A classic diplomatic Rashomon-like situation unfolded abruptly with the signing of the US-Iran-Switzerland memorandum of understanding. The core dispute points to a seemingly simple yet crucial question: will Iran actually use the unfrozen funds to purchase US agricultural products such as soybeans, corn, and wheat? The official statements from both sides are completely contradictory, with neither side willing to compromise, plunging the true rules and implementation boundaries of this nuclear easing agreement into a deep fog. US Vice President Vance clearly stated at the negotiations that the unfrozen Iranian assets would be jointly approved by the US and Qatar, specifically for purchasing core US agricultural products—a predetermined outcome of the negotiations that cannot be changed. Meanwhile, Iranian officials swiftly denied any mandatory US purchase clauses in the agreement, stating that Iran has complete autonomy over the use of funds and global procurement. One side insists on a rigid binding agreement, while the other completely denies any constraints; this tit-for-tat public opinion standoff exposes the deep-seated game inherent in this nuclear-food binding agreement.



This cognitive conflict surrounding "US grain purchases" is by no means a simple difference in rhetoric, but a direct clash between US electoral politics and nuclear control strategy and Iran's food security and national sovereignty. A multi-layered political game, cloaked in humanitarianism and linking nuclear weapons negotiations, agricultural trade, and geopolitical games, has now fully unfolded.

I. Background of the Event: The Double Shackles of Concessions in Verification and Fund Custody

In June 2026, the US and Iran completed crucial negotiations in Switzerland. Trump's official statement clearly stated that Iran had fully and completely agreed to accept long-term, even permanent, highest-level nuclear inspections, which was the sole precondition for all subsequent US-Iran negotiations and would completely guarantee Iran's nuclear credibility. He firmly stated that if Iran rejected this nuclear inspection clause, the US would immediately terminate all subsequent negotiations.

Based on Iran's significant concessions in nuclear inspections and other areas, the US agreed to lift the maritime blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and open the waterway for passage, but all US warships will remain on standby and retain the right to reinstate the blockade at any time, as a means of exerting ultimate pressure on Iran.

On the financial front, the US finalized a phased unfreezing plan for approximately $12 billion of Iranian assets frozen overseas, while establishing a stringent third-party escrow account mechanism. All unfrozen funds and funds corresponding to the lifting of sanctions must be placed in this escrow account for closed-loop management, with their use strictly limited to the civilian sector. They must be used entirely for purchasing US food and medical supplies, primarily US-produced agricultural products such as corn, wheat, and soybeans. The US packaged this arrangement as humanitarian aid, claiming that Iran is facing a severe civilian crisis and needs timely US agricultural products to provide a safety net and prevent further deterioration of the situation.

This rule creates a starkly unequal power dynamic: Iran concedes its core sovereignty—permanent high-level nuclear inspections—in exchange for limited access to unfrozen funds, which are then entirely controlled by the US and their consumption channels are forcibly locked into the US market. This becomes a double political shackle binding both Iran's economy and its nuclear program. This design not only provides the US with significant leverage in the short term but also sows the seeds for long-term instability within Iran.

Historically, US-Iran nuclear negotiations have a long history. As early as 2015, the two sides reached a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), but it subsequently broke down due to unilateral withdrawal. This 2026 agreement surpasses previous agreements in terms of the intensity of verification, financial controls, and trade linkages, reflecting the Trump administration's consistent style of "maximum pressure + the art of the deal." By linking agricultural exports to nuclear security, the US has successfully transformed what was originally a simple security issue into a complex diplomatic tool.

II. Iran's Dilemma: Basic Needs, Supply Chain Security, and Sovereignty Struggle

Iran is in a structurally passive position in this round of negotiations. Its massive domestic demand for food makes it impossible for it to completely reject the financial benefits of the agreement, but its long-established geopolitical trade dynamics and its national sovereignty bottom line make it resolutely resist the binding terms imposed by the United States. This contradictory mentality of "wanting life-saving funds but not wanting to be strangled" constitutes the core logic behind all of Iran's diplomatic statements and hedging operations.

