Washington’s blockade is draining Iran’s revenues, but Tehran still decides how the burden is shared. Fuel hikes, weak price controls, and scarce currency for luxury imports risk shifting costs onto ordinary households instead of those higher up the economic ladder.

In September 2024, a lavash flatbread in Tehran’s bakeries cost 500 tomans. A barbari loaf sold for 1,800 tomans and sangak for 3,000. By July 2026, those prices had climbed to 4,000, 7,500, and 8,800 tomans respectively. For lavash, the increase approached 700 percent in less than two years, even though bread remains one of Iran’s most heavily subsidized staples.

Bread prices tell only part of the story. A former member of the Supreme Labor Council’s Wage Committee recently put the monthly cost of living for a working family above 90 million tomans. The statutory monthly wage package cited for a worker with a family is about 16.6 million tomans.

A labor representative on the committee observed that for roughly 60 percent of Iranian workers, current wages cover only eight days of household expenses. Debt, savings, second jobs, and the sale of assets must carry the remaining three weeks.

The cost of war is measured first in the bakery queue. Bread, rent, transport, and medicine are swallowing ever more of a collapsing wage. Washington’s blockade has inflicted immense damage, but Tehran still decides how that burden is distributed at home – and why those least able to withstand it are carrying the heaviest share.

The blockade enters the household budget

The foreign source of much of this pressure is beyond dispute. Months of war, tightening sanctions, disrupted trade, and the US maritime blockade have sharply reduced Iran’s access to hard currency. Shipping costs have surged, payment channels have narrowed, and foreign companies face an expanding threat of secondary sanctions.

It was estimated in early September that Iranian oil exports had fallen from about 1.7 million barrels per day (bpd) a year earlier to roughly 260,000 bpd.

Tehran presents a very different picture. The Oil Ministry said foreign-exchange earnings from oil sales exceeded $11 billion in the first four months of the Iranian year, despite sanctions and pressure on the tanker fleet.

Officials portrayed that result as evidence that sales and collections were improving. The two claims are not necessarily measuring the same thing: one concerns estimated physical shipments at a particular moment, while the other covers cumulative revenue that may include delayed payments or earlier cargoes.

Yet the gulf between them exposes a familiar problem. Iran does not publish a sufficiently detailed, timely account of export volumes, destinations, discounts, or settled receipts.

[…]

On inflation, the domestic figures are already severe enough. The Statistical Center of Iran put annual inflation in August 2026 at 69.9 percent and year-on-year inflation at 89 percent. For food and beverages, the year-on-year rate reached 127.5 percent.

The average food basket was therefore more than twice as expensive as it had been a year earlier, according to the state’s own statistical authority. Reuters also reported unemployment above nine percent as the blockade tightened, while youth joblessness remained much higher. The World Bank has warned that war, import disruption, and mounting fiscal pressure deepen the risks of inflation and food insecurity.

Washington is deliberately exploiting these vulnerabilities. The blockade is intended to choke oil earnings, deter Iran’s trading partners, and raise the domestic cost of resistance until Tehran changes its position at the negotiating table.

But foreign pressure does not dictate every domestic choice. Washington does not decide whether scarce currency goes to medicine or high-end vehicles. It does not set rent enforcement, customs priorities, tax exemptions, or the distribution of energy subsidies. Those decisions remain with the Iranian state.

Blaming every domestic failure on the blockade shields those decisions from scrutiny and hands policymakers an alibi when the allocation of scarce resources demands full transparency.

Gasoline puts the burden on the street

From 7 September, monthly gasoline consumption above 110 liters has been charged at 100,000 rials, or 10,000 tomans, per liter – twice the previous third-tier rate. Officials point to daily demand of roughly 145 million liters, well above domestic production capacity, and say the measure directly affects about 15 percent of consumers.

There is an economic case for restraining consumption of a heavily subsidized commodity. Iran’s aging vehicle fleet, smuggling, inadequate public transport, and extraordinarily cheap fuel have all contributed to demand. A government facing a widening supply gap cannot treat consumption as though the war had changed nothing.

The difficulty lies in how the adjustment travels through an economy already enduring extraordinary inflation. Fuel is embedded in the price of almost every physical good. Many workers have no practical alternative to private cars or shared taxis, while small businesses cannot absorb repeated increases in transport costs. A price rise aimed at the heaviest users can therefore spread well beyond that 15 percent through freight charges, fares, retail prices, and expectations of further inflation.

President Masoud Pezeshkian’s government has leaned toward price adjustment, subsidy restraint, and limits on public spending. A single gasoline increase does not define an entire economic program, and interventionist governments also raise prices to curb smuggling or close fiscal gaps.

When price reform advances faster than wage protection, targeted transfers, public transport, or control over essential markets, the adjustment lands on consumers before the state has built a shield around them.

Wartime prices carry the weight of the blockade. Insurance premiums, sanctions exposure, blocked payments, longer trade routes, shipping shortages, and military disruption are all folded into the final price. When the state allows those costs to pass unchecked through the market, Washington’s economic war arrives in every shop and at every family table.

The design of compensation is just as important as the headline price. A cash payment that arrives after inflation has already consumed its value offers little protection, particularly when the poorest households spend most of their income on food and housing.

Assistance must be indexed, targeted, and paid on time. Public transport, school travel, rural mobility, and small freight operators also require specific treatment because their fuel use cannot simply be dismissed as discretionary excess.

