NextFin News - Iran is running short of roughly 800 pharmaceutical products, including about 90 medicines classified as essential or life-saving, as a combination of US sanctions, a naval blockade, and a seven-month war has pushed the country's pharmaceutical supply chain toward collapse. The shortages are not confined to imported drugs: about 400 of the scarce products are manufactured inside Iran, exposing a structural vulnerability that sanctions have turned into a humanitarian choke point. Prices for basic medicines have surged as much as six-fold in a year, while more than 70 percent of healthcare costs are paid directly out of patients' pockets, leaving millions to ration, delay, or abandon treatment.
The deterioration has accelerated sharply. A year ago, before the current conflict, roughly 300 drug types were already in short supply and about 100 were unavailable. The shortage list has since more than doubled, a measure of how a chronic, managed scarcity has tipped into an acute systemic failure.
The Shortage in Numbers
The scale of the shortfall is unusual even by the standards of a country that has lived under "maximum pressure" sanctions since 2018. Hadi Ahmadi, a spokesman for the Iranian Pharmacists Association, told domestic media that around 800 pharmaceutical products are currently in short supply nationwide, of which about 90 are considered essential or life-saving. Roughly half of those scarce medicines — some 400 products — are produced domestically.
That distinction matters. Iran has long taken pride in a pharmaceutical sector that, by official figures, meets about 97 percent of domestic medicine demand through local manufacturers. The shortages of domestically made drugs show that local production has not insulated the system, because Iranian factories depend on imported active pharmaceutical ingredients, excipients, and packaging materials that sanctions and war have made harder and more expensive to bring in.
Prices tell the second half of the story. State-run Mehr News Agency reported that over the past year the price of gabapentin, used to treat epilepsy and nerve pain, rose 220 percent; acetaminophen, or paracetamol, rose 375 percent; the antibiotic amoxicillin rose 285 percent; and the antidepressant fluoxetine doubled. Insulin, a daily necessity for diabetics, now costs up to six times what it did a year ago.
The price shock is hitting a population already stretched by some of the world's highest inflation. The cost of essential food items was up more than 123 percent year-on-year as of August, with staples such as cooking oil more than tripling. More than 70 percent of healthcare costs in Iran are paid directly by patients, according to Salman Es'haghi, a member of parliament's health commission. Ahmad Ariayi Nejad, also on the commission, said the financial pressure is now visible in fewer patients attending clinics and doctors' surgeries.
Some people, because of economic hardship and lack of financial means, abandon their treatment part-way through.
The war has added physical damage to the financial squeeze. Iranian officials say the US-Israel conflict that began in February has damaged or destroyed some 44 pharmaceutical and medical equipment companies, and that about 50 industry workers have been killed or wounded.
How Sanctions Strangle Medicine Without Banning It
The central paradox of Iran's medicine shortage is that US sanctions do not formally ban the sale of medicine to Iran. The Office of Foreign Assets Control states that the commercial sale and export of humanitarian goods, including medicine and medical devices, to Iran is "broadly authorized," and that humanitarian donations of medicine are generally exempt from the Iran sanctions regime.
Yet the medicine still does not get through in sufficient quantities. The reason is that sanctions operate less through legal prohibitions than through financial deterrence. Peyvand Bastani, a sanctions expert at Flinders University, explained that sanctions complicate international payments and reduce the willingness of banks and suppliers to work with Iranian buyers, obstructing imports of both finished medicines and the raw materials needed to make them.
The legal architecture explains why the humanitarian exemptions do not translate into unblocked trade. US rules exempt humanitarian donations of medicine and broadly authorize commercial medical exports, but those carve-outs generally do not apply to transactions involving entities on the Specially Designated Nationals list, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Central Bank of Iran, and the National Iranian Oil Company. Because Iran's banking system, its central bank, and large parts of its state-linked economy sit on those lists, a transaction that is legal in principle becomes practically impossible: a foreign bank cannot be certain the rials, the shipping company, or the end-user does not touch a designated entity, so it declines the payment rather than assume the compliance risk.
