Olivia
Online
🇮🇷سوراخ موش فروش
@Sep4980
For a Free Iran ✊
Joined September 2021
296 Following
169 Followers
5.3K Posts
Pinned Tweet
17 Years ago
During the 2009 Uprising in Iran
The regime murdered Neda Aghasoltan in cold blood on the streets of Tehran.
That was the start of shameless shooting of protesters without detaining them first and without pre execution sham trials.
Neda will always be in our hearts and minds and Neda is the reason we will never forgive and never forget.
Our occupiers are our enemy!
Iran will be Free 🇮🇷
@DavidVance He thanked the Emir of Qatar too and people were still saying its a pause for the world cup.
That there was a bigger plan !
God this is bad
This is really bad
@LauraLoomer President Trump publicly credited the Emir of Qatar for doing a wonderful job facilitating diplomatic relations between Tehran and Washington
Surely he cannot be that unaware of so very much happening with Muslim Brotherhood, IRGC and MEK.
@diana_bloom_ That may be on this detail, however I find it interesting just how much people are distancing him from the Qatar / Lobbyist involvement when he himself publicly credited the Emir of Qatar for doing a wonderful job facilitating diplomatic relations between Tehran and Washington.
@yashar Stop bitching about majority Iranians.
If you hate Iranians so much, either stay out of their business or busy yourself talking about gee I don’t know… who you think will get it right, instead of bitching all the time about other people.
داداش پاشو تیم ملا حذف شد... پاشو شادی کن. #مهران_سماک
@Howlran @NazaninNour Same
Everyone I spoke to was too angry to care even if they begrudgingly had small moments of joy at any successes
Why are non Iranians allowed to wave the terrorist Islamic regime flag when Iranians can’t even carry Iran’s actual pre invasion flag??
Because Europe and the United States prefer to recognise the terrorist flag, negotiate with terrorists, legitimise terrorists , lift sanctions going all the way back to the 80’s and make terrorists Trillionaires in a matter of a year or two.
Thats why !
.@marklevinshow I would love to see you sit down with HRH Crown Prince @PahlaviReza for a one on one interview. I think it would be one of the most important conversations you'll have this year. What do you think, can we make this happen?
Fucking non Iranians supporting the Islamic regime that is murdering us
From Europeans to Mexicans to Iraqis and Somalians
They all act as apologists, allies, proxies and agents for it.
You are all welcome to this murderous regime.
No? None of you want to have it ruling your countries?
Back in January
I overheard an Iranian man in the UK on the phone who had literally just come back from Iran it was only a few days after the massacre.
He said in Shiraz alone it was so horrific, there were tens of thousands of bodies and things had not even got too heated in Shiraz.
He said the way people in places Karaj were talking about what had happened, he was sure it was 100k
Then it all started to come out and regime news outlets and social media accounts and their proxies and bots quickly started to push a whole different statistic that we genuinely thought it was around 30k Iranians murdered until we spoke to family members from all different cities.
@restatr3693 @diana_bloom_ Wow
You guys used to write these things in defence of Khamenei now you are writing this in defence of your new friend JD
There really has been a change !!
🤣
@FKIRGC So fucked up
@FKIRGC https://t.co/X9r9w6KppC
Halkbank, a Turkish state-owned bank facing the largest Iran-sanctions-evasion prosecution in U.S. history received an extraordinarily lenient outcome last week. A personal channel of influence between the two countries' presidents has been documented to have reached into that prosecution during President Trump’s first term, and multiple paid advocates worked the case on Turkey's behalf. The president held a continuing, income-producing commercial interest in Turkey throughout his time in office.
But the favorable Halkbank outcome takes place inside a four front strategic realignment between Washington and Ankara spanning an active U.S. war with Iran, the post-Assad reordering of Syria, a multi-billion-dollar defense-industrial dispute over Turkey's ouster from the F-35 fighter program, and Gaza ceasefire diplomacy -- in every one of which Turkey’s role is pivotal. The Turkish side itself bundled the bank case together with its defense demands. That geostrategic field is, on its own, a sufficient and largely expected explanation for the leniency.