Emergency controls need an emergency supply plan

Permanent price suppression is no answer. Keeping a commodity below its production or import cost for too long erodes supply, lowers quality, encourages rent-seeking, and feeds the black market. Iran’s own experience makes those dangers impossible to dismiss. Wartime management, however, need not mean freezing every price indefinitely.

The state can impose temporary and reviewable limits on a narrow range of essential goods and costs while protecting supply. That requires preferential foreign exchange for raw materials, strategic stocks released before shortages become acute, affordable credit or tax relief for producers, and direct support for low-income households.

A cap without supply measures merely postpones an increase or drives the commodity out of formal markets. Supply support without controls can become another transfer to intermediaries.

Housing shows that the government already accepts the principle of emergency intervention. Authorities have imposed a 25 percent annual ceiling on rent increases, including in Tehran, alongside measures intended to support the renewal of leases and limit arbitrary evictions. Enforcement is uneven, and local rules require careful distinction, but the policy concedes the central point: during a severe crisis, the state cannot leave every essential cost to an overheated market.

The missing element is a coherent system. Food, housing, medicine, transport, and production inputs should command a higher claim on scarce currency and administrative capacity than luxury vehicles, foreign leisure travel, or other non-essential consumption.

A war economy is ultimately a hierarchy of priorities. Without one, separate interventions remain improvised exceptions while households confront the crisis as a single, relentless rise in the cost of living.

Luxury imports expose the contradiction

The return of large-engine vehicle imports illustrates the contradiction. In 2025, after years of restrictions, regulations again made room for cars above 2,500 cubic centimeters. The relevant plan reportedly anticipated around 13,000 vehicles and set aside approximately 635 million euros: 8,000 cars with engines between 2,500 and 3,000 cc under a 180 percent tariff, and 5,000 above 3,000 cc under a 190 percent tariff.

The Toyota Land Cruiser lays bare the contradiction. A 2025 model priced at roughly $60,000 in the UAE can sell for several times that amount in Iran once tariffs and other charges are added. The state may collect handsomely from wealthy buyers, but the customs revenue cannot recover the scarce foreign currency already spent on the vehicle.

Iran is struggling to secure foreign exchange for medicine, animal feed, food, machinery, and industrial parts. Hundreds of millions of euros assigned to luxury vehicles cannot be spent twice. A high tariff captures some of the buyer’s wealth for the treasury, but it does not restore the hard currency that left the country to purchase the car. Under blockade, the opportunity cost matters more than the spectacle of a large customs bill.

This is also where appeals for national sacrifice begin to lose force. Wage earners are told that fuel and bread cannot remain insulated from reality while upper-income consumption retains access to scarce foreign exchange. The state may collect revenue from that consumption, but it also signals whose demand remains negotiable and whose living standard is expected to adjust first.

The same test should be applied beyond imported cars. Preferential currency, subsidized credit, procurement contracts, and tax relief all create claims on resources that have become more valuable under blockade. 

The state should disclose who receives these benefits and on what grounds. Without that transparency, privileged importers secure goods and currency at protected rates, while ordinary Iranians face the full force of the market.

Eurasia offers routes, not a rescue

Iran nevertheless has options beyond its southern ports. The free-trade agreement with the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) took effect on 15 May 2025, reducing or eliminating tariffs across much of Iran’s trade with Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Armenia, and Kyrgyzstan. The arrangement gives Tehran a larger formal framework for sourcing food, industrial goods, and raw materials through northern corridors.

Kazakhstan exported about 1.1 million tons of grain to Iran in 2025, while its agricultural exports to the country rose sharply. Officials have discussed increasing annual wheat shipments by as much as two million tons.

Barley, corn, vegetable oil, meat, and legumes broaden the potential basket. Russia has also used the Caspian route for grain deliveries, although falling water levels, small vessels, and limited port capacity constrain the volume that can be moved.

The rail network provides another opening. In September, a 55-container block train left China for Sarakhs through Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan, with an expected journey of 14 to 16 days across more than 6,000 kilometers. Such services demonstrate that pressure at sea does not sever Iran from the Eurasian supply chain.

They do not provide a cost-free substitute for maritime trade. Before the war, more than 80 percent of Iran’s two-way trade by volume moved through its southern coastline. Roads and railways cannot absorb that traffic overnight.

Longer distances, transshipment, border congestion, limited rolling stock, and exposure to neighboring states’ political choices all add costs. One Iranian trade official estimated that shifting China trade from sea to land could add $18 billion a year.

Once essential goods reach Iran’s borders, domestic delays become a policy failure. Customs and licensing agencies cannot continue working to peacetime schedules while vital cargo remains stuck in queues.

Medicines, food, agricultural supplies, and industrial parts need a wartime fast track, backed by quicker clearance and priority access to foreign currency. Where public safety permits, inspections can be completed after entry.

[…]

Make wealth absorb more of the shock

A widening budget deficit does not make gasoline the inevitable starting point. The government can cut non-essential expenditure, narrow tax exemptions, pursue large-scale evasion, tax luxury property and vehicles more effectively, and develop a workable capital-gains regime. Energy subsidies can be reduced more aggressively for the largest consumers while compensating households whose livelihoods depend on transport.

Washington’s campaign seeks to make everyday life so expensive that the public and the government come to view political concessions as the only escape.

Domestic policy can end up serving that objective without intending to. Applying peacetime measures under blockade shifts more of Washington’s pressure onto ordinary Iranians, deepening inequality and eroding public trust.

[…]

Via https://thecradle.co/articles/irans-war-economy-is-squeezing-the-wrong-people