As the United States and Iran continue talks for an end to the war, Iran has put the issue of unfreezing overseas frozen assets on the negotiating table. Concerns are growing that as the two sides' positions diverge over how to handle the frozen assets, the issue could emerge as a major stumbling block in the negotiations.
On the 26th (local time), Iran's state-run Fars News Agency reported, "Meaningful negotiations cannot begin unless the frozen funds are released." The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) also quoted Iranian officials as saying, "Iran is seeking ways to regain control over part of $100 billion (about 150 trillion won) in assets frozen by the West and to reenter the global oil market."
Iran's assets frozen by the West currently total about $100 billion, and Iran is demanding the unfreezing of $24 billion (about 36 trillion won), roughly a quarter of that amount. According to Iran's Tasnim News, Iran is demanding that if a memorandum of understanding for an end to the war is signed, $12 billion (about 18 trillion won) of the $24 billion be unfrozen immediately, and the remaining $12 billion be remitted to Iran in stages.
The United States, by contrast, maintains that Iran must first abandon highly enriched uranium before the frozen assets issue can come to the table. According to the New York Times (NYT), a senior Trump administration official who requested anonymity told reporters over the weekend, "No dust, no dollars." The phrase stems from President Trump calling highly enriched uranium "nuclear dust," and it conveys that giving up the nuclear program must come first.
President Trump also made clear that he is not considering unfreezing Iran's frozen assets. At a Cabinet meeting on the 27th, he said, "We are controlling the money they claim is theirs. We will continue to control that money," adding, "When they behave properly and do the right thing, we will return the money to them. But we are not going to do that now."
Regarding the sharp divide between the U.S. and Iranian positions, the NYT said, "These funds have become a core demand of the Iranian government, which is facing economic hardship due to decades of Western sanctions and the recent war with the United States and Israel," adding, "The opposing positions over the frozen funds suggests that Tehran and Washington still show significant differences over a peace agreement."
Britain's daily the Independent likewise assessed that "the issue of billions of dollars in Iranian assets frozen around the world effectively remains the last obstacle in negotiations between the United States and Iran."
From President Trump's standpoint, hastily unfreezing Iran's assets is also not easy. He has been consistently criticizing on social media (SNS) the Obama administration's 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which eased sanctions in exchange for limits on Iran's nuclear development. In particular, controversy flared after it became known that in January 2016, during the process of releasing four Americans detained in Iran, the Obama administration paid Iran $400 million in cash.
Moreover, unfreezing the assets could effectively be seen as providing funds to Iran, which could fuel backlash among President Trump's supporters who are negative toward negotiations with Iran. Close associates of Trump told Britain's daily the Telegraph, "Transferring billions of dollars in frozen assets before Iran even agrees to reduce its nuclear program could be seen as compensation to the Iranian regime, and this will spark backlash among Trump supporters," adding that unfreezing the assets is "a transaction he cannot accept."
Still, some experts say the Trump administration could partially accept Iran's demands in an indirect way. The idea is to release the frozen assets but prevent the funds from flowing directly to the Iranian government. In fact, during hostage-release negotiations in 2023, the U.S. government transferred some Iranian funds frozen in Korea and Iraq to Oman and Qatar. The funds were then executed by paying exporters directly without passing through the Iranian government, and Iran was allowed for a time to use them for humanitarian purposes such as importing food and agricultural products.
Miad Maleki of the Washington-based think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) predicted that the Trump administration could adopt the same approach. He said, "If Iran demands that more funds be transferred to its own accounts, that would effectively amount to sanctions relief."
However, he noted that because peace talks are still in the early stages and Iran has not agreed to limits on its nuclear development program, even such limited measures could be a difficult decision for the Trump administration.