In a move that critics have dubbed a “farewell favor” to a long-standing adversary, the Biden-Harris administration approved $10 billion in sanctions relief for Iran, mere days after Donald Trump’s resounding victory in the 2024 presidential election. The decision has sparked outrage among lawmakers and commentators alike, given Iran’s notorious backing of terrorist organizations and its relentless hostility toward Israel. Secretary of State Antony Blinken rationalized the move by claiming it was in the national security interests of the United States, though this reasoning has done little to quell skepticism or outrage from critics who see it as dangerously shortsighted.
This sanctions relief wasn’t just a minor policy tweak—it fundamentally altered restrictions set in place by the Trump administration. The Biden State Department allowed Iran to convert Iraqi dinars into euros, depositing the funds into accounts based in Oman. This effectively gave Iran a backdoor to global markets, bypassing the stricter escrow requirements that had been implemented under Trump. While the Biden team insists that these funds are earmarked strictly for humanitarian purposes, such as purchasing medicine or essential supplies, critics argue that this is a weak safeguard at best. After all, money is fungible, meaning that freeing up resources for “humanitarian” efforts enables Iran to redirect other funds toward its more nefarious goals.
Republican leaders wasted no time calling out the risks of this decision, pointing out that Iran’s proxy forces—such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthi rebels—are the likely beneficiaries of this newfound financial flexibility. The timing couldn’t be worse; a United Nations report recently highlighted that Iran has provided unprecedented support to the Houthi rebels in Yemen, a group responsible for attacks on international shipping lanes and missile strikes targeting Israel. Many critics see the Biden administration’s actions as a green light for Tehran to double down on its destabilizing activities, emboldened by an influx of cash and a less restrictive international posture.
The contrast with the Trump administration’s approach is stark. Under Trump, Iran’s access to global financial systems was severely restricted, forcing funds into tightly controlled escrow accounts that were difficult to exploit. This latest move by the Biden administration not only reverses those measures but also signals a broader shift in priorities—one that many argue undercuts the security of allies like Israel while emboldening Iran’s regime. The ripple effects of such a policy are already being felt across the Middle East, further complicating an already volatile region.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s relationship with Iran has remained as hostile as ever. The former president, now president-elect, survived two assassination attempts by Iran this year, events that highlight the stakes of maintaining a hardline approach. Trump himself has characterized these attempts as efforts to destabilize the U.S. and has vowed to reimplement stricter policies on Tehran upon taking office. As Biden’s administration wraps up its tenure, these decisions will likely face growing scrutiny, both for their immediate consequences and for what they suggest about the broader legacy of the outgoing leadership.