(I) Structural rigid demand for food: an unbearable pressure on people's livelihoods.

Iran has a population of over 85 million, facing immense pressure to maintain social stability and ensure the well-being of its people. While Iran is largely self-sufficient in staple crops like wheat, guaranteeing basic food needs for its population, it faces a significant import deficit in key feed grains—corn and soybeans—which support its large-scale livestock industry and stabilize meat, egg, and dairy prices. According to relevant data, Iran's annual expenditure on basic grain, oil, and feed imports remains stable at $6-8 billion, with total food imports consistently exceeding $10 billion. Grain and agricultural product imports have long been a vital lifeline for maintaining social stability and the smooth operation of the regime, which is precisely the key leverage the US has used to bind nuclear negotiations with "agricultural aid."

In recent years, Iran's reliance on food imports has further increased due to a combination of factors, including sanctions, climate change, and fluctuations in domestic agricultural production. Corn imports are mainly used for livestock farming; supply disruptions would directly drive up domestic meat prices, triggering a chain of livelihood problems. Soybeans play a crucial role in edible oil and animal feed. Faced with these inelastic demands, even with clearly politically attached conditions to the agreements, Iran finds it difficult to completely refuse. This reflects the profound erosion of the Iranian economy by prolonged sanctions: depleted foreign exchange reserves and high inflation make any external funding extremely valuable.

(ii) Strategic supply chain inertia: refusing to be dependent on US food supplies

Despite its massive import demand, Iran's food trade system has long been completely decoupled from the United States, with its core suppliers stably locked in Brazil, Argentina, Russia, and Central Asian countries. This trade pattern is not accidental, but rather a long-term strategic arrangement based on Iran's geopolitical security. For Iran, food trade is not merely a simple economic activity, but a strategic issue related to national security. Abruptly changing suppliers and shifting entirely to US procurement would not only require overturning a mature trade chain that has been operating for many years and reconstructing the entire system of logistics, settlement, and quality inspection, incurring high switching costs, but also means handing over the lifeline of national food security to a long-term geopolitical adversary. This situation of having the foundation of people's livelihoods controlled by others is the core of Iran's strategic bottom line concerns. Once dependence is established, the United States can exert pressure at critical moments through means such as cutting off supplies, raising prices, or setting up technical barriers, thereby influencing Iran's domestic and foreign policy decisions.

Historically, Iran has repeatedly mitigated the risks of relying on a single source of imports through diversification. Its grain cooperation with Russia not only provides a stable supply of wheat but also includes non-dollar settlement arrangements; Brazil and Argentina dominate the corn and soybean markets. This multipolar supply chain has effectively buffered the impact of sanctions over the past few years, becoming a significant indicator of the resilience of the Iranian economy.

(III) Intense Clash of Public Opinions: The Standoff Between Official Statements from the US and Iran

On the core issue of whether the unfrozen funds must be specifically used for the purchase of US soybeans, corn, and wheat, the official statements from the US and Iran are completely opposed, resulting in a public tug-of-war. Crucially, the US has consistently used vague political language, avoiding rigid commitments and leaving room for maneuver – a typical example of American diplomatic rhetoric. At the negotiations in Switzerland, US Vice President Vance avoided using definitive statements such as "must," "mandatory," or "predetermined," instead vaguely stating that if the US agrees to unfreeze Iranian assets, the funds could be used to purchase US soybeans, corn, and wheat. He further added that the funds would be jointly approved and used by the US and Qatar to ensure they are not misappropriated, defining this flexible model as a sound "Trump-style deal," emphasizing that the arrangement could achieve a win-win situation for both the US and Iran.

Trump's subsequent public statements continued this rhetoric pattern. Early pronouncements used uncertain terms like "highly probable" and "maybe," without explicitly establishing any binding terms. Only during the subsequent standoff did he forcefully solidify the rules. This "ambiguous first, then tough" rhetoric strategy was not a slip of the tongue, but a sophisticated political calculation: using flexible language to lay the groundwork for public opinion, releasing positive signals and pushing for the agreement's implementation without leaving any legally binding grounds, thus avoiding being bound by international law and multilateral rules, while simultaneously reserving ample room for subsequent hardline interpretations and unilateral pressure.

