Iran’s June 2026 Finances, What We Know

Iran's economy was difficult to measure before the war, and the war has made it harder. What is confirmed, what is contested, and what is only projected.

By the Middle East Desk · June 2026 · 20 min read

Iran's economy was difficult to measure before the war, and the war has made it harder.

Iran has always been a hard economy to read. The government publishes inflation data on a Persian-calendar lag, oil exports move through a shadow fleet built to defeat tracking, and the rial trades at rates that diverge depending on which tier and which tracker you consult. The war that began on February 28, 2026, and the United States naval blockade imposed on April 13 have made the picture more consequential and more opaque. Tankers go dark off Malaysia, struck ports are only partially rebuilt, and the central bank that would normally arbitrate the numbers has lost its governor and much of its credibility. What follows is an attempt to sort what is known from what is merely reported and what is only projected.

The most important numbers in Iran's accounts in June 2026 are the ones no one can yet verify.

A note on chronology is needed at the outset, because two separate wars sit in the record. Israel and Iran fought a twelve-day war in June 2025 that ended with a ceasefire on June 24 of that year; the current war began on February 28, 2026. Assessments published between the two, including a World Bank projection from October 2025, measure the effects of the first conflict and the September sanctions snapback rather than of the present war, and the two sets of figures are not interchangeable. Where a number's meaning depends on which war it describes, that distinction is carried through to the number below.

What we know with confidence

The pre-war baseline is the most reliable ground. Across 2025, Iran's crude and condensate exports averaged roughly 1.68 million barrels per day, with China taking more than 80 percent of seaborne volumes [1]. Total crude production ran around 3.13 to 3.21 million bpd late in the year, and total liquids near 4.8 million bpd once South Pars condensate and natural-gas liquids are included [3]. OPEC's Annual Statistical Bulletin put 2025 oil-export revenue at about $45.3 billion, down slightly from roughly $46.8 billion in 2024 [6]. China's appetite was concentrated in the "teapot" refiners of Shandong, which took close to 90 percent of Iran-to-China crude while state refiners stayed clear to protect their access to dollar financing [7]. The discounts Iran had to offer widened over the year, from $3 to $4 a barrel below Brent in mid-2025 to $8 to $11 below by early 2026, as Shandong stocks hit records and Washington sanctioned import terminals [8].

Sanctions enforcement had intensified well before the first shots of the 2026 war. The Treasury's "Economic Fury" campaign, running from February 2025, sanctioned more than 1,000 Iran-related persons, vessels, and aircraft, including over 180 shadow-fleet tankers and a network of exchange houses [10]. In late April and May 2026, the Treasury designated Hengli Petrochemical of Dalian and four other Chinese teapots, the first direct action against a major Chinese refinery, alongside roughly 40 shipping firms [12]. On April 28, 2026, it designated 35 shadow-banking entities [13], building on an October 2025 FinCEN analysis (covering 2024 activity) that had identified some $9 billion in Iranian shadow-banking activity routed through the UAE, Hong Kong, and Singapore [14]. Multilateral pressure returned in force when the United Nations, European Union, and United Kingdom reimposed "snapback" sanctions in late September 2025, ending a nine-year reprieve; the EU Council formalized its measures on September 29 and went beyond UN terms to freeze the Central Bank of Iran and named banks including Melli, Mellat, and Saderat [15]. The EU designated the IRGC a terrorist organization on February 19, 2026 [16].

The war's effect on physical exports is well documented and severe. Pre-war exports peaked near 2.1 to 2.17 million bpd in February 2026 as Iran front-loaded shipments in the weeks before the February 28 onset, ahead of strikes it evidently expected [19]. Kharg Island, which handled roughly 90 percent of exports, was struck on March 13 and April 7 [21]. After the US blockade began on April 13, Kpler recorded loadings collapsing to about 567,000 bpd between April 14 and 23, **roughly 73 percent below the March average** of 1.85 million bpd [23]. By May 12, Iran had gone 28 consecutive days without exporting crude by sea [22], and United Against Nuclear Iran reported that no Iranian crude passed the blockade in May at all [25]. The energy system absorbed parallel damage: strikes on South Pars and Asaluyeh on March 18 knocked a major share of output offline from a field that supplies roughly 80 percent of Iran's gas and most of its power-generation fuel [26]. The IEA's May 2026 report called the Hormuz disruption **the largest in the history of the global oil market**, with Brent spiking to $144 a barrel before easing to roughly $110 by mid-May, against a pre-war range of $70 to $80 [31].