Background
From roughly 2012 to 2016, a scheme moved billions of dollars of Iranian oil revenue through the banking system by disguising it as gold trade, defeating those sanctions. A Turkish government-owned bank, Halkbank, is accused of operating the disguise. U.S. prosecutors called it one of the biggest sanctions-evasion case they had ever brought.
Separately, the U.S. president's family business had licensed its name to a luxury development in Istanbul -- Trump Towers Istanbul. The president did not own the buildings; a Turkish company paid fees to use the Trump brand. He collected those fees while in office.
The deferred prosecution agreement for Halkbank imposed no criminal fine, forfeiture, restitution, or admission. It required review, reporting and restrictions on Iran-benefiting transactions. Per the the June 10 Non-prosecution agreement, "The DPA arose from significant diplomatic and national security considerations."
Question
Despite the stated reasoning, what, if anything, do the president's commercial interests in Turkey have to do with how the U.S. government handled the Halkbank prosecution?
Bottom line up front
The conflict of interest is well documented and real, openly stated by the president himself. However, the president's personal financial interests in Turkey and legitimate national interest in accommodating Turkey point in the same direction. With the two explanations pressuring the identical outcome, distinguishing them from that outcome alone is foreclosed. The available answer is analytically inert: the president maintained financial interests in a geostrategically salient jurisdiction and accommodations to its government align with both US national interest and the president’s personal financial ones.
The result however is not politically inert: the conflict of interest hightens scrutiny of open questions regarding broader influence. The president has had to make major decisions with respect to Turkey. The President’s appointment of Amb. Tom Barrack and his policy stances, the U.S. rapprochement with Syria’s new interim president post-Assad, Ahmed al-Sharaa, and his decision to lift sanctions, the decision to approve Repkon USA, subsidiary of Turkish defense company Repkon, to acquire the only US plant producing MK-80 series bomb casings, Turkey’s prominent role in the president’s 20 point Gaza Peace Plan, the president’s remarks now making waves in the media over reinstating Turkey into the F-35 program after its purchase of Russian S-400 defense systems and CAATSA implications, the controversial approval of the sale of $700 million worth of General Electric F110 jet engines to Turkey for its indigenous KAAN fifth-generation fighter jet program, the Erdoğan phone call that helped block a planned Kurdish ground offensive into Iran and President Trump’s statements during a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte where he acknowledged that Turkey is “a prime candidate” or “leading candidate” to get involved “maybe on the Iran side” -- all of it and more raises scrutiny on the president’s personal financial interests in Turkey, his relationship with the Turkish president, and the lobbying efforts surrounding the Halkbank case.
1. The Actors
Donald Trump -- U.S. president (first term 2017-2021; second term from 2025). Licensed his name to the Istanbul development; collected fees during both terms.
Halkbank -- The Turkish state-owned bank at the center of the case.
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan -- President of Turkey. Repeatedly and personally pressed Trump to make the Halkbank case go away.
Aydın Doğan & Doğan Holding -- The Turkish business family and conglomerate that built and owns Trump Towers Istanbul and pays for the Trump brand. Important nuance: historically an opponent of Erdoğan, not a loyalist. The family's media outlets were critical of Erdoğan for years before selling those outlets in 2018. Doğan is a pragmatic business group that made peace with the government, not a member of Erdoğan's inner circle.
Mehmet Ali Yalçındağ -- Aydın Doğan's son-in-law. Ran the family's media arm, later chaired a Turkish-American business council. Widely described as an informal go-between linking the Trump and Erdoğan camps. His business-diplomacy role grew partly out of the Trump Towers relationship.
Berat Albayrak -- Erdoğan's son-in-law and, at the time, Turkey's finance minister. Met senior U.S. officials, including Trump, in April 2019.
Reza Zarrab -- A Turkish-Iranian gold trader, the central architect of the sanctions-evasion scheme. Arrested in the U.S. in 2016, pleaded guilty, became a cooperating witness, and testified that the scheme reached the top of the Turkish government. Key detail: one of his shell companies listed its registered address inside Trump Towers Istanbul.
Geoffrey Berman -- The federal prosecutor in Manhattan who refused to soften the Halkbank case and was fired in 2020. (Distinct from Judge Richard Berman, who presides over the case.)
