The proposal points to one of the more striking ironies of the emerging US-Iran agreement: using Iranian assets to buy American products from a country the Islamic Republic has long cast as the "Great Satan" and a threat to the revolution.
Speaking in Switzerland on Monday, US Vice President JD Vance said Washington could agree to unfreeze Iranian assets for purchases of American products such as soybeans, corn and wheat.
"If Iranian assets are ever unfrozen, they're going to go to make American farmers richer and to feed the Iranian people," Vance said, adding that the United States and Qatar would oversee the process.
The proposal marks one of the clearest signs yet that the Trump administration may be shifting from its longstanding "maximum pressure" approach toward a strategy centered on incentives and compliance.
It has also revived questions about whether limited economic engagement could eventually evolve into something that once seemed unimaginable: renewed trade between Iran and the United States.
Vance said the proposal was developed by Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump's son-in-law and one of the lead US negotiators, together with Qatari officials.
Close allies turn sworn adversaries
Before the 1979 revolution, Iran was one of Washington's closest allies in the Middle East and an important market for American goods and services.
"There was no embargo, no sanctions and no limitation," said Mohamad Machine-Chian, economist and journalist at Iran International. "Iranian industrial infrastructure is American to begin with," Machine-Chian said.
The revolution transformed that relationship. The hostage crisis, sanctions and decades of political hostility largely froze direct commerce between the two countries.
At the same time, the Islamic Republic built much of its identity around opposition to the United States. Iranian leaders frequently portrayed American economic and cultural influence as a threat to the revolution, while late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei repeatedly warned against what he described as Western "cultural aggression."
A market that never disappeared
Yet American products never entirely disappeared from Iran.
Machine-Chian said some US goods continued reaching the country through intermediaries, often passing through several countries and layers of traders before reaching Iranian consumers.
The arrangement was costly and inefficient, but demand remained. And it led to a contradiction that persists today. While many Iranians continued to seek out American products, the country’s rulers repeatedly warned against them.
The Islamic Republic has long viewed unrestricted American economic and cultural influence with suspicion, arguing that it could undermine the values the revolution sought to promote. Khamenei often described such influence as a form of "cultural aggression."
"There is a great deal of potential between Iran and the US," Machine-Chian said. "Iran remains the last untapped developing market in the world … Iranian people love American products and would love a good deal to be able to buy and sell, trade with America."
Still, he cautioned against assuming the latest proposal signals a broader economic opening.
"The result will be decided by compliance, the negotiations and the political aspect of it all," he said. "I wouldn't hold my breath."
Will American goods reach ordinary Iranians?
Supporters of the proposal argue that using frozen assets to purchase food and agricultural products could help ease economic pressure on ordinary Iranians without handing Tehran unrestricted cash.
Mahdi Ghodsi, Economist and Leader of the International Economics Group at the Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies (wiiw) and Senior Fellow at the Centre for Middle East and Global Order (CMEG), said the arrangement could help stabilize prices and reduce pressure on Iran's currency reserves.
"It means there is a lower pressure on currency reserves," Ghodsi said. "There could be some stabilization in the currency market of Iran."
He argued that preventing further economic deterioration is important not only for Iran's economy but for ordinary households already struggling with soaring costs.
But Ghodsi also warned about oversight.
"The regime is corrupt. The regime is a kleptocracy," he said. "We cannot be sure that they don't benefit from such behavior to fill their pockets."
Critics, however, argue that the success of any such arrangement would depend on how strictly it is monitored.
Max Meizlish, a sanctions expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and former US Treasury official, warned that humanitarian trade does not automatically guarantee humanitarian outcomes.
He said Washington would need safeguards to ensure goods purchased with frozen Iranian assets actually reach ordinary people and are not diverted through networks linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
"The question is whether they might be providing an indirect form of support to the IRGC," Meizlish said.
Without a transparent mechanism, he warned, American goods intended for civilians could end up strengthening the very actors Washington says it wants to constrain.
Meizlish also questioned the administration's broader shift in approach.
Just days before the latest proposal, US officials were still describing Iranian oil revenues as a major source of funding for Tehran's armed forces, regional partners and proxies.
"Iran's oil and petroleum exports are a primary source of revenue for its armed forces, terrorist partners and proxies," the State Department wrote in a report sent to Congress on June 16.
For critics, the contrast is striking: a government that only days ago warned that Iranian revenues fund armed groups is now considering a framework that could unlock billions of dollars in Iranian assets under a US-approved arrangement.
Whether the proposal becomes a meaningful opening or remains a narrowly defined humanitarian mechanism remains unclear. Whatever its economic impact, however, the symbolism is difficult to miss.
A state founded on opposition to the United States may soon use billions of dollars in frozen assets to purchase American goods, while a US administration once committed to maximum pressure is increasingly betting on incentives instead.
