Under a memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran, Iran will gain phased access to $6 billion of its frozen oil revenues held in Qatar, strictly for the purchase of US humanitarian and non-sanctioned goods. The release, confirmed by a diplomat cited in the Financial Times and Wall Street Journal, is conditional on the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and progress during a 60-day ceasefire period. An Iranian negotiator, Saeed Ajorloo, separately stated that Article 11 of the understanding guarantees that ‘Iran’s restricted or frozen funds and assets will be made available for use’ and that the total sum under discussion is approximately $24 billion, part of which relates to the Qatari-held resources. The Central Bank of Iran is to determine the final beneficiaries and permitted goods categories.

Viewed from Washington, the arrangement is presented as a transactional win-win. A diplomat told the Financial Times that President Trump ‘took a bad Biden deal, limited the goods to humanitarian and non-sanctioned items, and ensured the money is spent on American products,’ thereby supporting US farmers while Iran receives needed commodities. The White House confirmed readiness to unfreeze a portion of assets provided Tehran demonstrates ‘appropriate behaviour,’ including the handover of enriched uranium stocks. Trump himself, in remarks to Axios, described the memorandum as ‘probably unconditional surrender’ and argued that further military escalation would not have reopened the Strait of Hormuz. The $6 billion had originally been held in South Korea and was transferred to Qatar in September 2023 under the Biden administration as part of a prisoner-swap agreement intended as a confidence-building measure, but Iran was unable to access the funds after the October 2023 Hamas attack on Israel and the subsequent regional escalation.

Reactions from other capitals and institutions underscore the political and legal complexities. AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, warned that the initial agreement ‘raises important questions’ about the negotiation process and potential concessions, demanding that Congress have full access to details and that any final deal permanently end Iran’s nuclear programme, remove all enriched uranium, and dismantle enrichment facilities, as well as address ballistic missiles and support for regional armed groups. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace cautioned that ambiguity in key concepts—such as the ‘status quo’ of Iran’s nuclear programme—could replicate the failures of past agreements, and criticised Trump officials for downplaying the importance of the written text. In the US Senate, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer attributed a worsened US position to presidential ‘incompetence’ and declared that Democrats would not support allocating $300 billion to Iran, a figure far exceeding the sums under discussion.

The immediate implications are both economic and procedural. Iran imports an estimated $17 billion in grains annually, and the United States is the world’s largest grain exporter, meaning the restricted funds will largely flow back into the American economy. The 60-day interim period also includes a US waiver allowing Iranian oil exports and the lifting of the naval blockade on Iranian ports, with Tehran expecting $12 billion to be released during this phase. The broader $24 billion unfreezing—part of an estimated $100 billion in frozen Iranian assets worldwide, with significant holdings in China, Iraq, and India—remains contingent on progress toward a final agreement covering nuclear limits, sanctions relief, and regional security. Congressional oversight demands and the ambiguous drafting of the memorandum suggest that the path from interim truce to durable accord will be heavily contested.