This is the transmission channel that matters: a European chemical supplier may be legally free to sell an active ingredient to an Iranian drugmaker, but its bank may refuse to clear the payment, its insurer may decline coverage, and its shipping line may decline the cargo rather than risk secondary sanctions exposure. The result is a de facto embargo administered by compliance departments rather than by statute. Every transaction acquires a sanctions-risk premium that is ultimately paid by the Iranian patient at the pharmacy counter.
The second-order effect extends beyond Iran's borders. Humanitarian trade corridors that once moved medicine through regional financial hubs have narrowed, pushing Iranian buyers toward opaque intermediaries who charge a premium for assuming sanctions risk. That premium — embedded in the rial price of every imported input — is why a drug that is legal to sell can still be unaffordable to buy. The sanctions regime achieves its pressure without a single formal ban on medicine, and that is precisely what makes the humanitarian exemptions largely theoretical.
Why 97 Percent Domestic Production Is Not Self-Sufficiency
Iran's pharmaceutical profile is a textbook case of why import-substitution statistics can be misleading. Official figures put domestic production at about 97 percent of medicine demand by volume — but the remaining 3 percent of imports accounts for roughly 30 percent of the sector's foreign-exchange value. In other words, Iran makes the cheap, high-volume finished products at home, while the high-value inputs — active pharmaceutical ingredients, specialized intermediates, biotech raw materials — come from abroad.
That structure made sense in normal times: import the concentrated inputs, add domestic labor and packaging, and keep costs low. Under sanctions and war, it becomes a single point of failure. When the rial depreciates and hard currency grows scarce, the cost of imported inputs rises even if the legal right to buy them is untouched. When war damages logistics and insurance routes tighten, the inputs stop arriving.
The government's own exchange-rate policy amplified the problem. Health authorities announced late last year that they were phasing out an official rate of 42,000 rials to the dollar — a level that had subsidized drug imports since the US withdrew from the nuclear deal in 2018 — in favor of a still-subsidized rate of 285,000 rials, while the free-market rate hovered near one million rials to the dollar. Removing the subsidy removed a buffer that had been holding pharmacy prices artificially low for years. A Tehran gastroenterologist and university professor, speaking on condition of anonymity, described the resulting price rises, including for domestically produced generics, as "staggering," and said they had become an insurmountable barrier for many vulnerable Iranians.
The Second Squeeze: Unpaid Insurers, Empty Shelves
There is a second transmission channel inside Iran's own health system. Pharmacies are not being paid. The Iranian Pharmacists Association said at a press conference last month that more than 18,000 private pharmacies nationwide had not been reimbursed by insurers, with outstanding debts amounting to about $300 million. Local media have put the figure higher, at about 8 quadrillion rials, or roughly $3.56 billion.
The mechanism here is a domestic liquidity trap. Insurers, starved of hard currency and tax revenue, stop paying pharmacies. Pharmacies, unpaid, cannot restock. Patients, facing six-fold insulin prices and out-of-pocket costs above 70 percent, abandon purchases. Research from the Stimson Center reported in 2025 that three of every ten patients who reach a drugstore checkout walk away when they see the total. Each actor in the chain is behaving rationally — the insurer cannot pay what it does not have, the pharmacy cannot stock what it cannot afford, the patient cannot buy what would bankrupt the household — and the system seizes up anyway.
This is why the crisis runs deeper than a simple import shortfall. Even if sanctions were lifted tomorrow, the domestic payment chain would need recapitalization before shelves refilled at affordable prices.
Cyclical Shock, Structural Disease
Is this crisis cyclical or structural? The answer requires separating two layers.
The war damage is cyclical in nature: 44 pharmaceutical and medical equipment companies damaged or destroyed, supply routes disrupted, workers killed. Physical damage can be rebuilt; supply routes can reopen. If the conflict ends and reconstruction begins, that layer can mean-revert.
The dependency on imported pharmaceutical inputs and the sanctions-induced blockage of payment channels are structural. They will not self-correct when the war ends. Iran's 97-percent domestic-production figure rests on imported raw materials; the financial deterrence that keeps banks and shippers away from Iran transactions persists regardless of the battlefield. The exchange-rate reform that removed the drug-import subsidy is also a structural change — the buffer is gone and is unlikely to be restored at 42,000 rials to the dollar while inflation runs far above global averages.