It is precisely this ambiguous rhetoric from the US that has directly fueled this diplomatic Rashomon-like situation. The Central Bank of Iran and its official news agency swiftly and precisely responded, explicitly denying any agreement or obligation to purchase US agricultural products. Iran stated that no negotiating clause mandated "no purchases of non-US products," and that the US's "potential purchases" were merely a unilateral expectation, not a mutually agreed-upon rule. Iran's core demand is to obtain full foreign exchange liquidity from the unfrozen funds for the independent purchase of essential goods globally. Iran will not accept any subsequent politically imposed conditions from the US and will resolutely defend its national economic sovereignty.

In response to Iran's public denial, Trump immediately issued a strong statement. He confirmed this in a White House statement and on social media: the Iranian assets unfrozen by the US will be placed in a US-controlled escrow account, with the funds specifically used to purchase food and medical supplies, entirely through US procurement, specifically targeting US agricultural products such as corn, soybeans, and wheat. Trump explicitly stated that this rule is established and fixed, leaving no room for discretionary procurement.

However, the official Iranian response was quite the opposite. The Central Bank of Iran and Tasnim News Agency publicly clarified that Iran has no obligation to purchase US agricultural products, the unfrozen funds will only be used for essential consumer goods, procurement channels will be open to the global market, and Iran will independently select suppliers based on price and quality, and will absolutely not accept political constraints imposed by the US on its procurement.

On one hand, the US asserts that "funds are exclusively for purchasing US goods, and the rules are rigidly locked in," while on the other hand, Iran officially declares that it has "no mandatory obligation to purchase US goods and has the right to make its own purchases." These tit-for-tat official statements definitively confirm the diplomatic Rashomon effect surrounding this agreement, leaving the core rules for its implementation ambiguous and contradictory, and casting doubt on its true binding force.

(iv) Iran’s deep concerns and hedging strategies

Iran's staunch denial stems from multiple deep-seated considerations regarding its national economy, food security, and sovereignty. The US's closed-loop system of "$12 billion in escrow funds + forced purchases of US grain" essentially uses economic means to undermine parts of Iran's sovereignty: first, it completely locks up Iran's autonomy in food trade; second, it deprives Iran of its right to control foreign exchange, making it difficult for Iran to independently repair its domestic economy and forcing it to remain dependent on the US trade system in the long term.

In response, Iran adopted a differentiated hedging strategy of "limited concessions and substantial resistance." Diplomatically, it continued to publicly deny unilateral binding clauses, preserving room for international bargaining. Economically, it accelerated the consolidation of long-term food cooperation agreements with Russia, Brazil, and Central Asian countries, expanded the scale of non-dollar settlements, and actively hedged against the risks of US goods substitution. Politically, it exchanged limited concessions on nuclear inspections for easing tensions and unfreezing funds, while resolutely resisting economic binding clauses, striving to achieve a dynamic balance of "receiving benefits without relinquishing sovereignty."

Furthermore, Iran may also partially circumvent the strict escrow restrictions through third-party channels or grey market transactions. While this flexible strategy can alleviate pressure in the short term, it also increases the complexity of agreement implementation and potential points of friction.

III. The Trump Administration's Deeper Calculations: A Game of Votes, Discourse Power, and Dual Achievements

The US's insistence on deeply linking nuclear negotiations with US agricultural exports is by no means a simple humanitarian aid effort, but rather a carefully planned dual strategy of domestic political self-preservation and geopolitical power expansion by the Trump administration.

First, it's about salvaging domestic electoral prospects and solidifying the Republican base in agricultural states. In 2026, domestic pressure in the US will increase, with the previous US-Iran conflict triggering energy price fluctuations and a chain reaction in the agricultural market, leading to a decline in voter support in Midwestern agricultural states. This agreement, by creating billions of dollars in export orders, allows Trump to directly deliver on his promises to core farmers, claiming he has opened up overseas markets for American farmers, recovered economic losses, and thus reversed the negative public perception of his governance caused by geopolitical conflict. This move is crucial for consolidating the Republican Party's base in red states.