By May 12, Iran had gone twenty-eight straight days without shipping a barrel of crude by sea, and no Iranian crude ran the blockade in May at all.

A note on the port infrastructure is warranted because the public record contains two distinct Bandar Abbas events that are easily conflated. The catastrophic explosion at the Shahid Rajaee container terminal, which killed dozens of people, injured hundreds, and damaged a facility handling the bulk of Iran's container traffic, occurred on April 26, **2025**, ten months before the current war began, and was not a wartime strike [30]. A separate, later US strike on Bandar Abbas was reported on May 28, 2026 [29]. The 2025 explosion does not belong in the war's damage accounting, and the two events should not be summed.

The currency and price data, where official, point the same direction. The rial fell from roughly 800,000 per dollar in early 2025 to a record 1.42 million by December 28, 2025, the day central bank governor Mohammadreza Farzin resigned amid protests [33]. It crossed 1.47 million in early January 2026, breached 1.5 million by January 27, and hit a record above 1.81 million on April 29 as the blockade bit [37]. By early June, the AlanChand remittance rate sat near 1.74 million per dollar, a slide of roughly 42 percent over six months [38]. Parliament voted 144 to 108 on October 5, 2025, to cut four zeros from the currency, and in March 2026 Iran issued its largest-ever note, a 10-million-rial bill worth about $7 [40].

The rial sank past 1.8 million to the dollar, and the government's answer was a new ten-million-rial banknote worth about seven dollars.

Official inflation reached records that the government itself reported. The Statistical Center of Iran put point-to-point CPI at 68.1 percent in February 2026, up from 42.2 percent in December 2025 [41]. By the month ending April 20, the figure was 73.5 percent, with the central bank's parallel measure at 67 percent [43]. Food inflation ran at 110 to 115 percent over the same window [42]. The category extremes, drawn from the Statistical Center prints as reported by Al Jazeera, map directly onto household budgets:

• Solid vegetable oil, up 375 percent year on year
• Imported rice, up 209 percent
• Chicken, up 191 percent

Rents rose 31 percent nationally and 30 to 40 percent in Tehran [44].

The fiscal architecture was strained before the war and is now under direct assault. The 1404 budget, covering March 2025 to March 2026, assumed 1.85 million bpd at about $67 a barrel; the IMF projected actual exports nearer 1.1 million [46]. The budget allocated 51 percent of oil, gas, and condensate export revenue, roughly $12.4 billion, to the armed forces, about a threefold increase in the military's direct oil allocation year on year, with the IRGC's portion nearly twice the regular army's [47]. Total military and security spending for the year ran around $23 billion, up 35 percent [48]. Government debt to the banking system rose 41 percent year on year by November 2025, debt to the central bank 68 percent, and broad money 40 percent [49]. These are nominal figures, and with reported inflation near 68 percent over the same window, 40 percent broad-money growth is a contraction in real terms; the "monetary financing" reading therefore rests on the composition of the debt rather than on the headline growth rate. Khamenei authorized a $10 billion draw on the National Development Fund in 2025, after $5.8 billion the previous September, against a government that already owed the fund some $100 billion [50]. Of roughly $20 billion in oil revenue earned in the first eight months of the fiscal year, only $13 billion was actually received [52].

On the macroeconomic contraction, only the measured components belong in this tier. The export collapse, the currency lows, and the reported CPI prints above are observed data, while the IMF's projected GDP contraction is a forecast and is treated as one in the projection section below. What is corroborated at the human level is displacement: UNHCR counted roughly 3.2 million internally displaced people by early April, with tens of thousands crossing into Turkey and Afghanistan [59].

What is reported but contested

A second tier of figures is plausible and consequential but rests on single sources or unverified accounting, and should be read as such. A number of them trace to Iran International, a London-based, Persian-language outlet that reports from a position openly critical of Tehran. It is often the first, and sometimes the only, English-language source for Iranian financial data, and several of its scoops here are corroborated elsewhere; but its vantage is a reason to treat its uncorroborated figures as reported claims to be weighed, not settled facts. Where a neutral source carries the same number, this account leans on that instead.

