Iran feed-import channel was dominated by two US firms for 50 years, report says

Long-running concentration in a strategic supply channel

Two large American companies dominated an important channel for supplying Iran with imported corn and soybeans for 50 years, according to a report by Hamshahri Online. The publication described the arrangement as a long-running concentration in the market for agricultural inputs, although the companies were not identified in the available report.

The central point is not that Iran was legally bound to purchase these commodities from the United States. Hamshahri Online said no agreement requires Iran to buy American corn or soybeans. Instead, citing economic adviser Majid Shakeri, it reported that a significant part of Iran’s essential-goods imports had passed through two large US companies during previous decades.

That distinction matters for agricultural companies and commodity traders. A purchase obligation would be a formal policy commitment between governments. Dependence on a small number of commercial intermediaries is different: it can emerge through established relationships, financing arrangements, logistics, documentation and repeated procurement practices. The report presents the issue as commercial control over a channel rather than a treaty-based requirement.

Sanctions did not eliminate the commercial route

The reported 50-year span covers a long period in which political relations between Iran and the United States changed sharply. Yet Hamshahri Online’s account suggests that commercial influence in the feed-import chain endured despite sanctions and the absence of a formal trade deal compelling purchases from US suppliers.

The available account does not specify whether the corn and soybeans were always grown in the United States, shipped directly from US ports or sourced elsewhere through companies based in the country. This is an important limitation. The nationality of the intermediary does not by itself establish the origin of every cargo, and control of a purchasing channel is not necessarily the same as direct bilateral trade.

Nor does the report provide shipment volumes, market shares, annual values or the names of the two companies. Its claim should therefore be understood as an account of concentrated intermediation, not as a documented estimate of total US-origin agricultural exports to Iran. For market participants, those missing details would be necessary to measure the companies’ precise influence on prices, freight choices and supplier competition.

Implications for Iran’s feed buyers

Corn and soybeans are core agricultural inputs, making the structure of their procurement channel relevant to feed users and food producers. When a substantial share of essential-goods purchasing passes through only two intermediaries, buyers may have fewer alternative routes if financial, political or logistical conditions change.

The report also raises a broader question about how sanctions affect agricultural trade. Restrictions may reduce formal bilateral commerce while leaving established intermediaries important to transactions that remain possible. In that environment, access to payment mechanisms and functioning supply routes can matter as much as the nominal country of origin.

For importers, the immediate issue is therefore not whether an agreement forces Iran to purchase US crops; Hamshahri Online explicitly says that it does not. The issue is whether a historically concentrated procurement channel limits competition and leaves buyers exposed to decisions made by a small number of firms.

Any reassessment would require more disclosure about the two companies, their role in individual transactions and the actual origins of the commodities involved. Without those details, the report establishes a claim of long-term concentration but does not quantify its current scale or show whether the same structure continues today.