Washington Should Spend Iran’s Frozen Billions on Satellite Internet for Its People
Washington should spend Iran s frozen – The Islamabad memorandum, signed between Washington and Tehran, centers on a key provision: the eventual release of $24 billion in Iranian assets held abroad. President Trump has emphasized that these funds will only be freed after a finalized agreement is reached. Yet, the discussion has largely overlooked a critical question—whose money it actually is and how it should best serve the Iranian people.
Iran’s assets immobilized abroad amount to an estimated $100 billion. These reserves are not the private treasury of a ruling elite but the accumulated wealth of Iran’s oil, commerce, and labor. International law acknowledges the Islamic Republic as a sovereign entity, yet its governance through domestic terror and regional destabilization positions it as a thief of the nation’s resources. Returning this capital as a reward for aggression represents a profound misallocation of assets, reinforcing the regime’s most audacious fiction: that the Iranian people and their jailers share identical interests.
“Returning this capital as a reward for aggression represents a profound misallocation of assets. This choice ratifies the regime’s most audacious fiction: that the Iranian people and their jailers share identical interests.”
Washington has recently demonstrated a commitment to safeguarding national wealth. When the Afghan Republic collapsed in 2021, the United States froze approximately $7 billion in central bank reserves. Rather than surrendering these assets to the Taliban or liquidating them for creditors, the government established the Fund for the Afghan People. This Swiss-based trust preserved $3.5 billion for the population, successfully denying the sanctioned regime access to the funds. Even when 9/11 creditors attempted to seize these reserves, federal courts intervened, rejecting the idea that central bank assets could be treated as Taliban property.
A year prior, a similar mechanism was created for Venezuela by the U.S., European Union, and United Nations. This system ring-fenced over $3 billion from the Maduro regime’s grasp, proving the feasibility of legal frameworks designed to protect a nation’s wealth. The template is clear: the frozen assets of an illegitimate government can be preserved for the people it misrules. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act provides the statutory foundation for this approach, ensuring the core principle of asset protection remains settled.
The Case for Digital Connectivity: A Strategic Priority
Digital connectivity is a cornerstone of modern governance and a vital tool for the Iranian people. The regime’s survival hinges on isolating citizens from external information, relying on systematic network blackouts to maintain control. During the last major domestic uprising, the Islamic Republic severed domestic internet access for nearly three months, preventing the spread of state violence and stifling public awareness. This tactic underscores the regime’s dependence on information isolation.
Since then, the state has criminalized access to Starlink, threatening users with severe legal penalties. Unauthorized connectivity is classified as espionage, with the potential for capital punishment if the government deems it a threat. These measures highlight the regime’s efforts to suppress independent communication and enforce state control over information flow. Yet, despite these barriers, Starlink usage continues to grow, though cost and access remain significant hurdles.
A decisive solution lies in direct-to-cell service, which links ordinary phones to satellites without requiring hardware to be smuggled, distributed, or concealed. The Pentagon explored this option for Iran but was stalled by costs. Launching such a system would require up to $500 million initially, with monthly operational expenses reaching $100 million. A dedicated trust could bridge this funding gap, ensuring the program’s viability. The absence of this financial commitment has left the initiative incomplete.
Legal Frameworks and Policy Commitment: A Path Forward
Washington has historically prioritized internet access for Iranians. The Office of Foreign Assets Control issued specific communication authorizations, beginning with General License D-2, which are now codified into law. This regulatory framework explicitly supports providing tools to counter state censorship and surveillance, even authorizing the leasing of satellite capacity directly into the country. The legal infrastructure exists; the missing pieces are political will and sufficient capital allocation to achieve scale.
Implementing a program to expand connectivity requires more than just legal authority—it demands a structured initiative. The U.S. could establish the Iranian People’s Connectivity or Internet Freedom Fund, drawing entirely from Iran’s frozen and confiscated assets. This fund would operate as a trust, ensuring that resources are directed toward serving the Iranian population. The success of similar programs in Afghanistan and Venezuela proves that such mechanisms are not only possible but effective.
By redirecting these assets toward satellite internet, Washington can dismantle the regime’s information monopoly and empower citizens. This approach aligns with the core principle of asset preservation: frozen wealth should benefit the people it represents, not the rulers who exploit it. The current debate over the timing of asset release must evolve into a discussion about their strategic use. The U.S. has the tools and precedent to act—what remains is the question of whether it will.
