Deep Dive: The Iran Deal and Its Economic Aftermath

Catch-up: Commercial Awareness Update (22nd June) | Deep Dive: The SpaceX IPO

Hey {{first_name}} 👋!

This one's genuinely fascinating to dig into.

Because the headline of the deal — war ends, oil falls, markets celebrate — is the version everyone already knows. What's far more interesting is what happens after a sanctioned economy gets reopened. How does $300 billion actually get found. Why a number like that becomes a political weapon within 48 hours of being announced. And what genuinely happens to global oil markets when a major producer comes back online after years of being locked out.

This is also one of those topics where understanding the mechanics properly makes you sound noticeably more switched on in interviews, because almost nobody outside of specialist policy circles actually understands how sanctions relief or post-conflict economic reconstruction works in practice.

By the end of today's issue, you should understand:

Let's get into it.

On 17th June, Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian signed a memorandum of understanding, mediated by Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. It took effect immediately.

Here's what it actually contains.

Iran agrees to dilute its stockpile of highly enriched uranium and maintain the current status quo of its nuclear programme while a final agreement is negotiated over the next 60 days. In exchange, the US immediately waives sanctions on Iranian oil exports, meaning Iran can sell its oil freely again for the first time since the war began in February. The Strait of Hormuz has reopened to shipping. The US naval blockade of Iranian ports has been lifted.

Beyond the immediate military and energy provisions, the deal also opens the door to ending all US and UN sanctions on Iran entirely. The exact mechanism and schedule for that is left to be worked out during the 60-day negotiation window that started this week.

And then there's the line that's caused the most controversy.

The memorandum states that the US "undertakes with regional partners to develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least $300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran."

That's it. That's the entire commitment in the actual text. No mechanism. No timeline. No clarity on who pays what.

It's worth being precise about what this is and isn't. This is a memorandum of understanding, not a final treaty. It's a framework that says "we intend to figure this out," not a signed cheque.

Enjoy £20 off the entire Career Guides collection with code 'FFT20' at checkout.

Within 24 hours of the deal being announced, the $300 billion figure became the most contested number in American politics.

Trump posted on social media insisting there's "no $300 billion payment to Iran by the U.S." and called the controversy "fake news" and Democrat "propaganda." Vice President JD Vance separately told the New York Times that the plan won't be paid for by American taxpayers, saying "not a cent of American money goes to Iran."

Meanwhile, critics on both sides of the political aisle have seized on the number. One Republican congressman pointed out that $300 billion is five times what Congress spends on roads and bridges annually. A Democratic congressman attacked the optics of finding $300 billion for Iran while domestic priorities go unfunded.

Here's the part that's genuinely useful to understand: both sides are arguing about a number that doesn't actually specify who's paying.

The phrase "with regional partners" is doing enormous work in that sentence. According to people familiar with the negotiations, the investment fund being discussed is structured as a coalition of regional and international investors, not a direct transfer of American taxpayer money. The fund is also reportedly an entirely separate mechanism from the parallel negotiating track that deals with unfreezing Iran's own sovereign assets that are currently frozen in banks around the world.

So there are at least three different financial mechanisms being conflated in public discussion right now: a reconstruction investment fund involving multiple countries, the unfreezing of Iran's own existing assets, and general sanctions relief that allows Iran to access revenue it generates itself going forward.

This is a really good example of something that comes up constantly in finance and policy: a headline number that sounds simple but actually represents several different mechanisms bundled together, with the details of "who actually pays" left deliberately vague because the politics of being specific are too difficult.

The fund won't be created or become operational until a final deal is concluded. Right now, it's a stated intention, not a financial reality. That distinction matters enormously, and it's exactly the kind of nuance that's easy to gloss over in casual conversation but very easy to get caught out on in an interview if you're not precise about it.

I recently helped an FFT Community member secure a front office role at JPM.

She’s heading to New York for training next month. Want to be next? Join FFT today!

This is the part that's genuinely interesting from a finance and economics perspective, separate from the politics.

Iran is one of the largest economies in the Middle East, with the world's second-largest proven natural gas reserves and the fourth-largest proven oil reserves. It has a young, educated population of more than 92 million people and a diversified industrial base. On paper, that's an extremely attractive economy for investors.

In practice, Iran has attracted almost no significant foreign direct investment for four decades, frozen out of global capital markets by successive waves of US and international sanctions.

So what actually has to happen for that to change?

First, the financial plumbing needs to be reconnected.

