Speaking at the G7 summit in France, President Donald Trump delivered a dual message on Iran’s financial future that both hardened and softened Washington’s posture. He categorically dismissed as “false” reports of a leaked memorandum of understanding that would see Gulf allies finance a $300 billion reconstruction and economic development fund for Iran, part of a broader framework to end regional hostilities and secure the Strait of Hormuz. Yet in the same press conference, Trump conceded that the United States holds a substantial quantity of frozen Iranian assets and signalled that returning them was inevitable. “It’s not our money, it’s their money, and we froze it,” he said. “At some point, I think we’ll have to give it back.”

That admission, prominently featured in Iranian media, carried a striking rationale: permanent retention of the assets could erode international trust in the dollar. Trump warned that if the funds were never returned, “nobody would ever invest in the dollar again.” Viewed from Tehran, the remarks were seized upon as a tacit recognition that the Islamic Republic’s sovereign wealth cannot be indefinitely weaponised without damaging the currency that underpins American financial hegemony. The frozen assets, blocked under successive sanctions regimes, have long been a central grievance for Iran, and Trump’s language suggested a potential opening—albeit one hedged with conditions.

The $300 billion fund, however, remains a point of contention. Trump insisted the United States would not contribute “even 10 cents,” though he allowed that other nations or private investors could choose to participate. Gulf capitals, which would be vital to any such initiative, were reportedly named in the draft memorandum as prospective backers, but Trump denied any American role in organising or endorsing a dedicated fund. The distinction he drew was sharp: Washington will not finance Iran’s reconstruction, but it cannot permanently withhold assets that legally belong to Tehran without risking the dollar’s reserve-currency status.

Analysts in London note that Trump’s comments reflect the tension between his administration’s maximum-pressure sanctions policy and the practical limits of financial coercion. While he reiterated that sanctions would keep Iran in “extreme poverty” unless it complies with nuclear and behavioural demands, the acknowledgment that frozen funds must eventually flow back suggests a sequencing logic: compliance first, then asset release, but no American-funded reconstruction. The G7 backdrop underscored the international dimension, with European allies quietly urging a diplomatic off-ramp. The path forward, therefore, may depend less on American cheque books than on whether Gulf states and private capital are willing to underwrite stability in exchange for Iranian concessions—and whether Tehran can accept a deal that returns its own money but offers no Marshall Plan.