# Iran wants its frozen billions back, Washington keeps the key

> Behind the images of delegations crossing paths in Doha, there is a far more prosaic, almost accounting-level battle that could nonetheless determine

- Author: Maxime Marquette
- Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co)
- Section: Reportage
- Published: 2026-07-07
- Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/l-iran-reclame-ses-milliards-geles-washington-garde-la-cle

## Introduction: money, the silent nerve of nuclear diplomacy

### A financial standoff shaping everything else

Behind the images of delegations crossing paths in **Doha**, there is a far more prosaic, almost accounting-level battle that could nonetheless determine the outcome of the entire diplomatic **process** between **Tehran** and **Washington**: the fate of **billions** of **dollars** in Iranian assets frozen for years in overseas accounts. According to a report published by the **Foundation for Defense of Democracies** on **July 1, 2026**, **Iran** is actively pushing for the release of these **funds**, tying its future **"performance"** to the implementation of the **memorandum of understanding** signed with the United States.

This memorandum, in effect since **June 18, 2026**, serves as the general framework for negotiating every outstanding issue between the two countries: **sanctions** relief, the **nuclear file**, reopening the **Strait of Hormuz**, and broader regional security arrangements.

### An Iranian economy running on fumes

**Tehran's** insistence on this **financial** **file** is not a mere protocol detail. It reflects a brutal economic reality: years of **sanctions** have emptied the Iranian state's coffers, making even a partial **release** of these assets vital to stabilizing a weakened national currency and calming growing **public** discontent.

*I look at this financial standoff with a mix of clarity and distrust. Iran needs this money, that is an undeniable economic fact. But turning a legitimate economic emergency into a permanent bargaining lever is a maneuver Tehran has mastered for decades.*

## Washington's firm stance on the asset freeze

### Not a dollar released without conditions met

According to a US official cited by Israeli broadcaster **i24NEWS**, Iranian assets will remain frozen until the **conditions** of the **memorandum of understanding** are fully met. This is not an ambiguous position: **Washington** has clearly stated that any released **funds** would be reserved exclusively for the purchase of American **agricultural products**, a restriction that locks down the use of that money far beyond a mere symbolic thaw.

This approach turns the financial question into a tool of continuous pressure rather than a one-time negotiated trade-off. Until **Iran** has proven good faith across the entire memorandum, the money remains out of reach.

### Verify before rewarding, the guiding logic

This American philosophy — verify before rewarding — fits a long-standing tradition of distrust toward Iranian commitments, fed by decades of nuclear **negotiations** marked by broken deals and renewed enrichment activities.

*I find this American caution amply justified. The recent history of the Iranian nuclear file is littered with agreements signed and then circumvented. Keeping a hand on the money until concrete proof exists is simply diplomatic common sense.*

## Doha without an American delegation, a signal worth decoding

### Trilateral meetings that exclude Washington

According to Iran's deputy foreign minister, **Kazem Gharibabadi**, follow-up meetings were held Wednesday in **Doha** between the Iranian, Qatari, and Pakistani delegations, with no direct American presence at all. These exchanges focused on implementing the memorandum, with particular attention paid to the situation in **Lebanon** and the release of frozen Iranian assets.

This American absence from the negotiating table is not trivial. It could reflect either a **Washington** wish to let regional mediators move forward without the symbolic pressure of a direct presence, or a temporary **strategic** pullback while other diplomatic priorities occupy the American agenda.

### Diverging accounts of the same process

The latest statements from both camps highlight different **versions** of the memorandum's implementation **process**, an ambiguity that illustrates the fragility of this diplomatic architecture, built through indirect **negotiations** and third-party mediation.

*This deliberate ambiguity between the Iranian and American versions does not surprise me. Each camp tells the story that suits it, and it is precisely in that gap that the real communications battle over this file is being fought.*

## The June 18 memorandum, a fragile foundation for the whole edifice

### A text that covers four explosive files at once

The memorandum of understanding that took effect on **June 18, 2026** attempts to simultaneously address the easing of economic **sanctions**, the question of Iran's nuclear program, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to international maritime traffic, and broader regional security arrangements potentially touching **Lebanon** and other theaters of Iranian influence.

