Iran Pushes Back Against Trump's Claims About Frozen Assets Amid Anger From Hard-Liners

Iran has pushed back against US claims that any frozen Iranian assets released under a framework deal would be used to buy American agricultural products but stopped short of ruling it out, as the proposal sparked a sharp backlash from the country’s hard-liners.

The release of billions in Iranian funds held abroad is part of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed by Tehran and Washington on June 17 that aims to end months of war between the foes.

US President Donald Trump said on June 23 that any unlocked Iranian funds would be used to purchase American corn, soybeans, and wheat. The money, he said, would be held "in escrow, controlled by" Washington and spent "exclusively" on American food and medical supplies.

SEE ALSO:

But Iranian Central Bank Governor Abdolnasser Hemmati swiftly denied there was such an obligation. "Based on the signed memorandum, we have no requirement to purchase agricultural inputs from America," he said.

He added that if American prices and quality proved more competitive than other suppliers, "there is no obstacle to purchasing from that country," noting that Iran's Agriculture Ministry had in recent years sourced imports through major American and European companies.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei said on June 23 that Tehran would decide how to use any released assets "in whatever way is in the country's interest."

"Therefore, there are no restrictions in this regard," he said.

But Trump appeared to contradict those comments, writing in a Truth Social post on June 24 that some of Iran's frozen assets will be released "to our Farmers and Ranchers" for the "purchase of Corn, Wheat, Soybeans, and more." He added that food is "desperately needed in Iran, and we will be purchasing it for them exclusively from the United States."

'Gifting' Billions To The US

The mere mention of Iran possibly buying US agricultural products using any of its unfrozen funds has angered Iranian hard-liners, and Trump's latest comments are likely to further fuel those divisions.

Raja News, an outlet affiliated with the hard-line Paydari Front political faction, published two editorials on June 23 arguing that the food purchase mechanism violated the MOU signed last week.

Article 11 of the agreement stipulates that frozen funds must be made "fully available" to beneficiaries designated by Iran's Central Bank.

Raja News argued that the proposed US arrangement -- reportedly routing funds through Qatar to pay American suppliers -- amounted to a breach of the agreement before it had even been implemented.

Around $6 billion in Iranian assets are believed to be held in Qatar. Billions more of Iranians funds are frozen in China, Japan, India, and elsewhere.

Raja News criticized Iranian negotiators for agreeing to "gift" billions of dollars to the United States through this mechanism, arguing it would only embolden Washington to commit further breaches of the deal.

An Iranian woman shops in a local market in Tehran. Trump claims Iran "desperately needs" food. (file photo)

The outlet also recalled a scandal in the 1980s, when HIV-tainted blood products imported from France were blamed for the deaths of hundreds of Iranians suffering from hemophilia. "Is the catastrophe of the contaminated French blood going to be repeated this time in the form of American food?" it asked.

Hard-line cleric Morteza Panahian warned that American corn, soybeans, and canola meal were genetically modified and posed a public health threat.

Foad Izadi, a frequent commentator on state television, argued that US Congressional authorization requirements meant any transaction would effectively be a deal between Qatar and the United States using Iranian money, with Tehran cut out. He said the agreement would effectively place Iranian food safety in American hands.

A Domestic Rift

On the other side, more moderate voices defended the logic of the proposed US arrangement.

Analyst Hossein Dorudian said Iran already imports billions of dollars in food annually.

"If foreign currency resources are freed up, naturally importing food from those resources is routine," he wrote on social media.

He added that buying from the United States carried a strategic benefit: giving American agriculture a stake in the agreement. He accused critics of being motivated less by national interest and more by fear that reduced tensions with Washington would erode their ideological identity.

SEE ALSO:

Journalist Ali Daneshmand also appeared to take a swipe at hard-liners. He posted screenshots showing four members of parliament paying for verified accounts on X -- owned by American businessman Elon Musk -- using what he said were parliamentary funds. "The nation opposes this kind of behavior, not what benefits the people,” he wrote.

The exchange reflected divisions inside Iran since the MOU was signed. It echoes the domestic battles over the 2015 nuclear deal, when hard-line factions accused Iranian negotiators of capitulation while supporters argued diplomacy was the only viable path forward.

Emboldened by a statement last week from Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, who distanced himself from the MOU, hard-liners have been scrutinizing the agreement.

They insist Iran should not have negotiated at all and accuse Iranian negotiators of erasing whatever gains were made after the United States and Israel launched a bombing campaign against the Islamic republic on February 28.

More moderate voices, including many conservatives, reject that framing, arguing that the MOU benefits Iran considerably more than it profits the United States.