Trump says Iran deal could benefit US farmers, but Tehran disputes claim

US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance have said their interim agreement to end the war with Iran could bring a financial boost to American farmers.

However, Iranian officials have rejected the claim, while sanctions experts remain uncertain about how billions of dollars in Iranian assets, frozen for years under US sanctions, could ultimately benefit the American agricultural sector.

The tentative agreement reached last week would reopen the Strait of Hormuz — through which around a fifth of the world's oil and natural gas once passed — and allow Iran to resume unrestricted oil exports during a 60-day negotiating period. The memorandum of understanding also includes provisions for the release of Iranian assets currently held abroad.

The deal has faced criticism for failing to address several issues cited by Trump when he launched military action against Iran on 28 February, including Tehran's nuclear programme, missile development and support for militant groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

Responding to critics on his Truth Social platform on Tuesday, Trump argued that American farmers would benefit from the arrangement.

He said the US Treasury Department would release Iranian assets "into escrow, controlled by the US", with the funds to be used exclusively for the purchase of food and medical supplies from the United States, including corn, wheat and soybeans.

"These are things that are desperately needed by Iran," Trump wrote.

Vance echoed the president's remarks following high-level talks in Switzerland, saying that frozen Iranian funds held abroad would be used to purchase American agricultural products.

Iran, however, insists that no such commitment exists in the agreement.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei said any future agricultural imports would depend on "price and quality", rather than conditions imposed by Washington.

"It is interesting that the philosophy and goal of the war, which was the destruction of Iranian civilisation and the collapse of Iran, has become enriching American farmers," Baghaei said.

Iran's ambassador to Geneva, Ali Bahreini, also rejected Vance's assertion that the US and Qatar would dictate how Tehran spends its unfrozen assets.

"Iran is the only country that decides what to do with those assets," he told reporters.

A US official dismissed the apparent contradiction, suggesting Iranian leaders were speaking primarily to a domestic audience. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorised to comment publicly.

Joseph Glauber, Research Fellow Emeritus at the International Food Policy Research Institute, said Iran was unlikely to abandon its existing food suppliers.

According to Glauber, Iran's major agricultural partners include Brazil, India, Turkey, the European Union, Canada, Australia and Argentina. Requiring Tehran to purchase exclusively from the United States could strain relations with other exporters.

Under previous sanctions regimes, revenue earned by Iran from exports such as oil and electricity was often held in escrow accounts abroad and released only with US Treasury approval, usually for purchases of humanitarian goods such as food and medicine.

On Monday, the US Treasury authorised the sale of Iranian oil, petrochemicals and petroleum products until 21 August, although the announcement made no reference to escrow arrangements.

Richard Goldberg of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies said he would welcome clarification if Iran were indeed restricted to purchasing American agricultural products.

Richard Nephew, a senior research scholar at Columbia University's Centre on Global Energy Policy and a former sanctions architect in both the Obama and Biden administrations, said the details of the new arrangement remain unclear.

Asked whether the US could require Iran to spend released funds on American farm products, Nephew replied: "Well, we can try."

He noted that Washington could direct foreign banks to transfer the funds only to US banks for the purchase of goods such as soybeans. However, he added that banks are not obliged to comply and could face sanctions if they refuse.

Such an approach would be highly unusual, Nephew said, noting that the United States generally avoids creating the impression that national security policy is being used for commercial gain.

"We don't usually like to give the impression that we treat national security issues as a cash grab," he said.