CoinEx became key channel for Iranian crypto flows – WSJ

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.

The dispute centers on a written message attributed to Khamenei outlining his position on the Memorandum of Understanding.

In the message, Khamenei wrote: "In principle, I had a different view, but because of the commitment that the President, as head of the Supreme National Security Council, gave on behalf of himself and the council members regarding safeguarding the rights of the Iranian nation and the Resistance Front, and because they explicitly accepted responsibility for it, I authorized it."

Hardliners, including parliamentarian Hamid Rasaei and former MP Kamran Ghazanfari, accused Pezeshkian, parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and their allies of effectively staging a "coup" against the Supreme Leader.

'A devastated economy'

The dispute spilled into public view when attendees at an official event shouted that Pezeshkian's government should adhere to the "principles" referenced by Khamenei.

"The principle is justice. The principle is serving the people. The principle is honesty," Pezeshkian responded.

"For 40 to 50 days, we could not export a single barrel of oil from the Persian Gulf," he said. "They have devastated our economy, and many young people have become unemployed. Our young people have no hope for the future. We have to pay benefits to the unemployed and we cannot collect taxes. You tell me, where is the money supposed to come from?"

Pezeshkian also revealed that the government had diverted $20 million in oil-export revenues that would normally have gone into the state budget to the IRGC Aerospace Force to procure military equipment.

"If we had not supported the IRGC, our armed forces would not have been able to fight."

He added that he was withholding further details in the interest of national unity, saying he had much more to say but preferred not to disclose it.

Institutional backing

Pezeshkian's remarks also suggested growing confidence that key power centers continue to back the agreement despite mounting criticism from hardliners.

According to the president, the memorandum was approved by the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) with the backing of the country's most senior commanders from both the regular army and the Revolutionary Guards.

Further evidence emerged on Tuesday when Sobh-e Sadegh, the weekly publication of the IRGC's political office, reported that Saeed Jalili—an SNSC member and a longstanding opponent of talks with Washington—had sought to clarify the leader's position.

According to the report, Jalili said Khamenei's statement was not opposition to negotiations but to Tehran's negotiating approach and certain provisions of the memorandum. He reportedly also said those who voted for the agreement in the council could not be accused of acting against the leadership.

His remarks echoed those of IRGC political chief Yadollah Javani, who said on Monday that the negotiations had been conducted with Khamenei's permission and according to the conditions he had set.

"The interpretation by some that the phrase 'in principle' signifies opposition to negotiations with the United States is incorrect," Javani said.

Competing readings

Iranian newspapers have offered sharply different interpretations of the controversy.

The government newspaper Iran argued that the Supreme Leader's message emphasized "responsibility, commitment, effort, and concern" on the part of government officials.

"The Leader's message was about the government's responsibility," it wrote, "but in part of the political sphere it became a tool for intensifying attacks on the government."

The conservative Khorasan newspaper argued that the message sought to balance three principles: maintaining the Islamic Republic's stance toward US hostility, conditionally accepting the outcome of the official decision-making process and demanding accountability from those implementing the memorandum.

It added that, in political and jurisprudential reasoning, the phrase "in principle" refers to a general rule that can admit exceptions under special circumstances.

Not all conservative voices defended the government. In an editorial titled Mr. President, the Enemy Can Hear You Too, the conservative website Alef criticized Pezeshkian for repeatedly discussing Iran's economic difficulties in public.

One reader commented: "Saying that not even a single barrel of oil was exported because of the US blockade, or that all military officials supported the memorandum, does not send a good message to the enemy."

Debate spills onto social media

Social media reflected the same divide. Supporters praised Pezeshkian's candor, while critics renewed accusations that he was attempting to pressure the Supreme Leader into accepting the agreement.

One supporter wrote: "Pezeshkian is completely right. You cannot run a country without money. We have to face reality."

A critic responded on X: "Standing against the Leader and then blaming everything on the Leader and the system is not called courage."

The dispute increasingly appears to be less about the memorandum itself than about who gets to define Khamenei's position. As negotiations with Washington move forward, competing factions are seeking to claim the leader's authority either to legitimize the agreement or to constrain those implementing it.

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%.”

• 

  Will the Islamic Republic trade with the 'Great Satan'?

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.

Customers told Iran International that services at Pasargad, Melli, Mellat, Sepah, Tejarat, Saderat, Tose’e Ta’avon and Resalat banks were severely disrupted on Tuesday with reports indicating that almost all services had become unavailable.

Some domestic media outlets also confirmed the disruptions. ILNA news agency reported that parts of Iran's banking systems had experienced outages and slowdowns since Tuesday morning.

The Informatics Services Corporation later pointed to cyberattacks as the cause of the latest problems.

“The Informatics Services Corporation has temporarily taken card-based services offline to prevent any unauthorized access and safeguard customers’ data and assets,” the company said in a statement.

100%

Outages follow earlier attack

The disruption comes after electronic services at Melli, Tejarat, Saderat and Tose’e Saderat banks were hit by major outages on June 13.

Those problems affected mobile banking, internet banking, automated teller machines, point-of-sale terminals and other card services.

A day later, the Coordination Council of Banks said the outage resulted from a “limited cyberattack” targeting communications infrastructure shared by the four lenders. The council said no unauthorized access to customer data had occurred and no information had been deleted.

Meysam Zohourian, a member of parliament’s Economic Committee, later warned that a full restoration of services could take up to two weeks.

“Despite investigations by various bodies, the origin and cause of the main attack have not yet been identified, and even replacing hardware has not solved the problem,” Zohourian wrote on X.

100%

Infrastructure under scrutiny

Zohourian also criticized the role of the Informatics Services Corporation, which provides key banking and payment infrastructure and is partly owned by the Central Bank and several commercial lenders.

Iran’s banking sector has faced repeated service outages in recent years, many of them linked to cyberattacks. Such disruptions have become more common during periods of conflict and heightened security concerns, raising questions about the resilience of the country’s financial infrastructure.

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.

• 

  Bread shortages, soaring prices strain households in Iran, residents say

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%.

100%

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.

• 

  Rampant inflation may ignite bread riots in Iran, economist warns

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.

100%

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.