U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has reignited a fierce debate over Iran’s use of financial resources, pointing directly to sanctions relief and other revenue streams that, according to the Trump administration, have helped Tehran maintain its support for Hezbollah, Hamas and allied militias across the Middle East.
Speaking about Iran’s economy and the rationale behind Washington’s current pressure campaign, Rubio argued that the Iranian regime has historically failed to direct significant portions of its available resources toward improving the lives of ordinary Iranians.
Instead, he said, the regime has used money obtained through sanctions relief and other sources to support Hezbollah, Hamas, terrorist organisations and militias operating in Iraq.
“Every penny they get, be it through sanctions relief or whatever,” Rubio said, “they use that money to fund Hizballah and Hamas and terrorist organizations and militias in Iraq.” He added that the objective of the current U.S. pressure campaign is to prevent Tehran from gaining access to resources that could be used to support terrorism or pursue a nuclear weapons capability.
Rubio’s remarks have inevitably reopened the political argument surrounding former President Barack Obama’s Iran policy, particularly the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal.
Under the Obama administration, the United States and its international partners agreed to provide phased relief from certain nuclear-related sanctions after Iran fulfilled specified nuclear commitments and international inspectors verified compliance. The U.S. Treasury Department described the arrangement as reversible and emphasised that sanctions connected to Iran’s support for terrorism and other destabilising activities remained in place.
However, an important distinction is necessary. Saying that Obama “funded Iran’s terror regime” suggests that the United States directly financed Iranian terrorism. The documented policy was different: sanctions relief allowed Iran to regain access to certain funds and economic activity that had previously been restricted. Treasury officials said in 2014 that the interim agreement involved approximately $6 billion to $7 billion in limited relief, including access to some Iranian funds held overseas.
The Obama administration maintained that the agreement was designed primarily to restrict Iran’s nuclear programme while preserving U.S. sanctions targeting terrorism and other activities.
Critics, however, have long argued that giving Tehran greater economic breathing room inevitably increased the resources available to the Iranian government, even if Washington did not directly instruct Iran to spend those resources on militant organisations.
That disagreement remains central to the debate today.
Rubio’s latest comments come as the Trump administration continues an aggressive campaign aimed at restricting Iran’s access to international revenue. The secretary has argued that Iran’s leadership must be denied financial resources that Washington believes could support its regional military networks and nuclear ambitions.
The situation surrounding the Strait of Hormuz has also become a major component of the confrontation. Rubio said in September that the United States had worked to keep the waterway open and prevent Iran from controlling it.
However, it would be inaccurate to say that Iranian oil is simply no longer getting through the Strait. Recent shipping data show that significant quantities of oil have continued to move through Hormuz, while Gulf producers have also used alternative pipelines and routes to maintain exports. Reuters reported that crude shipments through the strait reached 33.7 million barrels during the week beginning September 20, 2026.
The broader argument nevertheless remains clear: Washington is attempting to squeeze the Iranian regime economically, while Tehran continues to face pressure over its nuclear programme, regional military partnerships and control of strategic energy routes.
For supporters of the Trump administration’s policy, the contrast with the Obama-era approach is straightforward: sanctions relief and diplomatic engagement are viewed as having given Tehran additional economic room, while the current policy seeks to restrict that access.
The debate over whether sanctions relief ultimately strengthened Iran’s ability to support regional militias, however, remains a matter of interpretation rather than evidence that the Obama administration directly financed terrorism.
One thing is certain: Iran’s financial networks, nuclear ambitions and regional alliances remain at the centre of one of the most consequential geopolitical confrontations in the Middle East.
0 Comments