Trump’s Iran Sanctions Shift Sparks Confusion Across Banks, Corporations

Efforts by the Trump administration to unwind long-standing sanctions on Iran as part of a broader agreement to end hostilities have triggered widespread uncertainty across governments, financial institutions and global corporations, according to Bloomberg reporting.

The reported policy reversal marks a sharp departure from decades of U.S. pressure on Tehran, which has remained one of the most heavily sanctioned economies since the 1979 revolution, largely due to its nuclear program and support for regional armed groups. The proposed deal envisions reopening key energy routes, including the Strait of Hormuz, reducing global oil price pressures, and formally ending the conflict between Washington and Tehran.

However, the transition has been anything but orderly. Despite the diplomatic breakthrough, recent days have seen renewed military tensions, including accusations by President Donald Trump that Iran violated a fragile ceasefire, alongside reports of additional U.S. military strikes. The instability has fueled doubts over whether the emerging agreement can hold.

Even as uncertainty persists, U.S. authorities have already authorized limited Iranian oil and fuel sales and signaled the potential release of billions of dollars in frozen assets. A 14-point memorandum reportedly signed on June 17 between President Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian outlines a phased lifting of sanctions under an agreed timeline, alongside temporary 60-day waivers while technical negotiations continue.

Former U.S. Treasury officials and sanctions specialists say the rapid shift has created significant compliance challenges, particularly for banks and multinational firms that traditionally avoid exposure to U.S. secondary sanctions risk.

“Firms need to be 100% certain they are compliant,” said Adam Smith, former senior adviser at the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which oversees sanctions enforcement. He warned that while individual transactions may proceed under temporary waivers, many banks and intermediaries may still hesitate to participate due to legal uncertainty.

That reluctance reflects a broader pattern in global finance, where even partial sanctions relief can fail to immediately unlock market activity. Large financial institutions typically require explicit, detailed regulatory guidance before engaging in transactions involving previously sanctioned entities.

According to sources familiar with the talks, policymakers are debating additional safeguards, including proposals to route Iranian oil revenues into escrow accounts or restrict their use to specific categories of U.S. goods, such as agricultural products. The proposals, which have drawn skepticism from Tehran, are not formally included in the memorandum but have been discussed as potential political safeguards to ease domestic opposition in Washington.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has also indicated that Iranian oil transactions may be invoiced in U.S. dollars, a notable shift from Washington’s long-standing efforts to isolate Tehran from the dollar-based financial system.

A temporary general license issued earlier this week allows limited oil sales under dollar-denominated structures, but banks are still awaiting clearer compliance guidance. Financial institutions are expected to seek formal assurances from the Treasury, including interpretive guidance or “comfort letters,” before engaging in transactions.

Despite regulatory easing, many banks remain wary of exposure to potential enforcement actions. The memory of past penalties continues to shape risk assessments across the industry. BNP Paribas, for example, paid nearly $9 billion in 2014 over sanctions violations involving Iran and Sudan, while several other global lenders have faced substantial fines in similar cases.

Legal experts say that precedent has entrenched a culture of extreme caution in global banking compliance departments.

“Financial institutions tend to be even more conservative than their clients when sanctions are loosened,” said Michael Huneke, a trade and national security lawyer at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. “That caution is likely to persist here.”