Holding these four files together within a single diplomatic framework is an ambitious bet. Any one of them could, on its own, derail the entire **process** if either side believes the other is not honoring its commitments on a specific point.

### An architecture that tests everyone's patience

This structural complexity partly explains the slow pace of the **process**. Every advance on one front must be weighed against progress, or the lack of it, on the other three, creating a constant diplomatic balancing act between **Washington**, **Tehran**, and their mediators.

*I remain impressed, almost against my will, by the ambition of this memorandum. Trying to resolve four decades of mutual distrust in a single document is either rare optimism or desperate pragmatism. Time will tell which reading is correct.*

## The symbolic and financial weight of the sums at stake

### Billions that could shift Iran's internal balance of power

While the exact amounts remain difficult to establish with certainty in the public documents available, the scale of Iranian assets frozen internationally for years represents a considerable sum for a national **economy** drained after years of cumulative **sanctions**. The mere fact that **Tehran** has made it a top negotiating priority says a great deal about its **internal** **strategic** importance.

Even a partial **release** could offer the Iranian **government** an economic lifeline capable of defusing some **public** discontent, while bolstering the **internal** legitimacy of the negotiators who have championed this **file** before Iranian public opinion.

### A matter of domestic politics as much as foreign diplomacy

For the new Iranian leadership, which must manage the **transition** period following the death of Supreme Leader **Ali Khamenei**, securing a concrete **financial** gesture from **Washington** would be a powerful **political** argument to shore up its **credibility**, both domestically and among the regime's most conservative factions.

*I think we often underestimate, in the West, the domestic political dimension weighing on these negotiations from the Iranian side. For the new leadership in Tehran, bringing money home is not just an economic question, it is a matter of political survival.*

## The structural distrust governing every exchange

### Decades of broken deals weigh on every current gesture

The **frozen assets** **file** cannot be understood without revisiting the long history of American-Iranian relations, marked by repeated cycles of **negotiations**, partial deals, then abrupt ruptures. Each camp approaches this new round carrying the bitter memory of past unmet commitments, which explains the rigidity of the **conditions** **Washington** has set on the precise use of any released **funds**.

This mutual distrust turns every technical negotiation, however minor, into an exercise in managing **trust** rather than simple **financial** arbitration. Both sides know that the smallest gesture will be scrutinized, interpreted, and potentially turned against the other camp if things later fail.

### A regional context that amplifies every decision

This climate of distrust is further reinforced by the broader regional context, where the military strikes exchanged the previous weekend between the two countries are a reminder that the current diplomatic window remains extremely fragile and reversible at any moment.

*I can't help but think that this structural distrust, however historically understandable, ends up becoming an added obstacle to any lasting resolution. Sometimes excessive caution feeds stagnation just as much as it guards against bad surprises.*

## The consequences for regional security balance

### Lebanon, a related but inseparable file

The explicit mention of **Lebanon** in the trilateral discussions in **Doha** is a reminder that Iran's **financial** **file** can never be entirely isolated from **Tehran's** broader regional influence, particularly through its network of alliances in the Levant. Any financial gesture toward **Iran** carries potential repercussions for its capacity to fund its regional proxies.

It is precisely this interconnection that makes **Washington** so cautious about the final use of released **funds**: ensuring they serve exclusively agricultural imports, not indirectly fueling regional influence networks hostile to Western and Israeli interests.

### A vigilance that must also cover the Russian file

**Iran** remains a recognized supplier of military technology to **Russia** in its war against **Ukraine**. Any **financial** easing toward **Tehran** must be weighed against this reality: every Iranian dollar saved elsewhere could indirectly free up additional resources for its military cooperation programs with **Moscow**.