Decades of sanctions don't just block specific transactions. They cut a country off from the basic infrastructure of global finance. Iranian banks have been excluded from SWIFT, the messaging system banks use to process international transfers, for extended periods. Reconnecting to that system, and rebuilding correspondent banking relationships with international banks who are willing to process Iranian transactions without fear of secondary US sanctions, is a slow, technical, unglamorous process that has to happen before any large-scale investment can flow.

Second, frozen assets need to be unlocked.

Iran has billions of dollars sitting in foreign banks that have been frozen under sanctions for years. Unfreezing those assets sounds simple but typically isn't. There are legal claims against some of that money. There are questions about which jurisdictions will release funds and under what conditions. The 2015 nuclear deal, for context, unlocked roughly $100 billion in frozen Iranian assets in theory, but the actual usable amount was significantly lower once you accounted for funds already committed to creditors and non-performing loans.

Third, and most importantly for a country this dependent on energy, the oil and gas sector needs serious capital investment.

This is where the real money matters, and where the $300 billion figure starts to make more sense as an order of magnitude, even if the exact mechanism is unclear. After the 2015 sanctions relief, Iran's own oil minister said the country would need around $100 billion just to bring its oil industry back to pre-sanctions levels. Years of underinvestment, ageing infrastructure, and limited access to modern extraction technology all combine to make Iranian oil and gas production significantly less efficient than it could be.

War damage compounds this further. Iran's South Pars gas processing facilities were damaged by strikes in March 2026, which has already reduced condensate output. Rebuilding that kind of energy infrastructure isn't cheap, and it isn't fast.

Fourth, foreign companies need genuine confidence the sanctions won't snap back.

This is probably the single biggest obstacle, and it's psychological as much as financial. Multinational companies have been burned before. When the original 2015 nuclear deal was signed, several major international companies began re-entering the Iranian market, only to have to unwind those investments a few years later when the US withdrew from the deal and reimposed sanctions. That history makes companies understandably cautious about committing serious capital again until there's real confidence this deal will hold.

That combination, financial reconnection, asset unlocking, energy sector investment, and rebuilding investor trust, is what "economic reconstruction" actually means in practice. It's a multi-year process, not something that happens because a number gets written into a memorandum.

"Right now, it's good. But it was in '72, '86, 2000, and 2007." - Jamie Dimon, May 2026.

The Shiller CAPE ratio just hit 42.3. The only time in 140 years it's been higher? December 1999.

Stocks can stay expensive for a long time...

It’s one metric to consider, but when your portfolio is built around the most expensive equities in modern history, what else you diversify with could really matter.

Blue-chip contemporary and post war art has shown near-zero correlation with the S&P since 1995.* Prices are largely driven by private collectors competing for a fixed supply of artwork by artists like Banksy, Basquiat, and Picasso.

Masterworks lets you invest in shares of that market.

My subscribers skip the waitlist here.

^{*According to Masterworks data. Investing involves risk. Past performance is not indicative of future returns. See important Reg A disclosures at masterworks.com/cd.}

Here's where it gets genuinely interesting for anyone interested in markets specifically.

In the immediate term, the picture is straightforward. Oil prices have already fallen sharply, with Brent crude dropping below $78 a barrel this week from highs above $140 during the worst of the crisis. That's the market pricing out geopolitical risk premium now that the conflict appears to be ending.

But the longer-term question is different: what happens to global oil supply once Iran is genuinely back in the market?

The historical precedent gives a useful guide.

When sanctions were lifted in 2016 under the original nuclear deal, Iran's production was around 2.8 million barrels per day, representing roughly 9% of total OPEC output at the time. Within about a year, Iran had increased production to nearly 3.6 million barrels per day, reclaiming much of the market share it had lost. Iran had reportedly built up around 40 million barrels in floating storage that it was able to start exporting almost immediately once sanctions lifted.

This time, the dynamics are somewhat different but the broad pattern is likely similar. Iran has reportedly built significant storage capacity, potentially enough to handle two to three weeks of crude exports at pre-war levels, which gives it a similar ability to flood the market quickly once it has unrestricted access.

Here's the an interesting tension.

A sudden increase in Iranian supply, combined with the rest of OPEC+ already having ramped up production during the crisis to offset the disruption, creates a real risk of oversupply. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Iraq have already said they'll increase output now that the strait has reopened. If Iran adds another 1 to 2 million barrels per day on top of that within the next year or two, global oil markets could swing from a supply crunch to a supply glut surprisingly quickly.

