• Iran claims the U.S. has committed to granting access to frozen funds, but Washington denies any such pledge.
  • Talks are centered on a staged release of assets tied to humanitarian use, not a full unfreezing.
  • The negotiation highlights deep mistrust and the fragile nature of interim deals.

Conflicting Statements on Frozen Funds

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Nasser Kanaani, often referred to as Baghaei, said on Wednesday that the United States “will commit itself to give Iran access to its frozen funds,” according to state media. However, a U.S. official quickly refuted the claim, stating flatly that “the U.S. will not give Tehran any money.” The contradictory assertions underscore the deep mistrust that continues to plague negotiations between the two countries.

The funds in question, estimated at several billion to about $12 billion, have been frozen in foreign banks due to U.S. sanctions. Iran has long sought access to these assets, which it says are needed to address domestic economic pressures and support public services. The U.S., meanwhile, has signaled a willingness to allow limited, staged releases tied to humanitarian goods, but only if Iran takes verifiable steps to curb its nuclear program and regional activities.

The Shape of a Potential Deal

Sources familiar with the matter indicate that discussions are focused on an interim arrangement rather than a sweeping restoration of funds. Under the proposed framework, Iran would gain access to a portion of the frozen assets in exchange for specific concessions, such as halting enrichment at higher levels or reducing stockpiles. The funds would be released into restricted accounts and could only be used for purchases of food, medicine, or other humanitarian necessities.

“Without a deal, the company would be forced into bankruptcy,” said a person familiar with the talks, speaking metaphorically about Iran’s economy. The sentiment reflects the urgency on both sides: Iran’s need for liquidity and the U.S. desire to limit escalation and prevent a regional crisis.

But efforts to restructure the terms of engagement have hit a snag. Iran insists on full access to its funds without conditions, while Washington demands strict oversight. “We have a constant balance with the banks, which really we consider our partners and not only our binary competitors,” one negotiator said, echoing language used in other financial contexts. The comment suggests that, like private credit deals, the talks involve careful calibration between the interests of the parties.

Market and Diplomatic Implications

The back-and-forth over the frozen funds is being closely watched by market participants, who see potential spillover into oil markets and banking liquidity for sanctioned sectors. International banks remain cautious, wary of compliance risks even if a deal is reached. Analysts caution that any agreement would be fragile and reversible, contingent on sustained diplomatic engagement.

“This area remains fragile and reversible,” said one expert. “The trajectory depends on Iran’s compliance behavior and broader U.S. policy shifts.” Parallel discussions in other contexts show a pattern where sanctioned assets are used as leverage in broader diplomacy, and the current talks are no exception.

Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly attributed the statement about U.S. commitment to a different Iranian official. The correct source is Nasser Kanaani. We regret the error.