William "Bill" Barr -- U.S. Attorney General who, by multiple accounts, pushed prosecutors toward a lenient Halkbank deal.
John Bolton -- Trump's national security adviser, whose memoir recorded Trump promising Erdoğan he would deal with the prosecutors.
Jay Clayton -- The prosecutor who signed off on the lenient 2026 Halkbank deal. Notably, Barr had tried to install him in that same prosecutor's office in 2020, during the effort to replace the prosecutor who would not soften the case.
Brian Ballard & Rudy Giuliani -- Paid advocates who worked on Turkey's and Halkbank's behalf with access to the president.
2. What Is Firmly Established
The conflict of interest is real and was active in office (Documented)
Trump licensed his name to the Istanbul development; the Turkish owner paid for the brand. Trump collected fees throughout both presidencies -- public disclosures show figures ranging from roughly one to several million dollars across the two terms. In a December 2015 interview, Trump himself acknowledged the problem, saying he had "a little conflict of interest" because of his major building in Istanbul. The property could also be used against him: when Trump made anti-Muslim campaign statements, Erdoğan publicly called for the Trump name to be stripped from the towers. The conflict was therefore both real and a usable pressure point.
3. The Halkbank outcome was favorable and anomalous (Documented)
After years of litigation -- including the U.S. Supreme Court rejecting Halkbank's attempt to claim immunity -- the case ended in March with a deferred prosecution agreement. (A deferred prosecution agreement, or DPA, is a deal in which the government suspends and ultimately drops a criminal case in exchange for conditions, normally a substantial fine plus compliance reforms.) The Halkbank DPA required no fine, no forfeiture, no admission of wrongdoing, and no compensation for victims -- only a compliance monitor. It required an agreed sanctions and anti-money-laundering review, cooperation with that review, reporting to Treasury and prosecutors, and restrictions on Iran-benefiting transactions. The case was dismissed by a federal judge last week on June 17 after the non-prosecution agreement filed on June 10.
Why "anomalous": members of the U.S. Senate noted that every other such agreement struck by the same administration included millions of dollars in penalties, and that the deal contradicted the administration's own enforcement policy announced by DOJ days later. By comparison, earlier Iran-sanctions cases against private banks carried very large penalties (for example, one European bank paid roughly $8.9 billion in 2014). A zero-dollar resolution for one of the largest such cases was a sharp outlier.
4. A personal channel reached the prosecution (Documented)
This is the best-supported part of the entire story, and it concerns the first term:
Treasury's own later response to a Senate inquiry confirmed that Erdoğan raised Halkbank directly with Trump in April 2019, after which Trump referred the matter to Treasury and the Justice Department.
Bolton's memoir recorded Trump promising Erdoğan he would handle the Manhattan prosecutors.
The prosecutor who refused to soften the case (Geoffrey Berman) was fired; major reporting tied his removal directly to that refusal.
5. The Attorney General pushed for a lenient deal that career prosecutors regarded as improper.
The bank was finally indicted in October 2019, within days of a falling-out between Trump and Erdoğan over Turkey's military action in Syria -- that is, the case advanced when the personal relationship cooled.
In short, it is documented that personalized U.S.-Turkey diplomacy could and did reach this prosecution. That finding is not in serious dispute.
6. The advocacy environment was saturated (Documented / Reported)
At least three paid or personal channels worked the Halkbank matter for the Turkish side:
Yalçındağ (the Doğan son-in-law and Trump-Erdoğan go-between) publicly included Halkbank in a package of issues Turkey wanted resolved in April 2019, and reporting states he pressed administration officials about the bank. His U.S. access was run in part through a registered lobbying firm. (Note: "registered lobbying" here means disclosures filed under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, a U.S. law requiring paid foreign-influence agents to log their government contacts. Those filings are how much of this is knowable.)
Brian Ballard, a lobbyist with access to the president, earned roughly $2 million representing the Turkish government and Halkbank, then dropped both right after the 2019 indictment.
Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal attorney, worked as a go-between in an attempt to resolve the related Zarrab case.
