Even before the formal signing of the US-Iran peace agreement, a fresh dispute has emerged over billions of dollars in Iranian assets frozen abroad, exposing differences between Washington and Tehran on how the deal should be implemented.
The disagreement centres on whether Iran should gain access to the funds before negotiations begin or only after meeting commitments outlined in the agreement. The issue has become one of the first major tests for the breakthrough accord expected to be signed in Geneva on Friday.
Iranian media outlets reported that a memorandum of understanding linked to the deal envisages the phased release of frozen Iranian assets during a 60-day negotiation period focused on Tehran’s nuclear programme and other key issues.
According to Iran’s Mehr news agency, which cited a 14-point memorandum, the United States has agreed to release a portion of the funds before negotiations begin. The report said USD 24 billion in frozen assets would be released over the course of the talks and that half the amount would be made available to Iran in advance.
The reported document has not been officially confirmed.
Washington, however, disputed that interpretation.
A senior US official told Axios that Iran would not receive access to frozen funds before fulfilling its obligations under the agreement.
“This is a pay-for-performance deal,” the official said.
Different readings of the agreement
The dispute comes hours after US President Donald Trump announced that Washington and Tehran had reached a peace agreement. The deal is expected to lead to the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital global shipping route whose operations were severely disrupted during the conflict.
Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi, quoted by Tasnim news agency, said negotiations on a final settlement would continue for 60 days and would depend on the United States meeting its commitments.
Those commitments, according to Iranian media reports, include ending hostilities, lifting the blockade and releasing frozen Iranian assets.
Iranian reports also claimed that the agreement contains provisions related to a ceasefire in Lebanon.
Asset dispute predates peace agreement
The question of frozen Iranian assets has remained a contentious issue throughout the conflict.
The matter resurfaced earlier when US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent suggested that the funds could potentially be used to compensate Washington’s Gulf allies for losses arising from future hostilities involving Iran.
Iran strongly objected to that suggestion.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warned last week that using Iranian assets to compensate other countries would amount to a violation of the agreement.
Despite the disagreement, the broader peace initiative has drawn positive reactions from several Western countries.
The UK, Germany, Italy and France have indicated a willingness to lift sanctions on Iran if Tehran takes verifiable steps under the agreement.
Israel, however, did not immediately comment on the development. The country has maintained that it should retain operational freedom against Hezbollah while continuing military activities in southern Lebanon.
The agreement is aimed at stabilising a region that has witnessed repeated ceasefire violations and retaliatory attacks in recent months. The conflict has disrupted global energy supplies and triggered volatility in commodity and financial markets.