Speaking on an online program last week, Soltani said networks built to evade oil sanctions stood to lose from the June memorandum between Tehran and Washington, because implementing it would have cut their role in oil sales.
Three Saudi and Qatari tankers were attacked in the Strait of Hormuz less than three weeks after the memorandum was signed. Soltani said the attacks served to derail the agreement and prevent sanctions on Iranian oil from being lifted for good, keeping the networks in business.
The people he described as trustees are not the traders who sell the oil, he said, but the intermediaries who move the money. He named Ruhollah Razavi, son-in-law of Majid Motaghifar, spokesman for the hardline Paydari Party, as one of four who control much of the trade.
The margins are the point. Moving the proceeds of a single tanker carrying about $90 million of oil costs roughly $4 million through these intermediaries, Soltani said. Through SWIFT, the international banking system Iran is cut off from, it would cost about $500.
He also said the four had run monthly debts to the government in the hundreds of millions of dollars while using the money for other business, putting the monthly average attributed to Hossein Shamkhani, son of the late security chief Ali Shamkhani, at about $800 million.
Iranian outlets have recently named Razavi, Shamkhani and two others as the network's main trustees, and asked how they were chosen and how the system works.
The backlash
Fars News Agency, affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards, said Washington had violated the memorandum, particularly its provision on the Strait of Hormuz, and rejected any suggestion that Iran bore responsibility for its collapse.
"Recent reports, including material published by Yashar Soltani and affiliated media, seek to switch the roles of victim and culprit and portray Iran as responsible for the failure of the memorandum," Fars wrote. "The narrative that vigilantes broke the agreement is simple and attractive, but when placed alongside the successive violations by the United States, it falls apart."
Tasnim, also linked to the Guards, called it performative justice-seeking. "If a nation is told that the war with the United States and Israel is not the product of the wickedness and crimes of these two regimes, but rather the result of the mischief of some people inside the country seeking to continue benefiting economically, what incentive will remain there for unity?" it asked.
The state broadcaster's political program Be Vaght-e Iran argued on social media that no commercial network could have carried out the attacks whatever its motive.
"Trustees have neither a military structure, nor anti-ship cruise missiles, nor links to the command levels of the IRGC and army," the post said. "This type of narrative is not only unprofessional, but also a dangerous and disturbing game aimed at discrediting the defenders of the country's security who have stood by this land for years."
A military analyst in an accompanying video said that while the United States had violated the memorandum, only Iran's wartime command, the Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, could have ordered missile strikes.
The accusations
Hardline users have accused Soltani of serving those who want to pressure Iran's armed forces.
Ehsan Hosseini, who edits the hardline publication Khat-e Energy, said Soltani was trying to swap one set of trustees for another: "The project Yashar Soltani has launched is not against the trustees; it seeks to oust some and replace them with other trustees, those who failed to return $13 billion in oil revenues and caused the January protests."
Majid Shakeri, an adviser to parliament speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, called the revelations a propaganda campaign by one group of trustees against another. Both groups, he said, had contributed to two wars and to last year's protests, and anyone attributing Iran's response to the American violation to this rivalry deserved a "field trial for wartime treason."
Journalist Davoud Modarresian put the blame on the government, which he said had neither the nerve to leave the dollar-based financial order nor the ability to control the trustees.
"By implementing currency shocks and releasing the dollar exchange rate in December, they pushed the economy to the brink of collapse and created the conditions for the enemy's military greed," he wrote.
Not all of it was hostile. "If oil is sold without obstruction or sanctions by the ministry under the memorandum, and its money returns through transparent channels, the profits of the trustees and the IRGC will be cut," one user wrote, arguing that this pointed to collusion between the two.