The fight over the U.S.-Iran interim deal has moved from war powers and nuclear inspections into a more unexpected arena: American farms.
President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance are now presenting part of the agreement as a win for U.S. agriculture, saying released Iranian assets would be kept in controlled escrow and used to buy American corn, wheat, soybeans, food and medical supplies. Iran is pushing back, saying Tehran has not accepted a requirement to spend its own unfrozen money only on U.S. goods.
The dispute matters because it exposes another gap between Washington and Tehran over what the June interim memorandum actually requires. The same deal is supposed to keep hostilities paused, reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and create a 60-day negotiating period for a fuller agreement on Iran’s nuclear program, sanctions relief and regional security.
Washington Says Farmers Would Benefit
The Associated Press reported that Trump wrote the U.S. Treasury would release Iranian assets into escrow controlled by the United States, with the money used for food and medical supplies bought exclusively from the United States, including corn, wheat and soybeans.
Vance made a similar case after high-level talks in Switzerland, arguing that any unlocked Iranian funds outside Iran would be directed toward U.S. crop purchases. The administration’s political framing is clear: sanctions relief, often attacked by critics as a concession to Tehran, is being cast as a channel that could benefit American farmers and ranchers.
But the mechanics are murky. Under past sanctions arrangements, money owed to Iran by foreign buyers was often held in restricted accounts and released only for approved humanitarian or non-sanctioned purchases. Sanctions experts cited by AP said it is not yet clear whether the new arrangement gives Washington the legal and practical power to force those purchases through U.S. suppliers.
Iran Says It Will Decide How Money Is Used
Iranian officials are rejecting the U.S. version of the arrangement. Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said agricultural purchases would be based on price and quality, not terms dictated by Washington. Iran’s ambassador in Geneva, Ali Bahreini, also said Iran alone would decide how to use its assets.
The National reported that Iranian negotiator and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said the two sides had agreed to release $12 billion in frozen assets in two $6 billion instalments, though Washington has not confirmed that figure. The National also reported that Tehran says the memorandum requires frozen or restricted funds to be made available, with release procedures to be worked out during negotiations.
That difference is not a small technicality. If Iran sees the money as sovereign assets being returned, while Washington describes the same funds as U.S.-controlled purchasing power, the issue could become another implementation fight before a final deal is even drafted.
The Backlash Is Already Starting Inside Iran
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reported that the proposal has angered Iranian hard-liners, who argue that routing funds through a U.S.-approved food-purchase mechanism would violate the memorandum and hand Washington leverage over Iranian assets.
Iran’s central bank governor, Abdolnasser Hemmati, said there is no requirement for Iran to buy agricultural inputs from the United States, while leaving open the possibility that Iran could buy from American suppliers if prices and quality are competitive. That position gives Tehran room to negotiate without publicly accepting the Trump administration’s claim of U.S. control.
The domestic politics cut both ways. In the United States, Trump is under pressure from critics who say the interim deal leaves major questions unresolved on Iran’s nuclear activities, missile program and support for armed groups. In Iran, hard-liners are already warning that the asset-release language could become a humiliating concession dressed up as humanitarian trade.
Why This Is More Than a Farm-Trade Story
The frozen-assets dispute adds another test to an agreement already strained by competing public interpretations. U.S. and Iranian officials have clashed over nuclear inspection timing, the future of the Strait of Hormuz, and how much sanctions relief begins during the 60-day negotiating window.
The farm-purchase fight now adds a financial question: who controls the money once sanctions restrictions are eased?
If the money is tightly limited to U.S.-approved food and medical transactions, Washington can argue that sanctions relief is being contained. If Tehran can spend the funds more freely, Iran can argue it won access to its own assets without surrendering economic sovereignty. Those are very different stories, and both governments are already selling their version at home.
For now, the safest conclusion is narrow: the interim deal has not settled the frozen-assets question. It has merely moved it into the open, where it is becoming the latest pressure point in a fragile U.S.-Iran negotiation.