On oil storage, Al Jazeera and Kpler-derived reporting indicated that by late April Iran had 12 to 22 days of usable storage left, with Kharg around 74 percent full and floating storage in the Middle East up 65 percent since the war began to roughly 41 to 42 million barrels [20]. Iran International, citing tanker data, reported over 170 million barrels in floating storage by January 2026, about three times the prior year [49]. A Middle East Forum analysis documents a steep production and export decline [2]. The specific figure of a 300,000 to 500,000 bpd permanent capacity loss, and the $9 to $15 billion in annual revenue that would imply, is a derivation consistent with that analysis rather than a number stated in it, and should be treated as a single-source estimate.

The fiscal picture for the coming year is similarly single-sourced in its particulars. The 1405 draft budget, submitted December 23, 2025, came to roughly $110 billion, and a parliamentary budget committee reportedly rejected the framework 32 to 9 [64]. Gasoline remained extraordinarily subsidized: a third pricing tier of 50,000 rials a liter, under 10 percent of estimated refinery cost, sat against a total energy-subsidy burden put near $50 billion a year, or 12 to 16 percent of GDP [67].

Reserves are the murkiest line in the accounts. FRED data drawn from the IMF showed gross central bank reserves around $33.8 billion in early 2025, only a fraction of it operationally usable [68]. At least $20 billion is reported frozen in China as unconvertible renminbi oil receivables [49], with smaller tranches held in Iraq, Japan, Luxembourg, and the United States [54].

Estimates of the war's price tag, on both sides, vary with the estimator's method and motive. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies put total explicit Iranian war damage at a most-likely $144 billion within a wide $50 to $300 billion range [70]. Because that range spans roughly sixfold, the central figure carries far less precision than it appears to and is best read as the midpoint of a broad band. Within FDD's accounting, military and strategic assets (nuclear facilities, missile and drone infrastructure, air bases, naval vessels, and air defenses) make up about $46 billion, with the remainder split between hydrocarbon-revenue losses and physical replacement costs. On the daily cost of the blockade, one estimate put the total near $435 million a day, about $13 billion a month [71], while Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent put lost oil *revenue* nearer $170 million a day [84]. The roughly 2.5-fold gap between the two is likely definitional, lost revenue against broader economic cost, rather than a genuine dispute over the same quantity. On the US side, estimates ranged from a Pentagon figure of $25 billion through late April to Harvard economist Linda Bilmes's full-cost accounting approaching $1 trillion, the latter a reckoning of long-tail costs rather than a budget line [72].

Labor and trade data round out this tier. Unemployment stood at 8.3 percent in 2025, with youth joblessness at 21.9 percent and the rate for young women near 35 percent [75]. Non-oil exports reached about $57.8 billion in the fiscal year ending March 2025, with petrochemicals contributing roughly $13 billion and supplying about half of Iran's foreign-exchange needs [77]. Capital flight, on central bank quarterly data, ran at a record pace: $15 billion in the first half of the 2025 fiscal year, exceeding the country's entire trade surplus, against a full-year projection near $36 billion [52].

What is estimated or projected

The third tier is forecast, and is presented here as forecast only.

The headline contraction figure is a projection, and a single-sourced one. The IMF's April 2026 World Economic Outlook projected Iran's real GDP to contract **6.1 percent** in 2026, a downward revision of 7.2 percentage points, with consumer prices rising 68.9 percent [55]. The figure traces to one institution's April release and should be read accordingly. The World Bank's October 2025 assessment, which projected GDP falling 1.7 percent in 2025 and 2.8 percent in 2026, was produced after the June 2025 twelve-day war and before the current war began; it measures a different shock on a different clock and is not comparable to the IMF's wartime revision [78].

Internal warnings run darker, and are harder to verify because they trace to one opposition-aligned outlet's account of an unpublished assessment. Iran International reported that the central bank's own assessment held that rebuilding could take up to 12 years, that inflation could reach 180 percent if input shortages persist, and that some 2 million additional jobs could be lost [71]. These three figures share that single sourcing and an interested provenance; they are reported here as one outlet's account of a leaked internal document, not as calibrated forecasts. Reconstruction and reparations figures float between an Iranian official estimate of $270 billion in war damage and a draft truce reportedly proposing a $300 billion reconstruction fund, with major U.S. corporate backing, alongside the release of frozen assets [79]. These figures are negotiating positions rather than settled accounts.

