FAQ: What to know about Treasury Department's temporary license for Iranian oil sales
FAQ: What to know about Treasury Department's temporary license for Iranian oil sales
The scope of that economic relief is still raising questions.
ByShannon K. KingstonJune 23, 2026, 4:36 PMThe Trump administration was expected to temporarily roll back sanctions on Iran as part of the ongoing diplomacy between the countries -- but the scope of that economic relief is still raising questions.
On Monday, the Treasury Department formally issued a wide-ranging license permitting the sale of Iranian oil for 60 days, following through on a promise from the Memorandum of Understanding signed by President Donald Trump last week.
RelatedIran live updatesThe sweeping waiver, which could unlock billions in revenue for Tehran, marks a sharp pivot not only for Trump -- who has long sought to exert maximum pressure on Iran -- but also for the decades-old sanctions regime the U.S. has levied against the country.
Here are a few questions and answers about the move:
Q: What’s different now that Treasury has issued the license?
The license from the Treasury Department allows Iran to openly sell its oil on the global market for the first time since 2018 -- the year Trump exited the Obama-era deal with Iran known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and cracked down on Iran’s economy once more.
Iran continued to export oil under the radar by relying heavily on a shadow fleet of vessels, but experts say it will now likely be able to sell its oil in greater quantities and at a higher price since its customers can't demand a discount to offset the risk of violating U.S. sanctions law.
The license also specifically says Iran can be compensated for oil sales in U.S. dollars, opening the door for Iran to conduct the transactions in American currency for the first time in almost two decades.
Q. Why does it matter if Iran can be paid in U.S. dollars?
The U.S. dollar is the anchor of the global banking system, and before the license was issued this week, Iran was forced to subvert that system to do business -- which often meant resorting to time-consuming and expensive steps to collect payments for its exports.
RelatedObama national security adviser Rice blasts 'flimsy' Iran agreement: 'So many concessions were granted'The Trump administration's decision to explicitly permit Iran to conduct transactions in American currency is expected to streamline sales, allow Iran to more easily bring revenue into its financial system and stabilize its central bank. It may also help Iran access new buyers.
Iran has not conducted oil sales using U.S. dollars since 2007, when -- amid global economic uncertainty and increased pressure from sanctions -- Tehran made the decision to shift toward other currencies.
Q: Does this license mean that oil from Iran will make its way to gas pumps in the U.S.?
Not likely. The language of the license authorizes Iranian oil to be imported into the U.S. "where such importation is ordinarily incident and necessary to the sale, delivery or offloading" of that oil. This has typically been understood to mean that shipments can be imported to the U.S. for the sole purpose of moving, processing or storing it for final delivery to a third-country buyer.
The Treasury Department has not yet issued official guidance to accompany the license and many entities -- including American refiners -- would rather be safe than sorry when it comes to potentially violating sanctions law.
American refineries also don't have existing supply networks with Iran, and the U.S. does not rely on the type of crude Iran exports.
Iran updates: Iran says military's 'ready to respond' amid Trump threats
- Jun 21, 4:39 PM
Trump says Reflecting Pool repairs will begin 'immediately' after vandalism arrests
- Jun 21, 9:10 PM
Body found during search for woman who went missing after leaving gym: Police
- Jun 17, 7:48 PM
The 60-day lifespan of the license and uncertainty over whether the Trump administration will extend additional economic relief to Tehran will also disincentivize oil trade between the U.S. and Iran.
Q: Let’s go back to 2018. That’s when Iran was last able to openly sell oil on the international market?
Yes. Nov. 4, 2018, to be exact.
After President Trump left the JCPOA during his first administration, there was a 180-day wind-down period. When it expired on Nov. 5, 2018, the U.S. fully reinstated the most severe economic sanctions that the JCPOA lifted, including those targeting Tehran’s oil industry.