The practical implication is uncomfortable for anyone expecting a quick fix: even a favorable political settlement would not quickly restore medicine availability. The structural leg of the crisis outlives the cyclical one.
The Counter-Argument, and the Test That Would Falsify It
The strongest challenge to the sanctions narrative is that Iran's pharmaceutical troubles predate the current war and the latest sanctions round. The Stimson Center reported in February 2025 — before the US-Israel conflict began — that about 300 drug types were already in short supply and roughly 100 were unavailable, with most medicines having risen 15 to 150 percent in price and some 300 times more expensive. Inflation was already running near 40 percent. On this reading, the shortage is a homegrown product of exchange-rate mismanagement, subsidy removal, and a cash-strapped insurance system; sanctions merely accelerated an existing collapse.
That counter-thesis has real force, and it correctly identifies that sanctions alone do not explain every failure. But it mistakes acceleration for irrelevance. The pre-war shortage of 300 drug types has more than doubled to 800 under the combined pressure of intensified sanctions, a naval blockade, and wartime damage to 44 facilities. The two causes are not alternatives; they compound. Domestic policy created the vulnerability — the import-dependent input structure and the unfunded insurance liabilities — and sanctions and war converted that vulnerability into a systemic failure. A patient who cannot find insulin does not benefit from the distinction.
Nor is the price evidence consistent with a purely domestic story. The steepest increases — paracetamol up 375 percent, amoxicillin up 285 percent, insulin up to six-fold — track the currency's collapse and the tightening of import channels, not just local subsidy removal. When a fever pill made inside Iran triples in price, the driver is the cost of the imported inputs and the rials needed to buy them, not the pharmacy's margin.
The falsifying test is concrete: if medicine availability improves materially within six months of a ceasefire without any easing of banking restrictions or restoration of the drug-import subsidy, then the war shock, not the structural financial blockage, was the binding constraint. If shelves stay empty despite peace, the structural diagnosis holds.
What to Watch Next
The immediate beneficiaries of this breakdown are limited and grim: parallel importers who can navigate sanctions channels, and domestic producers of finished drugs that can still source inputs. The exposed are clear: patients with chronic conditions such as diabetes, epilepsy, cancer, and depression; the roughly 70 percent of the population that pays healthcare costs directly; and the 18,000-plus private pharmacies carrying unpaid insurer debt.
Three time horizons matter.
In the short term, the direction is set by the war and the rial. Further escalation, deeper blockade enforcement, or continued currency depreciation will push the shortage count above 800 and lift prices beyond the current six-fold insulin level. Any diplomatic pause would offer only partial relief, because the payment-channel deterrence outlasts any single ceasefire.
In the medium term, the binding variable is the insurance system's solvency. Unless the roughly $300 million in unpaid pharmacy debts is cleared and insurers are recapitalized, pharmacies will remain unable to restock even when goods are physically available. The first signals to watch are the pharmacist association's monthly statements on unpaid pharmacies and the health ministry's subsidy announcements. A partial fix is conceivable even without a political settlement: if Tehran restores a subsidized exchange rate for medical imports and injects liquidity into the insurance funds, the domestic payment chain could thaw. But that requires hard currency the state does not currently have in abundance, which is why the medium-term outlook tilts toward continued strain.
In the long term, the question is whether Iran can rebuild a genuinely self-sufficient pharmaceutical input base — replacing imported active ingredients rather than just assembling finished goods. That is a decade-scale industrial project, not a policy tweak, and it requires capital and technology access that sanctions currently restrict.
The base case is continued scarcity with episodic relief: shortages persist above current levels, prices remain multiples of pre-crisis norms, and treatment abandonment stays elevated. The upside case requires both a political settlement and a sanctions-easing package that restores banking channels — under which the shortage count could fall back toward the 2025 baseline of 300 drug types. The downside case is further escalation that pushes essential-medicine availability below the current 90-product threshold and triggers broader public-health emergencies.
Sanctions were designed to be "smart" enough to spare medicine, but they were precise only on paper. In practice, they strangle the payment channels that medicine travels on, and a war has turned that design flaw into a shortage that no pharmacy counter can absorb. Iran's medicine crisis is not, in the end, a shortage of drugs so much as a shortage of the channels through which drugs are paid for and delivered — and those channels do not reopen with a ceasefire.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