On hunger inside Iran, the most defensible sourced projection is from Iranian and outside economists who warn of an impending "poverty explosion," with the number living under the absolute poverty line projected to surpass 40 million [85]. This is a projection of poverty headcount, not a measured count of acute food insecurity, and is labeled accordingly. The global spillover estimates are wide by nature. The World Economic Forum modeled a $590 billion hit to world output for a short conflict, rising above $3.5 trillion if Hormuz stays shut for months [81]. The World Food Programme warned that up to 45 million additional people could face acute food insecurity worldwide if the conflict persists past mid-2026 with oil above $100 a barrel [82]; the figure is global, not an Iran-specific count.

How it got here

For most of 2025, Iran's finances were strained but functioning. Exports held near 1.68 million bpd, oil revenue near $45 billion, inflation in the forties, and the rial slid past a million to the dollar in March and to a record 1.42 million by year-end. The structural weakness was already visible: a fiscal break-even between $124 and $163 a barrel against $70 oil, financed by money-printing and raids on the sovereign wealth fund rather than functioning bond markets [58]. The September 2025 snapback and the December currency crash, with the bazaar strikes it triggered, marked the inflection. The February war and the April blockade then converted a chronic squeeze into an acute collapse, taking exports toward zero, inflation from 42 to 73 percent, and the rial past 1.8 million before it settled near 1.74 million by early June.

The earlier sanctions waves are instructive by contrast. The pressure of 2012 to 2015 was financial: exports fell to roughly a million bpd, oil revenue roughly halved, and Iran lost SWIFT access, but the physical export apparatus stayed intact and the 2015 nuclear deal brought relief. The 2018 to 2020 "maximum pressure" campaign cut exports about 60 percent over roughly a year, and Iran answered by building the shadow-fleet and teapot architecture that clawed volumes back to 1.68 million bpd by 2025. The 2026 shock is different in kind, though the cleanest version of that claim requires care. The headline contrast, a 70-plus-percent cut in two weeks against a 60-percent cut over a year, compares a spot loading trough during an active blockade against an averaged annual decline, so the apparent speed gap is partly an artifact of the measurement windows rather than a like-for-like figure. What is more defensible is that physical interdiction was the proximate driver of the 2026 collapse, and that it landed on a buyer base already being peeled away by the most aggressive financial campaign of the sanctions era: the snapback, the shadow-fleet designations, and the first-ever action against a major Chinese refinery [9]. The counterfactual (a blockade without that financial pressure, or the financial pressure without the strikes) is untestable. The defensible conclusion is that physical and financial pressure compounded, with the physical component the proximate cause of exports reaching zero.

The comparison

Iran's predicament invites comparison to other sanctioned petro-states, but the parallels are partial, and the choice of comparators carries a built-in bias worth naming: Russia, Venezuela, and 1990s Iraq are all cases without a naval blockade, so a comparison built around them will tend to confirm that a blockade makes Iran distinctive. Russia is the relevant case for sanctions resilience through shadow trade and discounting; Venezuela for hyperinflation and serial currency redenomination; 1990s Iraq for what a sanctioned oil economy looks like before and after relief. Only the Iran column below is sourced here; the peer columns are widely reported context, not War Dispatch claims.

The contrast that matters is the mechanism of the shock. What sets the 2026 case apart is that the shock is physical, a blockade and direct strikes on the export and energy nodes themselves, rather than financial and administrative pressure. But that distinction is contingent on the blockade continuing. Iran's seaborne crude reaching zero is in part a function of an active interdiction now under negotiation; if the blockade lifts, the relevant parallels become the recovery cases the table treats as contrasts (Venezuela's partial recovery under licensing, Iraq's sanctions-then-relief arc), rather than a story of permanent structural defeat. The comparison and the prognosis that follows point in opposite directions on exactly this question, and the resolution depends on whether the interdiction holds.

Russia kept selling oil throughout its sanctions. Iran's seaborne crude went to zero in May.

