President Biden “unfroze $16 billion for Iran” is a misleading interpretation of what actually happened.

✅ What Actually Occurred

1. Unfrozen Assets Belong to Iran

   • Since the early 2000s, Iran had revenues (from oil sales and energy payments) held in foreign banks—most notably $7 billion in South Korea, $6 billion in Iraq, and additional funds in countries like China, Japan, Luxembourg, and the U.S. factcheck.org+10en.wikipedia.org+10reddit.com+10.

   • Those were Iran’s own assets, not U.S. funds.

2. Release Was Legal and Narrow in Scope

   • $6 billion was unfrozen in September 2023 as part of a prisoner swap—Americans held in Iran were released in exchange for Iranians in U.S. custody factcheck.orgfactcheck.org+7cbsnews.com+7iranintl.com+7.

   • A Trump-era waiver (extended under Biden) allowed access to around $10 billion more, layered with restrictions and controls factcheck.org+1iranintl.com+1.

   • Total access—not a U.S. payment—was roughly $16 billion; funds are restricted to humanitarian uses like food and medicine factcheck.org+2factcheck.org+2mast.house.gov+2.

3. Money Was Not Given by the U.S.

   • It’s inaccurate to say the U.S. “gave” the money. The U.S. facilitated access to Iran’s own funds, stored in non-U.S. banks.

   • Several fact-checkers emphasize the difference between unfrozen access and a transfer of U.S. taxpayer money politico.com+3mast.house.gov+3reddit.com+3en.wikipedia.org+9factcheck.org+9reddit.com+9.

4. No Evidence It Funded Iran’s Nuclear Program

   • There’s no indication these funds went toward nuclear development. The releases were tied to hostage diplomacy and restricted humanitarian spending en.wikipedia.org+6factcheck.org+6jns.org+6.

 Summary Comparison

 Bottom Line

• Biden did not give Iran any U.S. money.

• Approximately $16 billion of Iranian-owned assets were made accessible, but this was not a gift—and it was strictly limited to humanitarian purposes under legal agreements.

The Brutal Truth June 2025

The Brutal Truth Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.