There were several instances after that date when the U.S. Treasury Department waived secondary sanctions, allowing foreign governments to buy Iranian oil without penalty, but these transactions were heavily regulated, and money was paid into restricted accounts.
Q. Did the U.S. buy oil from Iran when the JCPOA was in effect?
No. The JCPOA provided economic relief to Iran by lifting penalties on non-American entities that did business with Iran, but maintained the longstanding U.S. embargo on direct oil imports from the country.
Q: When was the last time the U.S. imported oil from Iran?
Through much of the 1970s, the U.S. imported hundreds of thousands of barrels of Iranian oil per day.
That changed after the Iranian revolution in 1979, when then-President Jimmy Carter responded to the hostage crisis at the U.S. embassy in Tehran by announcing an embargo on crude oil from the country.
U.S. imports rebounded somewhat after tensions between the countries eased in 1981, and by 1987, Iran had become the second-largest foreign supplier of crude oil to the U.S. The Reagan administration banned direct imports of Iranian oil that year.
Earlier this year, the Treasury Department temporarily waived sanctions on Iranian oil exports that were at sea on or before March 20. That license, which expired on April 19, used the exact same language authorizing the import of Iranian oil into the U.S. under certain conditions that the license issued this week uses.
It’s unclear whether any American entities imported any Iranian-origin oil when the license was in effect.
Related Topics
Badenoch blasts 'moaning' female Labour MPs over Burnham jobs 'quota'
Kemi Badenoch has told Labour women to earn a job in Andy Burnham's Cabinet instead of demanding they are handed jobs because of their gender.
The Tory leader lashed out today amid reports that female MPs are demanding the de-facto new prime minister introduce a 50:50 gender split 'quota' in his government.
Amid reports that former foreign secretary David Miliband is being lined up to return to the role, possibly with his brother Ed as Chancellor, one female minister also complained that Burnham could not have 'more Milibands than women' in the top posts.
But in a scathing article in the Times today Mrs Badenoch told them to 'stop moaning' and get chosen on merit instead of retreating into 'more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country'.
'There are many, many reasons why you shouldn't have any Milibands in the cabinet,' she said.
'But complaining that the boys haven't given them the right jobs or that the boys are taking all the jobs, just shows that Labour's women still don't get it.'
The idea of quotas was also attacked by Baroness Jacqui Smith, Labour's Skills Minister.
Asked by Times Radio if Mr Burnham should reserve jobs for women, she said: 'No, I think what Andy Burnham should be doing is building the very best team around him to change this country.'
A letter written by the Women's Parliamentary Labour Party has called on Mr Burnham to ensure a 50:50 split between men and women in government jobs
Amid reports that former foreign secretary David Miliband (above, right, in 2010) is being lined up to return to the role, possibly with his brother Ed as Chancellor, one female minister complained that Burnham could not have 'more Milibands than women' in the top posts
But Mrs Badenoch told them to pipe down and get chosen on merit instead of retreating into 'more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country'
A letter written by the Women's Parliamentary Labour Party and seen by the BBC has called on Mr Burnham to ensure a 50:50 split between men and women in government jobs after he succeeds Sir Keir Starmer.
'We are asking you to demonstrate this change from day one and address the toxicity and misogyny within our own party and government,' it said.
Labour has never had a female leader, while the Conservatives have had three, and Mrs Badenoch urged the government to follow its meritocratic example.
'If you run a meritocracy, then you do not have to worry about jobs for the boys,' she wrote.
'Every woman who is a Conservative MP, every woman who has ever won the leadership, has had to fight to get where she is.
'By contrast, Labour women are demanding guarantees from Burnham. But the truth is he doesn't have to give any guarantees.
'If none of Labour's women are prepared to get their hands dirty and challenge him for the leadership, their demands are toothless.'
'In fact, it's quite revealing that the women's parliamentary Labour Party has written to Burnham asking him to commit himself to at least 50 per cent female ministers.
'This has nothing to do with meritocracy. It is yet more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country.'