The Hormuz toll

One element of the truce negotiations deserves its own accounting, because it has been floated repeatedly and is widely misread. Among the ten points in Iran's reported proposal to end the war is a demand that it, together with Oman, be allowed to charge ships for passage through the Strait of Hormuz [86]. Iran has been collecting this revenue since mid-March 2026: the Revolutionary Guard has taken payments from vessels in Chinese yuan and cryptocurrency, and at least two ships are reported to have paid the equivalent of $2 million each to pass [88]. The headline that circulates, "$2 million per ship", is best understood as a per-barrel charge: a $2 million toll on a fully laden supertanker carrying 2 million barrels works out to about **$1 a barrel**.

That framing is what makes the toll possible to value. Around 20 million barrels of oil a day normally move through Hormuz, roughly 14.5 million in crude and condensate and another 5.5 million in refined products, more than a fifth of world oil consumption and over a quarter of seaborne oil trade [89]. The strait carries on the order of 80 to 130 ship transits a day, many of them tankers [90]. The arithmetic that follows is an illustrative valuation exercise, not a forecast of what Iran will actually collect. At $1 a barrel applied to the entire oil flow, the theoretical ceiling is substantial:

The realistic figure sits well below that ceiling, for three reasons. First, most of the oil crossing Hormuz is not Iran's to tax in any ordinary sense. It belongs to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Iraq, Kuwait, and Qatar, whose customers are precisely the "friendly" buyers, China and India chief among them, that Iran has been waving through, often settling in yuan rather than at any posted rate. Second, a toll holds only while Iran physically commands the strait, and commanding the strait is what invites the strikes and the blockade the rest of this account describes; the leverage and the destruction are the same act. Third, a credible toll accelerates the very thing that erodes it: diversion onto the Saudi, Emirati, and Iraqi pipelines that already absorbed much of the war's lost flow, bypassing Hormuz altogether. A realistic capture is therefore some fraction of the flow, collected only for as long as the guns stay trained on the channel, plausibly a few billion dollars a year, not the headline ceiling.

Set against Iran's own oil money, the toll's place comes into focus. Iran earned about $45 billion from oil exports in 2025, under sanctions and eating an $8-to-$11 discount on every barrel [6]. Full sanctions relief, selling its own crude at the world price, with volumes recovering toward pre-maximum-pressure levels near 2.5 million barrels a day, is worth far more, and climbs steeply with the oil price. The scenarios below are illustrative; only the 2025 figure is a reported actual.

Set side by side, the two revenue lines make the point. A Hormuz toll, even on generous assumptions, is worth single-digit billions a year, while sanctions relief is worth $55 to $90 billion, and the two are opposed rather than additive: the toll requires Iran to keep Hormuz under threat, and keeping Hormuz under threat is incompatible with the relief worth roughly ten times as much. The toll's real value is therefore narrower than its headline implies. It is the one oil-linked revenue Iran can collect while its own exports sit at zero behind the blockade, and it is a chip to be traded for relief rather than a substitute for it.

A Hormuz toll is worth a few billion dollars a year. The sanctions relief Iran would trade it away to get is worth roughly ten times that.

Prognosis

What follows is a forward look, labeled as such. It is scenario reasoning, not reporting.

The near-term hinge is the blockade and the truce talks around it. If the draft memorandum reported in late May moves toward signature, with its mooted reconstruction fund and frozen-asset release [80], the immediate questions become how fast exports can physically resume given the damage to Kharg, and whether China's teapots return as buyers once the legal risk recedes. If talks stall, the binding constraints are storage and revenue. With usable storage reported, though not confirmed, at 12 to 22 days as of late April [20], and seaborne crude at zero in May, Iran would face forced production shut-ins, which the Middle East Forum analysis cited above suggests could translate into a permanent loss of 300,000 to 500,000 bpd.

Three indicators bear watching:

• **The rial against the AlanChand and Bonbast remittance rates**, the least-managed available read on confidence, as distinct from the managed official tiers.
• **Whether official inflation, already at 73 percent, approaches the 180 percent** that a single outlet reported the central bank to fear should input shortages persist, a threshold worth tracking precisely because its provenance is thin.
• **The fiscal financing mix**, continued draws on the National Development Fund and the composition of central-bank debt, which would signal that monetary financing rather than bond markets remains the only lever, and would point toward more inflation regardless of the war's outcome.

None of these outcomes is foreordained. What can be said of Iran's finances in June 2026 is that the figures that will decide the country's trajectory, the days of storage left, the pace of monetary financing, the terms of any truce, remain the ones no one outside the system can yet verify.

Open in the interactive site →