Senior visiting fellow, George Mason University
The United States' new Iran sanctions waiver could do more than boost Iranian oil exports. It may also help shift Iranian energy trade from shadow networks back toward conventional global markets.
On June 22, 2026, the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued General License X (GL X), authorizing the production, delivery and sale of Iranian-origin crude oil, petroleum products and petrochemicals through August 21, 2026.
Though temporary, the measure represents one of the broadest sanctions waivers for Iran's energy sector in years.
Unlike earlier authorizations, GL X goes well beyond the sale of oil itself. It temporarily authorizes a range of transactions ordinarily prohibited under several Iran sanctions programs, including the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations and the Iranian Financial Sanctions Regulations. It also covers certain transactions involving blocked vessels, provided they fall within the license's authorized purpose.
Most importantly, the license explicitly authorizes many of the services required to move oil through global markets, including shipping, insurance, vessel management, registration, flagging, bunkering, piloting, emergency repairs, environmental protection and salvage. It also covers Iranian-origin products produced by sanctioned Iranian entities.
Unlike General License U, issued in March 2026, which focused primarily on Iranian-origin crude already loaded aboard vessels, GL X addresses the broader ecosystem required for energy trade. By covering production, shipping, insurance, payments and maritime services, it creates a temporary legal framework for activities that sanctions had largely pushed into opaque and costly networks.
Lowering risks
For years, US sanctions have discouraged participation by the wider network of companies that make energy trade possible. Insurers, ship managers, flag registries and port operators have faced significant legal and financial risks for handling Iranian cargoes.
GL X reduces that uncertainty by creating a temporary safe harbor for activities ordinarily incident and necessary to authorized Iranian energy trade.
Oil exports depend on an entire commercial chain. A vessel must be insured, classified, flagged, crewed, fueled, managed and serviced. Ports must be willing to receive it, banks must process payments, and traders must believe transactions will not expose them to future enforcement.
By explicitly covering many of these activities, GL X could lower transaction costs, expand routing options and reduce reliance on ship-to-ship transfers and the shadow fleet that has sustained much of Iran's oil trade under sanctions.
For years, sanctions did not stop Iranian exports so much as redirect them into an expensive ecosystem of intermediaries, aging tankers and opaque financial arrangements. GL X offers a temporary path back to more conventional commercial practices rather than simply increasing export volumes.
The benefits for Iran could be significant. The license provides greater flexibility to export crude oil, condensates, petroleum products and petrochemicals while potentially reducing the sanctions-related discounts often demanded by buyers. The authorization of US dollar-denominated payments may also simplify settlement, although banks are likely to remain cautious.
Markets and diplomacy
For energy markets, the significance of GL X lies as much in reduced legal uncertainty as in any immediate increase in Iranian exports. By making conventional trade temporarily possible, the waiver could lower geopolitical risk premiums even before additional barrels reach the market.
Oil remains the backbone of Iran's economy and its principal source of hard currency. Restoring more conventional access to global markets therefore gives Tehran a strong incentive to preserve the current diplomatic opening and pursue a more durable agreement.
The waiver also reflects a pragmatic US approach that balances sanctions enforcement with market stability. Rather than lifting sanctions outright, Washington has created a limited authorization that gives negotiators flexibility while providing markets with a temporary period of clarity.
Chinese and Indian refiners, already among the largest buyers of Iranian crude, may be best positioned to respond quickly. Other firms, particularly those exposed to multiple sanctions regimes, are likely to move more cautiously.
Caveats
Despite its breadth, GL X is not a repeal of sanctions. It remains temporary, expires on August 21 unless extended, and applies only to transactions that fall within its scope.
Companies will still need extensive due diligence covering cargo origin, counterparties, vessel status, payment channels and sanctions exclusions.
Banks may prove the biggest constraint. Even when transactions are legally authorized, many financial institutions apply conservative internal compliance standards and may hesitate because of reputational concerns or uncertainty over whether the license will be be renewed. Shipowners and insurers may adopt similar caution, particularly where contracts extend beyond the license period.
Multilateral sanctions also remain relevant. The European Union, United Kingdom and other jurisdictions maintain their own Iran-related restrictions, which GL X does not override. Firms operating across multiple jurisdictions will therefore require separate legal assessments, limiting the likelihood of an immediate return by major Western energy companies, insurers or banks.
The future of GL X will depend on the broader trajectory of US-Iran relations. If negotiations falter, the license could simply expire. If diplomacy advances, it could become a bridge toward broader sanctions relief.
GL X is best understood not as a simple waiver for Iranian oil but as a temporary attempt to normalize the commercial infrastructure surrounding Iran's energy exports.
Ultimately, the impact of GL X will depend less on the license itself than on whether banks, insurers, shipping companies, traders and refiners are willing to re-enter Iranian trade. Their decisions will be shaped as much by political confidence as by legal authorization.
For now, it represents one of the most consequential Iran-related sanctions measures in recent years—not simply because it permits oil sales, but because it temporarily restores much of the legal architecture required to conduct them.
Speaking in Switzerland on Monday, Vance said Washington could agree to release frozen Iranian funds for purchases of US agricultural products such as wheat, corn and soybeans.
"If Iranian assets are ever unfrozen, they're going to go to make American farmers richer and to feed the Iranian people," Vance said.
He said the United States and Qatar would oversee the process, though Iranian officials have disputed that characterization.
Trump made similar remarks on Tuesday, saying money taken out of Iran would go to American farmers to provide “corn, soybeans, wheat to Iran.”
