Dispute Over $130 Billion Behind Resignation of Iranian Oil Minister
An informed Iranian source told Al-Jarida that the resignation of Iranian Oil Minister Mohsen Paknejad was not due to the personal and family reasons officially announced to justify the departure, but rather the result of a sharp dispute within the government over the fate of approximately $130 billion in revenues that were supposed to return to Iran through a number of commercial intermediaries known as trustees.
Iran uses this network of intermediaries to market a portion of its oil, petrochemical, and petroleum product exports, particularly under U.S. sanctions. These entities sell shipments through alternative financial and commercial arrangements, then channel the proceeds back to Iran via routes that bypass the traditional banking system.
The source said the core dispute centered on accumulated funds held by several of these senior intermediaries, particularly those operating in the oil sector. According to the source, they refused to return up to $130 billion to Iran due to wartime conditions, prompting Paknejad to demand legal action against them and force the repatriation of the funds.
According to the source, the dispute erupted during a cabinet meeting last Monday, after Paknejad accused influential figures in President Masoud Pezeshkian’s office—referring to the president’s son and son-in-law, as well as Central Bank Governor Abdolnaser Hemmati—of protecting these intermediaries, interfering with the Ministry of Oil’s operations, and exerting pressure to prevent legal action against them in exchange for financial benefits.
Paknejad also accused Hemmati of endangering the system by allowing these funds to remain abroad, as part of a policy adopted by the central bank governor to reduce the injection of foreign currency into the market, thereby artificially raising its price.
The source quoted Paknejad as saying that what was happening went beyond a disagreement between two ministries or government institutions, characterizing it as an attempt to create economic chaos and use financial pressure to push Tehran into making greater concessions in negotiations with the United States.
The source linked part of this network to what is known inside Iran as the “Persian Gulf Holding Mafia,” referring to Iran’s petrochemical empire known as “Persian Gulf Holding,” which the source connected to former Minister of Industry, Mine and Trade Mohammad Shariatmadari.
He revealed that Pezeshkian intervened during the meeting to defend members of his office and Hemmati, and that the confrontation took a sharp turn after Paknejad accused the president’s son and son-in-law of establishing companies in Azerbaijan and Turkey and using them to deal with Iranian oil clients, diverting proceeds to private accounts instead of returning them to the Central Bank, claiming this was done with Hemmati’s approval.
According to the source, Pezeshkian categorically denied these allegations. Tensions within the meeting reached a point that led the president to halt interventions and close the hall’s doors, before asking the minister to end his remarks and directing public insults at him. Following the confrontation, Paknejad submitted his resignation verbally, which Pezeshkian accepted immediately.
U.S. President Donald Trump had said on Tuesday that the Iranian economy had “collapsed,” linking the oil minister’s resignation to what he described as Paknejad’s acknowledgment that Iran “has no economy, no oil, and nothing.”
Paknejad responded yesterday, denying that his resignation was linked to Trump’s remarks. In a message published after leaving the government, he affirmed that Iran’s oil production and exports continued despite sanctions and blockades, dismissing the U.S. president’s statements as “false claims.”
The Iranian government had officially announced its acceptance of Baknejad’s resignation and the appointment of Hamid Bord, CEO of the National Iranian Oil Company, as acting Minister of Oil, while the resignation was formally presented as being due to personal and family reasons.
The source noted that Baknejad also warned that continued disputes over the management of oil revenues, as well as export and collection mechanisms, could adversely affect Iran’s relations with its largest oil buyer, referring to China, and cautioned of the possibility that a significant portion of business and contracts could shift to Russia, Iraq, and other countries.