That matters for a lot more than just the price at the petrol pump. Lower, more stable oil prices for a sustained period would ease inflationary pressure globally, which gives central banks like the ECB and the Federal Reserve more room to cut interest rates. It would also pressure the profitability of US shale producers, who need oil prices to stay above a certain level to remain economically viable. And it would test the cohesion of OPEC+ itself, which has had to manage difficult negotiations about production quotas among its members throughout this crisis.

The infrastructure constraint is the real wildcard.

Iran's ability to actually deliver a large, sustained increase in production depends heavily on how much investment flows into rebuilding its energy infrastructure, which circles back to the reconstruction question from the previous section. Sanctions relief on paper doesn't automatically translate into barrels in the market. It requires capital, technology, and time.

So the honest long-term picture is this: Iran returning to the oil market is a meaningful supply-side event, but the speed and scale of that return depends entirely on how quickly the broader reconstruction and investment story plays out. Watch the reconstruction fund negotiations closely, because they're a leading indicator for how much oil actually comes back online.

It's worth being explicit about the closest comparison here, because it tells you a lot about how this is likely to unfold.

In July 2015, Iran signed the JCPOA, the original nuclear deal, with six world powers. Sanctions were formally lifted in January 2016 after the International Atomic Energy Agency certified Iran's compliance. Roughly $100 billion in frozen Iranian assets became available, although the genuinely "usable" portion was significantly smaller once existing financial obligations were accounted for.

What happened next is instructive.

Inflation in Iran remained elevated. Unemployment stayed stubbornly high. Many ordinary Iranians saw relatively little immediate improvement in daily life, because sanctions relief takes time to translate into jobs, wages, and lower prices. Foreign investment did pick up, particularly from European and Asian companies who weren't subject to the same restrictions as American firms, but it remained cautious and gradual.

Then, in 2018, the US under a different administration withdrew from the deal entirely and reimposed sanctions. Companies that had begun investing had to unwind those positions. The brief period of reconnection to the global economy reversed.

That history matters enormously for how seriously investors and companies will take this new deal. The single biggest risk to Iran's economic reconstruction isn't technical or financial. It's political durability. Companies and investors who got burned in 2018 will reasonably ask whether this deal is more durable than the last one, and they won't have a confident answer until they see it survive a change in administration or a shift in the broader geopolitical relationship.

That's the lens worth applying to everything in this deep dive. The mechanics of reconstruction are well understood from precedent. The open question is whether the politics holds long enough for that reconstruction to actually happen this time.

This topic is a genuinely strong one to have a confident command of, because it touches several areas that come up across investment banking, asset management, and consulting interviews.

Macro and geopolitical risk. Understanding how a geopolitical event translates into market pricing, and then understanding the second-order effects once the immediate crisis resolves, is exactly the kind of layered thinking that distinguishes strong candidates. Most people can explain that "the war ending made oil prices fall." Fewer people can explain why long-term oversupply risk might actually be the more important story over the next 12 to 24 months.

Sovereign and emerging market analysis. If you're interested in fixed income, emerging markets, or sovereign risk more broadly, understanding how sanctions relief and economic reconstruction actually work mechanically, the financial plumbing, the asset unfreezing, the investor confidence problem, is directly relevant analytical groundwork.

Reading past the headline number. The $300 billion story is a great real-world example of a skill that matters in every area of finance: not taking a headline figure at face value, and instead asking what it actually represents, who's actually paying, and what mechanism makes it real. That instinct is valuable whether you're looking at a corporate earnings release, an M&A deal value, or a geopolitical agreement.

If an interviewer asks:

A strong answer could be:

The thing I find most interesting about this story is what it reveals about the gap between an agreement being signed and an agreement actually changing anything.

A memorandum of understanding is a statement of intent. It's significant, and it's genuinely changed market pricing this week. But the actual economic reconstruction of Iran, the rebuilding of financial infrastructure, the unfreezing of assets, the investment in energy capacity, the slow rebuilding of investor trust, all of that happens over years, not days.

The same is true of the oil market story. Prices have already adjusted to the immediate news. But whether Iran genuinely returns as a major oil exporter at scale, and what that does to global supply and prices over the next few years, depends on factors that are still completely unresolved.

That's usually how the biggest stories in finance actually work. The headline moment, the signing, the announcement, the IPO, gets all the attention. The real story, the one that determines whether anything actually changes, plays out slowly in the details that come afterward.

Paying attention to that slower story is what separates genuine commercial understanding from just knowing what happened in the news this week.

Keep at it.

Afzal

Ps. Whenever you're ready, check out: