Les pourparlers entre l'Iran et les États-Unis bloqués : plus de 300 millions de dollars d'actifs cryptographiques gelés, comment la situation au Moyen-Orient influence-t-elle le BTC ?

Local time April 27, the 11th Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) was held at the United Nations headquarters in New York, where representatives of the US and Iran engaged in a heated exchange at the opening session. The controversy centered around the qualification of Iran’s election as vice-chair of the conference, with the US representative accusing Iran of “long-standing contempt for non-proliferation commitments,” and calling its election “an insult to the credibility of the conference.” Iran’s ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Reza Najafi, responded on the spot, stating that the US, as “the only country to have used nuclear weapons and to have continuously expanded its nuclear arsenal, trying to position itself as an arbiter of compliance, is untenable.”

This public confrontation is not an isolated diplomatic friction, but a concentrated expression of the structural contradictions between the two countries on the international stage. The “Non-Aligned Movement,” with 121 member states, had nominated Iran as vice-chair months earlier, indicating that Tehran had gained broad support from “Global South” countries in multilateral diplomacy. The US-led strategy of isolation is facing structural challenges.

It is noteworthy that this conflict occurred only two weeks after the breakdown of US-Iran negotiations in Islamabad. On April 11, a US delegation led by Vice President Vance engaged in over 20 hours of marathon talks with Iran in Pakistan— the highest-level face-to-face negotiations between the two since 1979— but no agreement was reached. The escalation of tensions at the UN level indicates that the confrontation between the two countries in diplomacy and discourse is deepening.

Why Has the Strait of Hormuz Dispute Become a Risk Amplifier for the Crypto Market?

The fate of the Strait of Hormuz has become a core variable disturbing global risk assets by April 2026. The daily transit volume of the strait was about 130 ships before the conflict, with less than 8% restored; hundreds of ships remain effectively trapped. For the crypto market, the transmission mechanism is not directly related, but indirectly affects risk asset pricing through global energy prices and inflation expectations.

Every time a ceasefire message is released, the crypto market responds with short-squeeze reactions. After the temporary US-Iran ceasefire took effect on April 9, Brent crude oil plummeted from high levels, and Bitcoin briefly broke through $71,000. Within 48 hours, $427 million of crypto shorts were forcibly liquidated. After the negotiations were announced to have broken down on April 12, Bitcoin quickly fell to around $69,000, and the total market cap of cryptocurrencies evaporated over $100 billion in a single day. This “positive rally, negative decline” in the same direction further indicates that traders are currently using the pulse-like changes in Middle Eastern geopolitical risks as key decision variables for short-term crypto trading, rather than assuming cryptocurrencies have an independent safe-haven property in conflicts.

What Signals Are Sent by Trump’s Dissatisfaction with Iran’s Proposal?

On April 27, President Trump convened the national security team to discuss Iran’s new proposal. Media reports suggest Trump showed dissatisfaction at the meeting and was inclined not to accept the plan. Iran’s proposal, framed around “opening the strait first, then discussing nuclear issues,” demands the US lift maritime blockade and delay nuclear negotiations until after the end of the war.

US senior officials’ doubts stem from a deep structural dilemma: if concessions on reopening the strait are made before resolving Iran’s uranium enrichment and near-weapons-grade uranium stockpile issues, it would mean the US loses a core bargaining leverage. Secretary of State Blinken explicitly stated that Iran’s plan is only aimed at “buying time,” and nuclear issues cannot be excluded from the negotiation agenda.

The bargaining chips between the US and Iran have subtly shifted. Iran has leveraged its Bitcoin mining ecosystem established since 2003, combined with stablecoin payment mechanisms, to pave the way for bypassing the US dollar settlement system. By 2025, Iran’s crypto ecosystem has reached a scale of $7.8 billion, with addresses associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) having net crypto inflows exceeding $3 billion in Q4 2025, accounting for over 50% of the country’s total crypto inflows. This structural change provides Tehran with new maneuvering space in its financial confrontation with the US.

Market data changes are also noteworthy. As of April 27, the probability on Polymarket of “Trump agreeing to lift Iran’s oil sanctions in April” plummeted from 62% to 3% within a week. Against the backdrop of unresolved diplomacy and persistent core disagreements, this data clearly reflects traders’ extreme pessimism about reaching a short-term peace agreement, and indicates that geopolitical risk premiums will continue to be priced in the foreseeable future.

Why Is the Freezing of $344 Million in Crypto Wallets a Milestone?

On April 24, 2026, the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions against multiple crypto wallets related to Iran, freezing about $344 million worth of cryptocurrencies. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent confirmed this action on social platform X. More importantly, stablecoin issuer Tether issued a statement saying it cooperated with OFAC to freeze over $344 million of USDT in these two addresses, noting that these addresses were identified after law enforcement provided relevant information.

The profound impact of this event goes far beyond the value of $344 million. Its symbolic significance lies in the fact that the US is systematically migrating its sanctions capabilities, originally mature within the traditional US dollar system, into the on-chain world—meaning that a country’s precise financial strikes against another country or specific entities have successfully found footholds in the crypto ecosystem.

For stablecoins, their issuance mechanisms, reserve management, compliance tools, and freezing functions depend on centralized entities. This is fundamentally different from truly decentralized assets. Bitcoin has no single issuer and cannot be “frozen” with a single command after law enforcement notification; whereas USDT’s issuer, representing a specific company, has the capacity to cooperate with sanctions. On-chain assets are beginning to differentiate into various risk exposures targeting sovereignty sanctions, with stablecoins and Bitcoin facing entirely different structural risks.

