This is our own money, not American money
Iran conditions peace talks on releasing $24B in frozen assets, framed as a trust-building test that the US must pass to move negotiations forward. Mohsen Rezaei, close to Iran's supreme leader, warns Iran would expand warfare beyond the Persian Gulf to the Indian Ocean and Mediterranean if hostilities resume.
- Iran demands $24 billion in frozen assets—$12 billion upon signing a preliminary agreement, $12 billion later
- Mohsen Rezaei, military adviser to Iran's supreme leader, delivered the demand in an exclusive CNN interview
- Trump administration views unfrozen assets as critical leverage over Iran; fears releasing them removes negotiating pressure
- Rezaei warned Iran would expand military operations to the Indian Ocean, Red Sea, and Mediterranean if fighting resumes
- One-fifth of the world's oil and liquefied natural gas passed through the Strait of Hormuz before the war
Iran's military adviser demands $24 billion in unfrozen assets as a confidence-building measure for peace negotiations with the Trump administration, warning of expanded military operations if conflict resumes.
In a Tehran interview this week, Mohsen Rezaei, a military adviser to Iran's supreme leader, laid out a stark condition for peace: the United States must unfreeze $24 billion in Iranian assets as a test of good faith. Without it, he suggested, negotiations will remain deadlocked—and if fighting resumes, Iran will expand its military operations far beyond the Persian Gulf.
Rezaei framed the demand not as extortion but as a confidence-building measure. "This is our own money, not American money," he said, describing the unfrozen funds as a threshold the Trump administration would need to cross before serious progress could happen. The $24 billion would come in two tranches: $12 billion upon signing a preliminary agreement, and another $12 billion later. For Rezaei, releasing these assets would signal that Trump is serious about a durable settlement—something more robust than the 2015 nuclear deal that Trump himself abandoned.
Rezaei carries weight in these discussions. A veteran of the Iran-Iraq War who led Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps from 1981 to 1997, he remains deeply embedded in the country's security apparatus and is widely understood to have the ear of Iran's current supreme leader, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei. His words reflect not idle posturing but the thinking of Iran's military establishment. When he speaks of what Iran wants, he speaks from inside the machinery of power.
The Trump administration, however, views the unfrozen assets as leverage—precisely the kind of pressure point that keeps Iran at the negotiating table. American officials worry that releasing funds now would remove one of their few remaining tools to influence Iranian behavior. Trump himself has been explicit about his skepticism of financial concessions to Tehran, using the phrase "mountains of money" to criticize the Obama administration's earlier compensation to Iran. Any deal he signs, he has insisted, must be far tougher than what came before.
If negotiations collapse and fighting resumes, Rezaei warned, Iran would drag the conflict into new theaters. Military operations would extend from the Strait of Hormuz—through which a fifth of the world's oil and liquefied natural gas flowed before the war—into the Indian Ocean, the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, the Red Sea, and the Mediterranean. "We will give another dimension to the war by attacking these other American bases we have attacked so far," he said. Yet he also claimed the likelihood of renewed war was low, a contradiction that underscores the fragility of the current moment.
On the question of a possible meeting between Trump and Khamenei—something Trump has recently suggested would be an honor—Rezaei was dismissive. Such a summit will not happen, he said, at least not while negotiations remain stalled. He also declined to address questions about Khamenei's health or decision-making role, a silence that itself speaks volumes given that Iran's supreme leader has not appeared publicly since being wounded in an Israeli strike that killed his son on the first day of the war.
Rezaei expressed deep skepticism about the durability of any nuclear agreement with Trump, pointing to Trump's withdrawal from the 2015 deal and what he called an "ambiguous" negotiating strategy. Should talks fail entirely, he suggested Iran is prepared to defend itself against a potential American invasion, claiming that Iran's ground forces are many times more powerful than its missile capabilities. He also made an unusual historical claim: that the current conflict represents Iran's first military victory in the 47-year history of the Islamic Republic, whereas previous wars had ended in defeat.
The standoff reflects a fundamental asymmetry in how each side views the frozen assets. For Iran, the money represents its own resources, wrongfully held and now a test of American sincerity. For the Trump administration, those same billions represent the last meaningful card it holds. Breaking that impasse—as Rezaei said Trump must do—requires one side to move first, and neither appears willing to blink.
Notable Quotes
The decision is in Trump's hands. Negotiations are at an impasse and Trump needs to break it.— Mohsen Rezaei, military adviser to Iran's supreme leader
If Trump wants to reach an agreement with Iran, these $24 billion are a confidence test that Iran wants to have with Trump—a test the United States must pass.— Mohsen Rezaei
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why frame $24 billion as a "confidence-building measure" rather than just demand it back?
Because Iran needs to show its own people and allies that it extracted something from negotiations, not just capitulated. The framing matters as much as the money itself.
Does Rezaei actually speak for Khamenei, or is he freelancing?
He's not freelancing. His position in the security apparatus and his closeness to the supreme leader mean these statements carry official weight. But Khamenei's silence since his injury creates ambiguity about who's really calling the shots.
Trump says he wants a tougher deal than 2015. How does unfreezing assets make a deal tougher?
It doesn't, by Trump's logic. That's the core tension. Iran sees asset release as a prerequisite for talks. Trump sees it as a concession that weakens his hand. They're speaking different languages about what "tough" means.
The threat to expand warfare to the Mediterranean—is that credible?
Iran has demonstrated capability in those waters through proxies and direct action. Whether it would actually do so depends on whether it believes the US is genuinely negotiating or preparing for conflict. The threat is real enough to matter.
Why did Rezaei reject the idea of a Trump-Khamenei meeting?
Because accepting it would suggest Iran is desperate for a deal. By saying "not now, negotiations are stalled," he puts the burden back on Trump to move first. It's a negotiating posture.
What does his claim about Iran's first military victory actually mean?
It's a way of saying Iran isn't negotiating from weakness. Whether it's historically accurate is less important than the message: we didn't lose this war, so don't treat us like we did.