WANA (Jun 23) – In less than a matter of days, two claims rose to the top of headlines surrounding the latest Iran–U.S. understanding. The first suggested that Iran’s unfrozen assets could only be used to purchase American agricultural products, while the second alleged that Iran’s missile capabilities had somehow become part of the negotiations. Both claims spread rapidly across the media landscape, only to be met almost as quickly by official denials.

 

In his latest post on Truth Social, Donald Trump claimed that the financial resources and sanctions relief being granted to Iran would remain in U.S.-controlled escrow accounts and could be used “solely for the purchase of food and medical equipment from the United States.” He also asserted that Iran had agreed to extensive nuclear inspections and that the negotiations were “going very well.”

 

These remarks largely echoed a narrative previously advanced by U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance. Vance had argued that if a portion of Iran’s frozen assets were released, the funds would effectively be spent on purchasing American soybeans, corn, and wheat, with both the United States and Qatar overseeing how the money was used.

Iranian officials, however, reacted almost immediately.

 

Ghorbanzadeh, a member of Iran’s negotiating team, stated that “there is no exclusivity for purchasing American goods—neither in the text of the understanding, nor in the negotiations, nor in any draft document.” He added that what had been discussed was merely the possibility of purchasing agricultural products from the United States alongside other suppliers, with the final decision resting entirely with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

 

A source familiar with the negotiations likewise dismissed the claim, saying: “The assertion that Iran’s blocked funds will be spent on grain purchases is simply not true and appears nowhere in the understanding.” According to the source, such statements are rooted more in U.S. domestic political considerations than in the substance of the agreement. The source also posed a practical question: “What logic would justify spending $12 billion on grain purchases alone?”

 

From an economic perspective, the question is difficult to ignore. Estimates suggest that $12 billion would purchase roughly 19 million metric tons of grain—equivalent to more than 211 kilograms per Iranian annually, or approximately 580 grams of raw grain per person every day. That figure far exceeds ordinary consumption requirements.

 

As a result, both supporters and critics of the understanding appear to agree on one point: the notion that all of Iran’s released assets would be devoted to buying American corn, soybeans, and wheat is economically difficult to defend.

 

Iranian

No Monopoly on Purchasing American Goods Exists in Any Agreement

WANA (Jun 23) – Ghorbanzadeh, a member of the Iranian negotiating delegation, emphasised that no monopoly on purchasing American goods basically exists either in the text of the memorandum, in the negotiations, or in any draft text.   He stated that the Vice President of the United States or any other person might raise any […]

Read More...

 

A review of previous arrangements also sheds light on the origins of the claim. Three years ago, when Iranian funds frozen in South Korea were transferred to accounts in Qatar, those resources could only be used for humanitarian purchases. U.S. officials now appear to be drawing on that earlier framework to shape the current narrative.

 

Even some analysts close to the negotiations do not hide this reality. According to them, both sides in any negotiation typically reconstruct portions of the story to fit domestic political needs. In the United States, emphasizing that released Iranian funds will ultimately benefit American farmers can help answer criticism from Democrats and pro-Israel constituencies, many of whom view any easing of pressure on Iran as a concession to Tehran.

 

Yet the controversy did not stop with the issue of frozen assets.

 

In recent hours, some reports have claimed that Iran’s missile capabilities were also discussed during the negotiations. Certain accounts even attributed comments to Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif suggesting that agreements extending beyond the nuclear file were under discussion. These claims quickly gained traction.

 

However, earlier today, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei categorically rejected such reports during his weekly press briefing. “Iran’s defensive and missile capabilities have absolutely never been part of our discussions,” he said. “Under no circumstances will they become a subject of negotiation with any party.”

 

The statement is significant because it demonstrates that, at least from Tehran’s official perspective, the red lines of the negotiations have not changed. If anything, they have been reaffirmed in response to growing media speculation.

 

What is unfolding appears to be less a dispute over several billion dollars or a few shipments of corn and soybeans than a battle over how the agreement itself is framed. The U.S. administration faces intense criticism from Democrats and pro-Israel groups and must explain to domestic audiences why it has granted Iran sanctions relief and access to financial resources.

 

Viewed through that lens, stressing that the funds remain under U.S. oversight, are restricted to humanitarian purchases, and ultimately benefit American farmers is less a description of the agreement’s legal details than a political necessity for selling the deal at home.

 

Tehran faces its own domestic sensitivities. Iranian public opinion remains highly attentive to issues such as missile capabilities, the use of frozen assets, and national decision-making independence.

 

Consequently, the repeated denials regarding any exclusive commitment to purchase American grain—and the renewed insistence that Iran’s defensive and missile capabilities were “absolutely” not part of the talks—are not merely responses to inaccurate reports. They also represent an effort to prevent narratives crafted in Washington from gradually becoming accepted in Iran as the actual text of the agreement.