The property even touches the scheme physically: gold trader Zarrab's shell company listed its address inside Trump Towers Istanbul. That makes the conflict unusually vivid -- the branded property is the registered address of the scheme's central figure.
7. The geotrategic terrain: Why Turkey matters in 2025-26
The Halkbank settlement did not occur in a vacuum or against a single thin rationale but inside a comprehensive U.S.-Turkey realignment across simultaneous, high-stakes fronts, in each of which Turkey was close to indispensable. And those fronts are already embedded in Turkey’s role as the second largest military in NATO, its strategic role in providing ME ground radar access, missile defense, and leverage over the Bosphorus Strait and European migration.
Iran nuclear crisis
Before the launch of combined U.S.-Israel operations on Feb. 28, U.S.-Iran nuclear talks were scheduled in Turkey where U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi were expected to meet on Friday (February 6) in Istanbul -- just days and weeks before the March 6 Halkbank deferred prosecution agreement respectively. Turkey is Iran's NATO-member neighbor and was both serving as a diplomatic venue during an active U.S.-Iran crisis as well as geostrategically motivated to prevent chaos on its borders and the empowerment of Kurdish factions in Iraq and northern Iran.
Syria’s post-Assad reordering
In December 2024 Turkish-backed forces toppled Syria's Assad regime; their leader, al-Sharaa, became president. The second Trump administration effectively treated Syria as a Turkish sphere of influence. Trump met al-Sharaa in Riyadh in May 2025 and lifted U.S. sanctions on Syria; the main Syria sanctions law, the Caesar Act, was repealed in December 2025. By January 2026 the U.S. had largely subordinated its former Kurdish partner force, the SDF, its principal ground ally against ISIS, to the new Turkish-aligned government in Damascus. Turkey's cooperation was central to every part of this.
Defense-industrial: the F-35 program and CAATSA
Turkey was expelled in 2019 from the F-35 program after purchasing the S-400 Russian air-defense system, and was sanctioned under a U.S. law called CAATSA. Reentry and sanctions relief became a top Turkish priority, with roughly $20 billion in defense technology at stake. Decisively, Erdoğan raised F-35 reentry and Halkbank at the same September 25, 2025 White House meeting, and the Turkish side's own account listed them together as bilateral issues alongside F-16 sales. The administration was reportedly exploring a workaround to declare the Russian system "inoperable" to satisfy the sanctions law.
Gaza
Turkey was a major participant in the Gaza ceasefire and hostage diplomacy that saw the release of remaining Israeli hostages and the ceasefire that follows. This was part of the rationale the government formally cited for the Halkbank settlement.
Per the prosecution's filing, "As described in the DPA,President Donald J. Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and leadership within the U.S. Department of State engaged in complex, multi-faceted, and multi-lateral efforts to arrange a ceasefire between the State of Israel and Hamas. In connection with those efforts, (i) high-level diplomatic discussions between the United States and the Republic of Turkiye were ongoing; (ii) the discussions related to addressing the October 7, 2023 attacks by Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization, and obtaining the release of all hostages; and (iii) in the State Department’s view, a commitment by the United States to resolving the Halkbank matter on mutually agreeable terms was an important component of those diplomatic discussions. As has been publicly reported, those diplomatic discussions between the United States and the Republic of Turkiye led to assistance from Turkiye that was instrumental in the ceasefire agreement and Hamas’s commitment to release all remaining hostages."
Upshot
Turkey in 2025-26 was pivotal across Iran, Syria, defense, and Gaza at once, and Halkbank sat explicitly inside that bargaining matrix as one Turkish ask among several. The government's stated reason -- national security and foreign policy -- is not a fig leaf. Even if it narrowly describes the deal as Israel-Hamas based, it is a concession that took place in a broader, dense, multi-front strategic reality.
