Rising gym fees push fitness beyond reach for many Iranians

"Neither have we had a meeting with the director general of the IAEA, nor is there a plan for agency inspections of Iran's damaged nuclear facilities," Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghai told a news conference.

"There is no protocol for this issue," he said.

Vance said on Monday that talks in Switzerland between US and Iranian officials had laid a "very good foundation" for a final agreement to end the war.

Asked when International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors could return, he said the process would start "at a minimum this week" and that conversations with the agency "could happen as soon as today."

President Donald Trump said on Monday that Iran "will agree to have Major Weapons Inspections."

Iran suspended IAEA access to sites hit during last summer’s 12-day war. The UN nuclear watchdog later withdrew its remaining inspectors from the country.

• 

  Relief or resistance? Tehran dailies offer diverging readings of talks

Frozen funds and US farm sales

Baghaei also rejected the idea that Iran had agreed to use frozen funds to buy US agricultural goods, after Vance said the issue had come up in the talks.

Vance said the US had asked Qatar to help set up a mechanism to direct the money.

"We could ensure that the money goes where we want it to go," Vance said. "That will obviously be a big part of the negotiation in the days to come."

He said the arrangement would help "American farmers" and the people of Iran, but added that the funds would not be released unless Washington saw further progress.

Baghaei said Iran would decide how to use its assets based on national interests and needs.

"Any decision will be made based on the interests and welfare of the country," he said.

He said Iran’s agriculture ministry and other bodies would decide on purchases based on price and quality.

Missiles outside talks

Baghaei said Iran’s missile and defense capabilities were not part of the negotiations and would not be discussed.

"Iran's defensive and missile capabilities have absolutely not been part of our talks and will never be a subject of negotiation with any party," he said.

He said Iran and the US had no direct contact after the four-party meeting in Switzerland stopped, and that messages continued through mediators Qatar and Pakistan.

"After the decision to stop the four-party negotiations, we had no direct contact with the American side," Baghaei said.

He said the sides had not held detailed talks on nuclear issues in Switzerland.

"Apart from the general presentation of positions by the American side, no detailed discussion on the nuclear issue took place," he said.

• 

  Hope meets caution as Tehran weighs economic impact of US deal

Oil waiver

The US Treasury on Monday issued a 60-day license allowing Iran to produce, sell and deliver crude oil and petrochemicals, with related banking, insurance and transport services.

Baghaei said the oil-sale authorization had taken effect and Iran could use released or previously blocked assets to buy goods it needed.

"What is important for us is access to assets that have been unjustly blocked," he said.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the waiver was linked to Iranian commitments to keep the Strait of Hormuz open and allow IAEA inspectors back into the country.

Lebanon mechanism

Baghai said Iran, the US, Qatar, Pakistan and Lebanon had agreed in principle to a mechanism to oversee the ceasefire in Lebanon and prevent further clashes.

"The details of this mechanism require further examination and work," he said.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has said Lebanon would be the first "real test" of the agreement.

Mohammad Mohajeri said members of the hardline Paydari Front wanted to use parliament’s podium for their own political interests, citing recent remarks by lawmaker Mahmoud Nabavian, who has criticized Iran’s negotiating team.

Mohajeri likened the hardliners to Colonel Vladimir Liakhov, a Tsarist Russian military officer who bombarded and shut down Iran’s parliament in 1908, saying they also “want to bombard parliament.”

He also criticized the current parliament, calling it “one of the most ineffective parliaments in terms of a positive record.”

“It has done nothing useful and has only pursued noise and controversy,” he said.

He made the comments after MP Kamran Ghazanfari announced plans for a protest outside parliament, saying a group of lawmakers will stage a sit-in if the legislature remained closed.

The head of parliament’s Health and Treatment Committee previously criticized the continued closure of parliament, saying lawmakers had been sidelined amid the Islamic Republic’s talks with the US.

“They closed parliament so they could sign whatever they wanted,” Hosseinali Shahriari said.

Shipping traffic through the strait has increased, but Iran has warned that vessels could face penalties or be forced to turn back if they do not seek advance permission from Tehran and sail close to the Iranian coast, the report said.

At the same time, the United States and some western insurers are advising ships to use a route protected by US air cover on the Omani side of the strait, the report said, citing three shipping executives.

The conflicting guidance has left shipowners unsure whether to risk possible Iranian interference or ignore advice from insurers and US authorities, it added.

“Shipowners and operators find themselves caught in a difficult position. If they follow the guidance of underwriters and US authorities by navigating closer to Oman, they risk interference, detention or potential hostile action from Iranian authorities,” said Dr SV Anchan, chair of the US shipping company Safesea Shipping.

The talks ended with a joint statement from mediators Qatar and Pakistan announcing a roadmap toward a final agreement within 60 days, alongside plans for further technical negotiations.

Iranian officials have also highlighted progress on the release of frozen assets and the possibility of expanded trade.

On Monday, Iran's central bank chief Abdolnasser Hemmati said funds released under the emerging agreement would not necessarily be limited to essential goods and could be used to purchase other non-sanctioned products.

Iranian newspapers largely divided along familiar lines, with hardline outlets portraying the talks as a test of national resolve and moderate publications emphasizing the potential economic benefits of diplomacy.

Economic outlets, by contrast, focused on questions of market stability, sanctions relief and the country's long-term structural problems.

The prominent economic daily Donyaye Eghtesad argued that "a 60-day diplomatic stopgap cannot solve deep-seated, post-war structural challenges."

Its editorial noted that "the diplomacy of the mattress in Switzerland cannot mask the reality that a 60-day roadmap is a temporary truce, not a permanent architecture."

It warned that markets had reacted with immediate volatility to the diplomatic developments, underscoring the risks of managing the economy through short-term political decisions.

Oil-export waivers may provide temporary liquidity, the paper argued, but cannot by themselves resolve deeper structural problems or restore long-term confidence.

Resistance versus relief

The dominant hardline narrative remained one of resistance rather than compromise.

Kayhan argued that Iran's temporary reinstatement of restrictions on traffic through the Strait of Hormuz over the weekend had forced the United States "back to reality."

The newspaper wrote that the brief disruption "proved once again that the only language the Western front understands is the language of definitive leverage," adding that Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf's reported walkout from negotiations demonstrated that Iran "does not negotiate under the shadow of social media threats."

Javan urged negotiators to remain cautious, describing the 60-day roadmap as "a tactical pause forced upon the Americans by the operational readiness of our armed forces."

But moderate voices offered a markedly different assessment.

Shargh described the outcome of the talks as "a fragile but essential window of relief," noting that concrete oil and petrochemical waivers had, for the first time, been linked to a diplomatic timetable.

At the same time, it cautioned that "the shadow of Donald Trump's erratic, transactional approach to international relations looms large," urging negotiators to secure technical and economic guarantees before the current opportunity closes.

Etemad focused on the domestic economy, arguing that Iran "desperately requires the structural stability these sanctions waivers promise" and portraying the developments in Switzerland as evidence that a pragmatic diplomatic framework remains viable.

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.