*I keep repeating it in my columns: you can never negotiate with Iran on one isolated file without asking what it means for Russia and its war in Ukraine. The connecting pipes between these files are real, even when they stay invisible in official statements.*

## The Iranian voices demanding fast results

### Internal pressure on the negotiators

Beyond **Kazem Gharibabadi's** official statements, several voices within Iran's **political** apparatus are demanding tangible, fast results on this **financial** **file**, arguing that the concessions **Tehran** has already made since the war ended in June deserve an immediate concrete trade-off rather than promises deferred indefinitely.

This **internal** impatience narrows the room to maneuver for Iranian negotiators, caught between the need to maintain a firm posture toward **Washington** and **public** pressure for visible short-term economic results.

### A political calendar imposing itself on the diplomatic one

The period of national mourning following the death of Supreme Leader **Ali Khamenei** adds another layer of complexity, as Iranian **authorities** must simultaneously manage a sensitive **internal** **political** **transition** and crucial economic **negotiations** with their historic adversary.

*Reading this information, I feel a measured form of compassion for ordinary Iranians, caught between their own regime's strategic calculations and Washington's legitimate firmness. It is always ordinary citizens who pay the heaviest price for these deadlocks.*

## The memorandum's precedent and its structural limits

### A framework agreement, not a final settlement

It is essential to remember that the June 18 memorandum is only a general framework for negotiation, not a final agreement settling every dispute. This nuance, often forgotten in media coverage, explains why every new technical meeting generates as much expectation as potential disappointment.

The most experienced observers of the Iranian **file** regularly point out that memorandums of this kind have, in the past, often served as mere declarations of intent rather than genuine binding commitments, a precedent that calls for caution about current expectations.

### Verification that will take time

Verifying **Iran's** full compliance with the memorandum's **conditions**, across files as varied as the nuclear program, **sanctions**, and regional security, will necessarily take time, a delay **Tehran** might consider politically costly given its economic urgency.

*I believe this tension between Iran's economic urgency and the necessary slowness of American verification will remain the central knot of this file for months to come. Neither side can afford to rush the process without risking another resounding failure.*

## Possible financial scenarios for the fall

### A partial, conditional release, the most likely scenario

The most plausible scenario for the coming months remains a partial, strictly framed **release** of Iranian **funds**, limited to American agricultural purchases as announced, rather than a general release of assets. Such a compromise would let **Washington** demonstrate a form of good faith while retaining significant **leverage** over the other parts of the **file**.

Such a scenario would give **Tehran** an important symbolic gain without fully loosening the grip of **sanctions**, a fragile but potentially workable balance for both camps in the short term.

### The risk of prolonged deadlock if trust erodes

Conversely, if either side believes the other is not honoring its share of the memorandum on the nuclear program or the Strait of Hormuz, the entire **financial** **file** could remain blocked indefinitely, reviving tensions and pushing back any prospect of lasting normalization.

*With all the caution this file demands, I would bet on a partial release rather than a total freeze or a full release. That is the scenario most consistent with the calculated distrust that has governed this relationship for decades.*

## What this means for American credibility

### A consistency test for the doctrine of conditional firmness

How **Washington** handles this **financial** **file** will be watched far beyond the Iranian case alone. It will send a signal to other authoritarian regimes about the **credibility** of the American doctrine of tying every economic gesture to verifiable proof of good faith rather than mere diplomatic promises.

Success on this **file** could strengthen **Washington's** position in other sensitive **negotiations**, while failure or a concession seen as too hasty would weaken its financial deterrence power against other strategic adversaries.

### A consistency to maintain against every authoritarian regime

This rigor must apply equally, whether the **file** concerns **Iran**, **Russia**, or **North Korea**, or the credibility of America's doctrine of conditional firmness will be seriously damaged on the **international** stage.

*I think consistency is the key word here. If Washington caves too quickly on Iran while holding a hard line on Russia, or vice versa, the entire credibility of its doctrine of conditional firmness will collapse in the eyes of the rest of the world.*

## The broader Western view of this financial file

### An attentive but sidelined Europe

**Washington's** European partners are following this **file** closely, without playing a visibly leading role in the **negotiations** reported so far. This relative European discretion contrasts with the more direct **involvement** of **Qatar** and **Pakistan** as the process's preferred mediators.