8. The President’s conflict of interest reframed
With the wider geostrategic field in view the question isn’t whether the president’s financial interests in Turkey influenced the Halkbank disposition at all -- that’s prima facie not only unknowable on the current evidence, it simply misunderstands the issue at hand: did the president’s interests influence, or create exposure to influence on much larger U.S. geostrategic imperatives? That field hightens scrutiny over the documented conflict of interest, not lessens or obscures it. The answer lies in whether one views U.S.-Turkey decision making as coherent with U.S. interests at all. On that, if one expects the identical policy outputs from a president without a conflict of interest, the matter is settled; if not, the matter is radioactive. Given the lack of consensus and heavy controversy over the ongoing U.S.-Turkey realignment the Halkbank affair is likely to remain politically toxic for this presidency.
Put differently, what makes the president‘s financial interests here and this entire affair so radioactive is that it boils down to a much broader discussion about US foreign policy and it shouldn’t. It politicizes foreign policy decisions where now analysts have to be mindful that disagreements with the administration’s Turkey-related policies implicate the president. Analytical neutral output is now de facto colored by an uncomfortable political dichotomy: is this good U.S. policy? or is the president self-dealing? Thus, the president’s financial stake in Turkey is corrosive not because it can be shown to have bought any decision -- it cannot on current evidence -- but exactly because it makes that question unanswerable while turning every debate over US-Turkey policy into a proxy referendum on the president's integrity.
---
Pamuk, H. (2026, June 25). US moves ahead with $700 million jet engine sale to Turkey despite lawmaker concerns. Reuters. https://t.co/7NA2Od0VDK
This is so fucked up
Halkbank, a Turkish state-owned bank facing the largest Iran-sanctions-evasion prosecution in U.S. history received an extraordinarily lenient outcome last week. A personal channel of influence between the two countries' presidents has been documented to have reached into that prosecution during President Trump’s first term, and multiple paid advocates worked the case on Turkey's behalf. The president held a continuing, income-producing commercial interest in Turkey throughout his time in office.
But the favorable Halkbank outcome takes place inside a four front strategic realignment between Washington and Ankara spanning an active U.S. war with Iran, the post-Assad reordering of Syria, a multi-billion-dollar defense-industrial dispute over Turkey's ouster from the F-35 fighter program, and Gaza ceasefire diplomacy -- in every one of which Turkey’s role is pivotal. The Turkish side itself bundled the bank case together with its defense demands. That geostrategic field is, on its own, a sufficient and largely expected explanation for the leniency.
Background
From roughly 2012 to 2016, a scheme moved billions of dollars of Iranian oil revenue through the banking system by disguising it as gold trade, defeating those sanctions. A Turkish government-owned bank, Halkbank, is accused of operating the disguise. U.S. prosecutors called it one of the biggest sanctions-evasion case they had ever brought.
Separately, the U.S. president's family business had licensed its name to a luxury development in Istanbul -- Trump Towers Istanbul. The president did not own the buildings; a Turkish company paid fees to use the Trump brand. He collected those fees while in office.
The deferred prosecution agreement for Halkbank imposed no criminal fine, forfeiture, restitution, or admission. It required review, reporting and restrictions on Iran-benefiting transactions. Per the the June 10 Non-prosecution agreement, "The DPA arose from significant diplomatic and national security considerations."
Question
Despite the stated reasoning, what, if anything, do the president's commercial interests in Turkey have to do with how the U.S. government handled the Halkbank prosecution?
Bottom line up front
The conflict of interest is well documented and real, openly stated by the president himself. However, the president's personal financial interests in Turkey and legitimate national interest in accommodating Turkey point in the same direction. With the two explanations pressuring the identical outcome, distinguishing them from that outcome alone is foreclosed. The available answer is analytically inert: the president maintained financial interests in a geostrategically salient jurisdiction and accommodations to its government align with both US national interest and the president’s personal financial ones.
