The clear and direct question is on the table: Yashar Soltani must answer about his relationship with Hossein Aghayari and any $200,000 transfers between him and entities related to Aghayari, while Aghayari's name has faded in recent disclosures despite the large scale of his case.
The Name That Was Left Out: Hossein Aghayari
Hossein Aghayari has been introduced as one of the major oil debtors; a person who received nearly 90 million barrels of oil in a year, with his debts reaching several billion dollars. His related contract was concluded with the approval of the Minister of Oil and without the endorsement of the sanctions counteraction task force. At the same time, the issue of selling sanctioned ships to entities related to him and then renting those same ships again is also raised.
Read more: Trump's government celebrates the first expulsion through a secret court
This volume of oil and this level of debt have a direct impact on public interests. When shipments of several tens of millions of barrels are transferred with weak guarantees or opaque structures, the risk of non-repayment and deepening hidden deficits is imposed on the people. When sanctioned ships are sold to actors within the same networks and then rented back from them, additional costs burden the public financial balance. In such a framework, if a name of this weight is not highlighted in disclosures, it has direct political and economic implications.
Celebrity-Centric Disclosure and the Logic of Omission and Highlighting
In Iran, celebrity-centric disclosures and even investigative journalism with reformist intentions rarely detach from the logic of gang wars and competition over interests. In such a situation, not only the names that are focused on but also those that are sidelined are part of the story. The choice of subject, timing of publication, and details presented are as important as the content of the disclosures. When one name, with all its familial, security, and political details, is placed at the forefront while a name with larger figures and more sensitive connections remains in the background, the result is clear: the audience is faced with a selective arrangement.
Where Was Soltani's Focus and Who Was Introduced
In his recent disclosures, Yashar Soltani focused on a circle that is described as a combination of the Stability Front and parts of the old security apparatus. At the same time, reports from the Parliament and some media mentioned the names Bayandarian, Razavi, Momenin, and Shamkhani in connection with receiving a large volume of oil after the Islamabad agreement. This arrangement created an image of a specific circle and several determining figures; however, there were also other parallel and large cases that were not sufficiently highlighted in Soltani's statements. The most important example is Hossein Aghayari.
Despite the dimensions of this case, Hossein Aghayari's name did not find a place in Soltani's recent disclosures commensurate with the volume of transactions and debts. This gap needs to be explained; not with generalities but with documentation and clear answers.
The Chain of Decisions, Signatures, and Responsibilities
In Aghayari's case, several key points are observed: the Minister of Oil's approval for the contract related to him without the endorsement of the sanctions counteraction task force; the sale of sanctioned ships to entities related to him; and the re-renting of those same ships. These are links in a chain: who signed, what was transferred, and who should be held accountable. Each of these points clarifies the path of responsibility. When a contract proceeds outside the sanctions counteraction task force's process, who is responsible for the decision? When a sanctioned ship is transferred to related entities and then rented back from the same path, which institutions benefit and what costs fall on the people?
This chain must be opened transparently and verifiably. Any link that remains opaque leaves room for the repetition of the same pattern.
Unanswered Questions for Yashar Soltani
Now the questions are clear and must be answered explicitly:
- What is Yashar Soltani's relationship with Hossein Aghayari?
- Has the amount of $200,000, directly or indirectly, been paid by Aghayari or related entities to Soltani?
- Is there a connection between this issue and the highlighting of some trustees' names while Aghayari's case remains less prominent?
- Was the selection of trustees whose names were published the result of independent research or part of a settlement between rival networks in the oil trade?
These questions require yes or no answers and can be substantiated with specific documentation and timelines. As long as the answers do not come, the suspicion of selectivity remains, and the disclosure, instead of reforming the mechanism, merely shifts the composition of stakeholders.
The Opaque Structure of Oil Sales and Its Byproduct: Trustees
Oil sales under sanctions have an opaque, multilayered structure dependent on security, military, and political networks. Trustees are the product of this structure. As long as the sales path proceeds with heavy discounts, the absence of real auctions, and weak guarantees, large cases are produced and heavy debts remain. Focusing on a few figures, without opening the mechanism and without demanding answers from all involved parties, neither strengthens guarantees nor clarifies the path of debt settlement.
Soltani himself referred to the role of "information chickens" and security institutions, but his main focus practically fell on a few specific figures who are now under political and media pressure. In contrast, a case with the dimensions of Aghayari remained sidelined. This inconsistency must be resolved with clear answers and the provision of documentation.
What It Means for the People
When some individuals are attacked with all details while others, even with larger transactions or heavier debts, remain silent, the practical message of such an approach is that one gang must pay the price for another to take its place. The result for the people does not bring any change to the mechanism: the names on contracts change, but discounts, opaque paths, and financial risks remain. The final cost is transferred to the public budget and the people's table.
Experience from recent years has shown that the output of many disclosures has been the weakening of one circle and the replacement with another; without changing the sales path, oversight mechanisms, and guarantee tools. If this time a different outcome is to be achieved, the chain of signatures, guarantees, shipments, and settlements must be clarified; case by case, with figures and dates.
The Final Demand: Documented and Verifiable Answers
The public now has the right to hear clear answers to these questions. Yashar Soltani must explicitly state what his relationship with Hossein Aghayari is; whether any amount, including $200,000, has been transferred directly or indirectly between him and Aghayari or related intermediaries; and whether the selection of names in his recent disclosures was the result of independent research or part of a settlement between rival networks in the oil trade.
Clear, documented, and verifiable answers to these questions delineate the boundary between investigative journalism and selective disclosures. Any vague or general response reproduces the same structure and results in the same outcome: the shifting of stakeholders without reforming the mechanism.
Read more: The arrest of Jacques Ratliff in the case of the death of Tasia Fortune