“They have a hunger problem, they have a food problem, they have a medicine problem, they got a lot of problems,” Trump said, adding that inflation in Iran had “hit 300%.”
The remarks sparked widespread reactions from Iran International's viewers, many of whom said the country's struggle cannot be reduced to hunger.
"American officials talk about hunger in Iran as if our problem is a lack of food. Everything exists here. Government policies have made food unaffordable. Sending grain won't solve our problems," one viewer told Iran International.
While many respondents acknowledged the country's worsening economic crisis, they argued that inflation, corruption and decades of mismanagement—not a shortage of food—have made life increasingly difficult.
Others said they have little faith that any economic relief provided to the Islamic Republic would ultimately benefit ordinary citizens.
"Right now the Islamic Republic is probably figuring out how to send that wheat to Lebanon and Iraq," one viewer wrote.
The comment was a reference to the Islamic Republic's long-standing support for regional militant allies and proxy groups. Many respondents argued that Tehran has repeatedly prioritized its regional strategy over the welfare of its own citizens.
Several viewers also objected to what they saw as a portrayal of Iranians as a population waiting to be fed.
"The people of Iran are not hungry. They sacrificed their lives and shed blood for freedom," one respondent said.
Many pointed to the nationwide protests of January 2026, arguing that the movement was driven by demands for freedom and political change rather than economic assistance.
Some referenced the symbolic scene in Abdanan, where protesters threw rice into the air during demonstrations. Videos from the western city showed protesters throwing rice into the air, a gesture many interpreted as a rejection of the idea that their uprising was driven by hunger.
"Mr. Vance, you were not there during those January nights in Abdanan when grains of rice fell from the sky like snow," one citizen wrote.
For many respondents, the image symbolized dignity and defiance. They argued that while many Iranians are struggling economically, the country's crisis is ultimately one of governance and freedom.
They did not deny the depth of economic hardship, but said reducing Iran’s crisis to hunger ignored the political nature of their struggle.
Others stressed that Iran is not a poor country lacking resources.
"Our problem with the Islamic Republic is not only economic. It is a government that opposes human dignity, personal freedoms and Iran's ancient national culture. It is governed by ideology and follows a path separate from the Iranian people," one viewer wrote.
Another respondent was blunter.
"Mr. Vance, Iran is a rich country. If you don't believe me, ask Hezbollah, Hamas, the Popular Mobilization Forces and the Houthis."
The reactions reveal deep skepticism among Iranians who wrote to Iran International toward any agreement that could provide financial relief to the Islamic Republic. For them, the issue is not hunger alone, but freedom, dignity and who ultimately benefits when money flows back into the hands of Tehran.
Residents arriving at bakeries on Tuesday found new official prices in effect following an order issued by Tehran provincial authorities and announced by the Iran Chamber of Guilds' flour and bread working group. Under the new rates, lavash flatbread now costs 27,000 rials (2 cents), yeast-leavened barbari 100,000 rials (6 cents) and sangak 155,000 rials (10 cents).
The average monthly wage in Iran is estimated at around $150. A family relying solely on bread for its food consumption would spend roughly $8-$17 per month, depending on the type of bread purchased.
The increase came only two days after Agriculture Minister Gholamreza Nouri Ghezeljeh said bread price rises were not under consideration and that the government was pursuing plans to transfer subsidies from bakeries to households through an expanded electronic voucher system.
The latest hike continues a trend that began during the presidency of the late Ebrahim Raisi and has accelerated under President Masoud Pezeshkian. Compared with less than a year ago, official price schedules show sangak prices have risen by 104%, barbari by 85% and lavash by 93%.
Before September 2024, when the US dollar traded at around 600,000 rials on the free market, Lavash cost 5,000 rials ($0.008), while Barbari sold for 18,000 rials (3 cents) and Sangak for 30,000 rials (5 cents).
The increase follows similar price rises elsewhere in the country. Bread prices in West Azarbaijan province rose by 70% to 100% last month, while prices in Mashhad increased by an average of 49% in mid-June. Reports from other provinces have also pointed to either higher bread prices or reductions in dough weights, a practice some consumers and analysts describe as hidden inflation.
Card-based bread system
The latest increase comes as authorities continue to rely on the Nanino digital monitoring platform, introduced in 2022 to distribute subsidized flour based on bakery sales.
Many bakers say technical problems and disputed calculations have reduced their flour allocations. Although authorities insist there are no limits on bread purchases, consumers in many areas report restrictions as bakeries attempt to stretch subsidized flour supplies.
Subsidy cuts spark concern
The Pezeshkian administration has steadily reduced support for wheat and flour subsidies since taking office and is examining plans to integrate bread subsidies into the electronic voucher program, a move that could effectively end the current subsidy structure.
The proposal has generated concern even among media outlets generally supportive of state policies. News website Khabar Online warned that public tolerance for rising prices was wearing thin and that additional pressure linked to a staple as widely consumed as bread could provoke a strong public reaction.
"Public tolerance for price increases has reached its limit, and society may face severe tension and shock from any new pressure, particularly over a product such as bread that is consumed extensively across cities, villages and lower-income households," the outlet wrote.
Bakery owners say they face growing costs for labor, utilities and raw materials while operating under regulated prices and delayed subsidy payments. Economists and labor activists warn that repeated increases in bread prices disproportionately affect low-income families because bread remains a key component of household consumption.
The price rise comes as inflation remains elevated. According to Iran's Statistical Center, consumer prices in May were 83.9% higher than a year earlier, while annual inflation reached 57.7%.
As the government moves ahead with subsidy reforms, the price of bread is increasingly becoming a measure of the economic strain facing millions of families across the country.