The result however is not politically inert: the conflict of interest hightens scrutiny of open questions regarding broader influence. The president has had to make major decisions with respect to Turkey. The President’s appointment of Amb. Tom Barrack and his policy stances, the U.S. rapprochement with Syria’s new interim president post-Assad, Ahmed al-Sharaa, and his decision to lift sanctions, the decision to approve Repkon USA, subsidiary of Turkish defense company Repkon, to acquire the only US plant producing MK-80 series bomb casings, Turkey’s prominent role in the president’s 20 point Gaza Peace Plan, the president’s remarks now making waves in the media over reinstating Turkey into the F-35 program after its purchase of Russian S-400 defense systems and CAATSA implications, the controversial approval of the sale of $700 million worth of General Electric F110 jet engines to Turkey for its indigenous KAAN fifth-generation fighter jet program, the Erdoğan phone call that helped block a planned Kurdish ground offensive into Iran and President Trump’s statements during a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte where he acknowledged that Turkey is “a prime candidate” or “leading candidate” to get involved “maybe on the Iran side” -- all of it and more raises scrutiny on the president’s personal financial interests in Turkey, his relationship with the Turkish president, and the lobbying efforts surrounding the Halkbank case.
1. The Actors
Donald Trump -- U.S. president (first term 2017-2021; second term from 2025). Licensed his name to the Istanbul development; collected fees during both terms.
Halkbank -- The Turkish state-owned bank at the center of the case.
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan -- President of Turkey. Repeatedly and personally pressed Trump to make the Halkbank case go away.
Aydın Doğan & Doğan Holding -- The Turkish business family and conglomerate that built and owns Trump Towers Istanbul and pays for the Trump brand. Important nuance: historically an opponent of Erdoğan, not a loyalist. The family's media outlets were critical of Erdoğan for years before selling those outlets in 2018. Doğan is a pragmatic business group that made peace with the government, not a member of Erdoğan's inner circle.
Mehmet Ali Yalçındağ -- Aydın Doğan's son-in-law. Ran the family's media arm, later chaired a Turkish-American business council. Widely described as an informal go-between linking the Trump and Erdoğan camps. His business-diplomacy role grew partly out of the Trump Towers relationship.
Berat Albayrak -- Erdoğan's son-in-law and, at the time, Turkey's finance minister. Met senior U.S. officials, including Trump, in April 2019.
Reza Zarrab -- A Turkish-Iranian gold trader, the central architect of the sanctions-evasion scheme. Arrested in the U.S. in 2016, pleaded guilty, became a cooperating witness, and testified that the scheme reached the top of the Turkish government. Key detail: one of his shell companies listed its registered address inside Trump Towers Istanbul.
Geoffrey Berman -- The federal prosecutor in Manhattan who refused to soften the Halkbank case and was fired in 2020. (Distinct from Judge Richard Berman, who presides over the case.)
William "Bill" Barr -- U.S. Attorney General who, by multiple accounts, pushed prosecutors toward a lenient Halkbank deal.
John Bolton -- Trump's national security adviser, whose memoir recorded Trump promising Erdoğan he would deal with the prosecutors.
Jay Clayton -- The prosecutor who signed off on the lenient 2026 Halkbank deal. Notably, Barr had tried to install him in that same prosecutor's office in 2020, during the effort to replace the prosecutor who would not soften the case.
Brian Ballard & Rudy Giuliani -- Paid advocates who worked on Turkey's and Halkbank's behalf with access to the president.
2. What Is Firmly Established
The conflict of interest is real and was active in office (Documented)
Trump licensed his name to the Istanbul development; the Turkish owner paid for the brand. Trump collected fees throughout both presidencies -- public disclosures show figures ranging from roughly one to several million dollars across the two terms. In a December 2015 interview, Trump himself acknowledged the problem, saying he had "a little conflict of interest" because of his major building in Istanbul. The property could also be used against him: when Trump made anti-Muslim campaign statements, Erdoğan publicly called for the Trump name to be stripped from the towers. The conflict was therefore both real and a usable pressure point.
3. The Halkbank outcome was favorable and anomalous (Documented)
After years of litigation -- including the U.S. Supreme Court rejecting Halkbank's attempt to claim immunity -- the case ended in March with a deferred prosecution agreement. (A deferred prosecution agreement, or DPA, is a deal in which the government suspends and ultimately drops a criminal case in exchange for conditions, normally a substantial fine plus compliance reforms.) The Halkbank DPA required no fine, no forfeiture, no admission of wrongdoing, and no compensation for victims -- only a compliance monitor. It required an agreed sanctions and anti-money-laundering review, cooperation with that review, reporting to Treasury and prosecutors, and restrictions on Iran-benefiting transactions. The case was dismissed by a federal judge last week on June 17 after the non-prosecution agreement filed on June 10.
