Tehran Seeks 24 Billion Unfrozen, Keeps Hold on Hormuz

Talks over Iran’s nuclear program are once again taking on a financial dimension that touches Europe too, because the stability of the Strait of Hormuz shapes energy prices felt by consumers as far away as Serbia. Through its media and its diplomats, Tehran has laid out the terms under which it would accept a new memorandum, and at the centre sit the frozen assets and the question of who will manage one of the world’s most important sea lanes.

According to Iranian accounts, the agreement would involve releasing 24 billion dollars in frozen funds within 60 days. Deputy Minister Kazem Gharibabadi, as Iranian sources report, insists that half of that sum, roughly 12 billion dollars, be released at the moment of signing rather than only after later phases are met. With this, Tehran is trying to secure a concrete financial result immediately, instead of promises tied to future steps.

Why does Iran insist on phases and on Hormuz?

The Iranian side says that lifting sanctions and the nuclear questions belong to a second phase of negotiations, deferring the most sensitive issues. That approach lets Tehran first collect what it considers most urgent, the release of funds, and only then discuss limits on its nuclear program once part of the money is available. The memorandum, if approved by the Supreme National Security Council, would then move to final approval, leaving room for the whole arrangement to be halted at the last step.

The Strait of Hormuz is a particularly delicate matter. Tehran says it retains management of that passage, ceding no control, signalling plainly that it does not view authority over the strategic corridor as something to be traded. A substantial share of the world’s oil trade passes through Hormuz, so any hint of a change in the navigation regime echoes immediately across markets. Insisting on keeping that lever shows that Iran sees itself as the party setting the terms in its own neighbourhood.

Esmail Baghaei, spokesman for Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, described the course of the talks by saying that most of the text had already been agreed. “Most of the text of the agreement has been finalised, but the problem began when the American side introduced new demands,” Baghaei said, placing responsibility for the stalemate on Washington.

How does Tehran read Washington’s messaging?

The Iranian side follows statements from Washington about a deal being near with scepticism. The Tasnim agency noted, with irony, that U.S. President Donald Trump had announced an imminent agreement dozens of times, suggesting that in Tehran such messages are taken as pressure rather than as a guarantee. In this way, Iranian media pre-emptively play down any eventual White House announcement of progress.

It should be stressed that the figures, deadlines and interpretations in question are primarily Iranian claims, voiced through Tehran’s media and through officials’ statements. The American side has not confirmed these terms to the same extent, and the very assertion of new demands by Washington comes from the Iranian perspective. For now there is an agreed draft text and a series of Iranian conditions, but not a signed document.

The geopolitical reality is that the financial calculation and the question of control over Hormuz are woven into a single package that neither side wants to unbundle to its own disadvantage. Whether the demand that half the funds be released on signing will speed up a deal or stall it will become clear from the decision of the Supreme National Security Council. What do you think, does Tehran hold enough leverage to collect on its terms before it gives ground on the nuclear question?