You're not going to believe any citation I provide. I would suggest a meta-process instead. Go to the President's official feed on his website. Look at his statements about the ceasefire. Ask honestly whether any of these would inject more money into Iran's economy. In the case of the 10-point proposal, you will have to look elsewhere to find a source you trust to outline the 10 points. Ask whether any of those points, which the President cited as a basis for an agreement, will inject money into the Iranian economy.

And keep in mind that no agreement, apparently not even the ceasefire, have been signed. So this is all armchair analysis from all sides (except you, because you apparently already know).

In any case, it's not clear the cease fire will make it to the weekend so we will all (except you, who have the benefit of already knowing) have to sit tight to find out what happens.

Now you're changing the subject from Iran will charge ships to use the Straight and the US will agree to it, to "Iran will receive some sort of economic benefit". You even said Oman would be part of this scheme and are incapable of providing a source, yet I provided one stating the opposite.

Of course if Iran's government stopped being so fucking crazy the US would be happy to provide economic aid. The US even offered nuclear power to Iran for free, which they turned down. [1]

I'm not believing any citation you provide because you haven't provided any. You looked at Iran's plan (which doesn't matter) and then decided that somehow they had the leverage and the US and Gulf States would agree and have but no choice to pay Iran shipping fees. This is incorrect. Nothing was agreed to. Iran's proposal is mostly worthless, and you're making stuff up.

[1] https://www.rferl.org/a/us-says-iran-rejected-nuclear-offer-...

  As part of that effort, Washington offered to support a civilian nuclear program for Iran, *including a proposal to supply nuclear fuel free of charge on a long-term basis*.