Why "anomalous": members of the U.S. Senate noted that every other such agreement struck by the same administration included millions of dollars in penalties, and that the deal contradicted the administration's own enforcement policy announced by DOJ days later. By comparison, earlier Iran-sanctions cases against private banks carried very large penalties (for example, one European bank paid roughly $8.9 billion in 2014). A zero-dollar resolution for one of the largest such cases was a sharp outlier.
4. A personal channel reached the prosecution (Documented)
This is the best-supported part of the entire story, and it concerns the first term:
Treasury's own later response to a Senate inquiry confirmed that Erdoğan raised Halkbank directly with Trump in April 2019, after which Trump referred the matter to Treasury and the Justice Department.
Bolton's memoir recorded Trump promising Erdoğan he would handle the Manhattan prosecutors.
The prosecutor who refused to soften the case (Geoffrey Berman) was fired; major reporting tied his removal directly to that refusal.
5. The Attorney General pushed for a lenient deal that career prosecutors regarded as improper.
The bank was finally indicted in October 2019, within days of a falling-out between Trump and Erdoğan over Turkey's military action in Syria -- that is, the case advanced when the personal relationship cooled.
In short, it is documented that personalized U.S.-Turkey diplomacy could and did reach this prosecution. That finding is not in serious dispute.
6. The advocacy environment was saturated (Documented / Reported)
At least three paid or personal channels worked the Halkbank matter for the Turkish side:
Yalçındağ (the Doğan son-in-law and Trump-Erdoğan go-between) publicly included Halkbank in a package of issues Turkey wanted resolved in April 2019, and reporting states he pressed administration officials about the bank. His U.S. access was run in part through a registered lobbying firm. (Note: "registered lobbying" here means disclosures filed under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, a U.S. law requiring paid foreign-influence agents to log their government contacts. Those filings are how much of this is knowable.)
Brian Ballard, a lobbyist with access to the president, earned roughly $2 million representing the Turkish government and Halkbank, then dropped both right after the 2019 indictment.
Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal attorney, worked as a go-between in an attempt to resolve the related Zarrab case.
The property even touches the scheme physically: gold trader Zarrab's shell company listed its address inside Trump Towers Istanbul. That makes the conflict unusually vivid -- the branded property is the registered address of the scheme's central figure.
7. The geotrategic terrain: Why Turkey matters in 2025-26
The Halkbank settlement did not occur in a vacuum or against a single thin rationale but inside a comprehensive U.S.-Turkey realignment across simultaneous, high-stakes fronts, in each of which Turkey was close to indispensable. And those fronts are already embedded in Turkey’s role as the second largest military in NATO, its strategic role in providing ME ground radar access, missile defense, and leverage over the Bosphorus Strait and European migration.
Iran nuclear crisis
Before the launch of combined U.S.-Israel operations on Feb. 28, U.S.-Iran nuclear talks were scheduled in Turkey where U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi were expected to meet on Friday (February 6) in Istanbul -- just days and weeks before the March 6 Halkbank deferred prosecution agreement respectively. Turkey is Iran's NATO-member neighbor and was both serving as a diplomatic venue during an active U.S.-Iran crisis as well as geostrategically motivated to prevent chaos on its borders and the empowerment of Kurdish factions in Iraq and northern Iran.
Syria’s post-Assad reordering
In December 2024 Turkish-backed forces toppled Syria's Assad regime; their leader, al-Sharaa, became president. The second Trump administration effectively treated Syria as a Turkish sphere of influence. Trump met al-Sharaa in Riyadh in May 2025 and lifted U.S. sanctions on Syria; the main Syria sanctions law, the Caesar Act, was repealed in December 2025. By January 2026 the U.S. had largely subordinated its former Kurdish partner force, the SDF, its principal ground ally against ISIS, to the new Turkish-aligned government in Damascus. Turkey's cooperation was central to every part of this.