Where Are the Geopolitical Crises Heading, and What Will Digital Assets Face?

Currently, US-Iran diplomatic channels are essentially stalled. Trump canceled the special envoy to Pakistan, while Iranian President Pesezhkian reiterated that negotiations would not take place under US naval blockade conditions. Militarily, the aircraft carrier USS George H. W. Bush has arrived in the Middle East, and regional maritime confrontations have fully escalated.

In this context, Bitcoin markets present a complex picture. Analyses show that on one hand, there is a risk of a “cash-is-king” large-scale sell-off in the event of sudden military escalation; on the other hand, institutional allocations continue to increase Bitcoin holdings to hedge geopolitical instability. BlackRock’s institutional clients injected $284 million into Bitcoin in mid-April, explicitly stated as “hedging Iran-US-Israel tensions.” Spot Bitcoin ETFs have seen continuous net inflows over the past week, supporting the market’s core.

Bitcoin’s price trend has been oscillating around $77,000. As of April 28, 2026, Bitcoin fluctuated between $76,000 and $78,000, with a cumulative increase of about 13.6% over a month, but this rise is challenged by rising oil prices and risk premium revaluation. The overall market operation remains driven by liquidity conditions and geopolitical events, rather than a unidirectional trend.

What Signals Do Sanctions on Stablecoins Send? What Structural Challenges Does Crypto Finance Face?

The US Treasury’s freezing of Iran-related crypto wallets reveals a fundamental institutional dilemma for stablecoin systems amid geopolitical conflicts. The “stability” of stablecoins relies on two pillars— the safety of fiat reserves and the issuer’s control over on-chain addresses. Once the issuer faces enforcement demands from sovereign governments that align with their compliance and regulatory frameworks, assets in on-chain addresses can lose liquidity in a very short time.

While Bitcoin does not require such compliance considerations, for crypto ecosystems relying on stablecoins for liquidity, this could mean a liquidity collapse in DeFi during sanctions. Whether regulators can identify new addresses, and whether law enforcement procedures require jurisdictional authorization—these uncertainties will become new variables in risk modeling for crypto participants.

For a long time, the core narrative has been “crypto finance can become a parallel financial system immune to sovereign interference.” The $344 million freeze event shows that even in the on-chain world, sovereign powers will eventually be involved. This logic is no longer just theoretical but is gradually moving from hypothesis to reality through events.

Summary

The fierce debate and diplomatic deadlock between the US and Iran at the UN are concentrated explosions of deep-seated conflicts of interest between two major power systems. The US’s uncompromising strategy is rooted in the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz and its advantage in global energy security; Iran, on the other hand, has built a crypto parallel financial system worth $7.8 billion, creating an alternative capital flow channel outside traditional sanctions.

The US Treasury’s targeted action against $344 million in crypto wallets, while temporarily cutting off some illicit funds’ on-chain flow, fundamentally signifies that stablecoin issuance systems are being fully integrated into sovereign enforcement networks. The resilience of Bitcoin ETFs to some extent demonstrates that institutional demand for relatively decentralized crypto assets is growing.

In the longer term, the crypto market will continue to bear multiple geopolitical risk premiums. Ceasefire agreements, diplomatic breakthroughs or stalemates, oil price pulses, and inflation expectations will all compound to influence short-term volatility. For the market, the real question is no longer how Middle Eastern events impact crypto prices, but how crypto finance itself will reposition its long-term value in a world where sovereign powers are increasingly reasserting control.

FAQ

Q1: How does the deadlock in US-Iran talks affect Bitcoin prices?

Bitcoin’s sensitivity to US-Iran tensions is very high. Positive signals in negotiations often lead to Bitcoin rallies and large short squeezes; news of breakdowns trigger panic selling and sharp market cap declines. This is because the dynamics of the Strait of Hormuz directly impact global energy costs and macro inflation expectations, indirectly influencing risk appetite for crypto assets.

Q2: What does the freezing of $344 million in crypto wallets indicate?

It indicates that the US’s financial sanctions capability is migrating from the dollar clearing system to the on-chain world. Stablecoin issuers (like the issuer behind USDT) have the capacity and willingness to freeze sanctioned entities’ funds, meaning stablecoin systems are not inherently neutral in the face of sovereign sanctions.

Q3: Can Bitcoin still be called a “geopolitical safe haven”?

Bitcoin’s performance in this Middle East conflict shows dual features. On one hand, retail and short-term traders tend to sell all risk assets during escalation; on the other hand, institutional clients explicitly use Bitcoin as a hedge against geopolitical instability. The market has not yet formed a unified safe-haven pricing consensus, and Bitcoin remains in a tug-of-war between these narratives.

Q4: How long will the Strait of Hormuz dispute last?

The duration depends on whether the US and Iran can find a balance between “prioritizing nuclear issues” and “restoring navigation.” Market forecasts show the probability of reaching an agreement in the short term has fallen to about 3%, and the situation remains deadlocked. Continued disruptions to energy shipping and rising oil prices will bring ongoing uncertainty to global markets.

Q5: How should investors assess current geopolitical risks?

Market pricing indicates that geopolitical risk premiums are already embedded in crypto asset prices. Investors should focus on two aspects: first, the compliance risks for stablecoins that could unexpectedly impact DeFi liquidity; second, the ongoing ETF inflows and institutional allocations that may provide structural support. In the face of uncertain macro conditions, the market remains short-term volatile with no clear directional breakout.