Secondly, it mitigates public opinion risks and strengthens long-term control over Iran. Directly unfreezing cash in Iran would easily invite political accusations of "financing terrorism." Targeting the funds for humanitarian aid such as food and medical supplies perfectly avoids controversy. Furthermore, through escrow accounts and mandatory procurement, the $12 billion remains entirely under US control, becoming a long-term lever that continuously influences Iranian livelihoods and the economy, forming a dual constraint system together with the permanent verification mechanism.

Finally, the goal was to project an image of absolute diplomatic victory. Trump deliberately amplified Iran's dual concessions: securing the security gains of permanent high-level nuclear inspections, winning large export orders for American farmers, and presenting the opening of the Strait of Hormuz as a "goodwill concession." This comprehensive approach aimed to cultivate a strong diplomatic image and counter external criticism of his foreign policy. This strategy fully reflects the Trump administration's governance style of highly integrating domestic politics with international diplomacy, transforming abstract security commitments into tangible economic benefits through agricultural diplomacy.

IV. The Gap in Real-World Game Theory: The Dramatic Conflict Between Verbal Consensus and Implementation

Despite Trump's high-profile claims that negotiations are progressing smoothly and that Iran has made comprehensive concessions, the core differences between the US and Iran have not been truly resolved, and the implementation of the agreement faces multiple irreconcilable contradictions.

On the political front, the two sides have completely opposing views. The US emphasizes the absolute binding force of closed-loop fund management and special procurement, while Iran continues to deny any mandatory obligations. This tug-of-war in public opinion has severely weakened the legitimacy and enforceability of the agreement. Iran's bottom line is clear: it can accept inspections to ease tensions and obtain funds to rescue its economy, but it will never accept political coercion that would jeopardize its economic autonomy.

On the trade front, the global agricultural supply chain may face non-market shocks. Iran is a major customer of agricultural products from countries like Brazil and Russia. If a mandatory "exclusive purchase of US goods" policy is enforced, traditional suppliers will face a significant reduction in market share. The US's use of political means to seize market share will disrupt the global supply and demand balance of commodities such as corn, soybeans, and wheat, triggering short-term price fluctuations and trade disruptions. Brazilian corn exporters, Russian wheat suppliers, and other stakeholders have already begun to express their concerns.

Furthermore, the implementation of the agreement faces technical and legal challenges. Issues such as the specific operational mechanisms of the escrow account, the fund approval process, and the alignment of product quality standards all require further refinement. Any unilateral adjustment of position by either party could cause the agreement to revert to an unstable state.

From a broader perspective, this agreement also poses a challenge to the international multilateral trading system. World Trade Organization rules emphasize the principle of non-discrimination, and whether politically tied special procurements comply with relevant norms deserves continued attention from the international community.

Conclusion: A Geopolitical Game Experiment Involving Two-Way Trade-offs

The current US-Iran agreement is essentially a strategic compromise based on the real difficulties faced by both sides, rather than a genuine consensus and win-win situation. Iran is mired in long-term sanctions and urgently needs unfrozen funds to revitalize its economy and stabilize its people, forcing it to accept the cost of concessions on nuclear inspections. The Trump administration, on the other hand, needs a diplomatic agreement that combines security gains with economic achievements to solidify its ruling foundation and boost its election prospects. This agricultural diplomacy, cloaked in humanitarianism, has long transcended the scope of ordinary geopolitical negotiations, becoming a complex combination of nuclear games, trade interests, and domestic electoral politics.

Looking ahead, whether Iran can find a delicate balance between the pressure of people's livelihood and the bottom line of political strategy, whether the US's coercive binding terms can be truly implemented, and whether this special "food-for-nuclears" concession will ultimately become a model of diplomatic breakthrough or evolve into a new geopolitical threat, will all profoundly affect the stability of the Gulf region and the global agricultural trade and geopolitical landscape.