Defense-industrial: the F-35 program and CAATSA
Turkey was expelled in 2019 from the F-35 program after purchasing the S-400 Russian air-defense system, and was sanctioned under a U.S. law called CAATSA. Reentry and sanctions relief became a top Turkish priority, with roughly $20 billion in defense technology at stake. Decisively, Erdoğan raised F-35 reentry and Halkbank at the same September 25, 2025 White House meeting, and the Turkish side's own account listed them together as bilateral issues alongside F-16 sales. The administration was reportedly exploring a workaround to declare the Russian system "inoperable" to satisfy the sanctions law.
Gaza
Turkey was a major participant in the Gaza ceasefire and hostage diplomacy that saw the release of remaining Israeli hostages and the ceasefire that follows. This was part of the rationale the government formally cited for the Halkbank settlement.
Per the prosecution's filing, "As described in the DPA,President Donald J. Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and leadership within the U.S. Department of State engaged in complex, multi-faceted, and multi-lateral efforts to arrange a ceasefire between the State of Israel and Hamas. In connection with those efforts, (i) high-level diplomatic discussions between the United States and the Republic of Turkiye were ongoing; (ii) the discussions related to addressing the October 7, 2023 attacks by Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization, and obtaining the release of all hostages; and (iii) in the State Department’s view, a commitment by the United States to resolving the Halkbank matter on mutually agreeable terms was an important component of those diplomatic discussions. As has been publicly reported, those diplomatic discussions between the United States and the Republic of Turkiye led to assistance from Turkiye that was instrumental in the ceasefire agreement and Hamas’s commitment to release all remaining hostages."
Upshot
Turkey in 2025-26 was pivotal across Iran, Syria, defense, and Gaza at once, and Halkbank sat explicitly inside that bargaining matrix as one Turkish ask among several. The government's stated reason -- national security and foreign policy -- is not a fig leaf. Even if it narrowly describes the deal as Israel-Hamas based, it is a concession that took place in a broader, dense, multi-front strategic reality.
8. The President’s conflict of interest reframed
With the wider geostrategic field in view the question isn’t whether the president’s financial interests in Turkey influenced the Halkbank disposition at all -- that’s prima facie not only unknowable on the current evidence, it simply misunderstands the issue at hand: did the president’s interests influence, or create exposure to influence on much larger U.S. geostrategic imperatives? That field hightens scrutiny over the documented conflict of interest, not lessens or obscures it. The answer lies in whether one views U.S.-Turkey decision making as coherent with U.S. interests at all. On that, if one expects the identical policy outputs from a president without a conflict of interest, the matter is settled; if not, the matter is radioactive. Given the lack of consensus and heavy controversy over the ongoing U.S.-Turkey realignment the Halkbank affair is likely to remain politically toxic for this presidency.
Put differently, what makes the president‘s financial interests here and this entire affair so radioactive is that it boils down to a much broader discussion about US foreign policy and it shouldn’t. It politicizes foreign policy decisions where now analysts have to be mindful that disagreements with the administration’s Turkey-related policies implicate the president. Analytical neutral output is now de facto colored by an uncomfortable political dichotomy: is this good U.S. policy? or is the president self-dealing? Thus, the president’s financial stake in Turkey is corrosive not because it can be shown to have bought any decision -- it cannot on current evidence -- but exactly because it makes that question unanswerable while turning every debate over US-Turkey policy into a proxy referendum on the president's integrity.
---
Pamuk, H. (2026, June 25). US moves ahead with $700 million jet engine sale to Turkey despite lawmaker concerns. Reuters. https://t.co/7NA2Od0VDK
We refuse to relent in our opposition to any deal that lifts sanctions going back decades. Beyond Obama’s time.
To do so would in a matter of a couple of years hand trillions of dollars to a regime that murders its own people empowering them to suppress and slaughter young Iranians with even greater financial backing, force, and weaponry. To suggest we simply accept this reality is profoundly sickening !!
@patriot_apranik Pure IRGC tactic though
Deny and deflect
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk 
@elonmusk
240.6M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.2M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.7M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
110.6M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
97.6M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.2M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
90.9M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
87.7M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
81.5M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
73M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
69.9M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
69.8M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.7M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
63.9M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
62.6M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.4M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.9M followers
X
@x
60.8M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
60.7M followers
✨
⭐
💫