Why the US and Iran Can’t End Their Conflict—The Hidden Financial Motives

Money, Not Nuclear Program, Stalls U.S.-Iran War Talks

Negotiations between the United States and Iran to end their ongoing conflict have reached a deadlock, with financial sanctions emerging as the primary obstacle rather than Tehran’s nuclear program, according to analysts and officials familiar with the discussions. The impasse reflects broader economic and geopolitical tensions, including U.S. Reluctance to lift sanctions and Iran’s demand for financial concessions as a condition for de-escalation.

Sanctions as the Core Sticking Point

While Iran has proposed bypassing its nuclear enrichment program as a bargaining chip to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and end hostilities, U.S. Officials and regional sources say the real barrier is Washington’s unwillingness to ease economic restrictions. Alex Vatanka, a senior fellow and Iran expert at the Middle East Institute in Washington, D.C., told Middle East Eye that “money is a big part of this. It’s a key to any compromise from Iran’s point of view.”

The financial dimension of the conflict traces back to the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal. Since then, the U.S. Has imposed sweeping sanctions targeting Iran’s economy, including its oil exports, banking sector, and access to international financial systems. These measures have crippled Iran’s economy, prompting Tehran to seek relief as part of any diplomatic resolution.

A former U.S. Official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told Middle East Eye that while “everyone has ideas about a compromise on enrichment [of uranium], the hardest circle to square for Trump is lifting sanctions. My understanding is that Here’s more sensitive than the nuclear file.” The official added that Trump’s long-standing opposition to the JCPOA—including his criticism of the Obama administration’s decision to release frozen Iranian assets—has made it politically difficult for his administration to reverse course.

Iran’s Strategic Calculus

Iran’s leadership has framed its demands for sanctions relief as non-negotiable, arguing that economic stability is essential for regional de-escalation. Reports suggest Tehran has signaled flexibility on its nuclear program, including potential limits on uranium enrichment, but insists that financial concessions must accompany any agreement. The Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for global oil shipments, remains a focal point of the conflict, with Iran leveraging its control over the waterway to pressure the U.S. And its allies.

Western media outlets, including BeritaSatu.com, have characterized the U.S. And Israel as facing a “strategic defeat” in the conflict, citing Iran’s ability to sustain military and economic pressure despite sanctions. Iranian military strategy has reportedly shifted toward a war of attrition, prioritizing endurance over rapid strikes—a tactic described by Surya.co.id as an “adversarial patience” approach designed to outlast U.S. Resolve.

Broader Geopolitical Implications

The deadlock extends beyond bilateral tensions, intersecting with global energy markets and the U.S. Dollar’s dominance in international trade. Analysts, including Jaffa Levy in The Telegraph, argue that the conflict reflects a deeper struggle over the petrodollar system, which ties global oil sales to the U.S. Currency. Iran’s efforts to bypass dollar-denominated transactions—including through partnerships with China and other sanctions-evasive mechanisms—have further complicated negotiations.

Scott Bessent, a financial analyst cited in Medium, noted that Iran has successfully monetized its oil exports despite the U.S. Blockade, undermining the effectiveness of sanctions. “When people ask ‘why hasn’t the blockade worked?’, this is the answer,” Bessent wrote. “Iran found a way to monetize its oil without ever touching the U.S. Financial system.”

Diplomatic Challenges and Domestic Politics

The negotiations have also been hampered by domestic political dynamics in both countries. In the U.S., Trump’s hardline stance on Iran—rooted in his long-standing opposition to the JCPOA—has limited his administration’s flexibility. A former Indonesian ambassador to the U.S., interviewed by Kompas.tv, described Trump’s negotiating style as rigid, with little appetite for concessions that could be perceived as weak.

In Iran, public sentiment remains deeply skeptical of U.S. Intentions, particularly after the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal and the subsequent reimposition of sanctions. The Iranian government has framed its resistance as a matter of national sovereignty, further complicating efforts to reach a compromise.

What Comes Next?

As of late April 2026, the talks show no signs of imminent breakthrough. Analysts suggest that any resolution will likely require a phased approach, with incremental sanctions relief tied to verifiable Iranian concessions on both nuclear and military fronts. However, the political will for such a deal remains uncertain, particularly in the U.S., where lifting sanctions could face significant opposition from Congress and allied governments.

A recent discussion at the Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang, covered by local media, highlighted the complexity of the conflict, with participants noting that the U.S.-Iran standoff involves layers of historical grievances, economic interests, and regional power struggles. More than 100 attendees engaged in critical debates about the prospects for peace, underscoring the global interest in resolving the crisis.

The Strait of Hormuz remains a flashpoint, with both sides wary of miscalculations that could escalate the conflict. Until financial and nuclear issues are addressed in tandem, the deadlock is likely to persist, prolonging the economic and strategic uncertainty for the region and the world.