Some analysts see this as a deliberate **Washington** choice: keeping exclusive control of such a sensitive file rather than multiplying actors and potentially conflicting negotiating lines.

### A transatlantic coordination not to be overlooked

Even so, closer transatlantic coordination on this financial file could strengthen the **West's** collective credibility toward **Iran**, avoiding any signal of division that **Tehran** could exploit to extract further concessions.

*I regret, somewhat, this relative European absence on such a foundational file. Europe has direct economic and security interests in Persian Gulf stability, and it should carry more weight in this process rather than simply watching from Brussels.*

## Why this financial file deserves sustained attention

### A leading indicator of the whole process's solidity

The fate of frozen Iranian assets is, in reality, one of the best available indicators for measuring the real solidity of the diplomatic process underway since June. Unlike verbal statements, which are easily reversible, a financial **release** is a material commitment hard to cancel without major political consequences for both camps.

That is why this file, seemingly technical and accounting-focused, deserves attention just as sustained as the more spectacular **negotiations** over the nuclear program or the Strait of Hormuz: it reveals, better than any speech, the real level of **trust** between the two capitals.

### A reliable gauge for the months ahead

Watching the pace and scale of any financial **release** in the coming weeks will make it possible to measure, far more reliably than official statements, whether this diplomatic process is truly advancing or gradually stalling.

*I will keep a close eye on this specific financial file in the weeks ahead, far more than on grand presidential statements. Money, unlike words, never lies about the real level of trust between two states.*

## What the West should take from this standoff

### Financial firmness as a lasting deterrence tool

This file illustrates a broader lesson for the whole of Western doctrine toward authoritarian regimes: economic and financial levers often remain more effective and more lasting than diplomatic statements alone in achieving verifiable changes in behavior.

This lesson applies to **Iran**, but it applies just as much to **Russia**, whose economy continues to be weighed down by Western **sanctions**, imperfect as they are, limiting its ability to sustainably fund its war effort in **Ukraine**.

### A consistency to defend on every front

The **West** cannot afford to apply strict financial firmness toward **Iran** while tolerating **sanctions** evasion toward **Russia**, or its overall strategic credibility will be seriously undermined.

*I believe this consistency between the Iranian and Russian files is essential. The West cannot afford a double standard on the use of financial weapons, or it will lose all credibility in the eyes of the regimes it is precisely trying to contain.*

## Conclusion: a quiet but decisive file

### Money, the ultimate revealer of diplomatic trust

The fate of the frozen Iranian **billions** of **dollars** will remain, in the months ahead, one of the most reliable barometers of the solidity of the diplomatic process underway between **Washington** and **Tehran**. Far more than spectacular statements or protocol meetings, it is this quiet financial file that will determine whether mutual **trust** is genuinely advancing or remains, as it has for decades, structurally fragile.

### A vigilance the entire West must maintain

Whatever the outcome of this financial standoff, the **West** must keep closely monitoring the actual use of any released **funds**, bearing in mind that every dollar freed for **Iran** also carries potential repercussions for the broader strategic balance involving **Russia**, **China**, and **North Korea**.

*I close this narrative with the conviction that this seemingly secondary financial file says more about the real state of American-Iranian relations than any official statement. Money always speaks more honestly than diplomatic communiqués.*

**By Maxime Marquette, columnist**

## Columnist's transparency note

### Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

### Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here.

**Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

**Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**.

### Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.

## Sources

### Primary sources

- Foundation for Defense of Democracies — Iran pushes for release of frozen assets, July 1, 2026

- Arab Times — US official says Iran assets to remain frozen, July 1, 2026

- Ukraine's Ministry of Defense — regional security context, July 2026

### Secondary sources

- Azernews — regional negotiations coverage, July 2026

- Washington Times — Main issues facing US-Iranian negotiators, July 3, 2026

- Foreign Policy — geopolitical analysis, July 2026

---

Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/l-iran-reclame-ses-milliards-geles-washington-garde-la-cle