Pezeshkian squeezed at home over meeting Trump in New York

US President Donald Trump's speech at the UN General Assembly on Tuesday contained little indication of a change in his pre-UNGA position.

He urged other countries to join Washington in economically isolating Iran, while saying he expected the two sides to reach an agreement after the US midterm elections.

Trump framed his choice as whether to reach a deal that could help Iran rebuild and become a “great nation,” or “annihilate” the Islamic Republic to prevent it from waging war again. The stark alternatives illustrate a potential problem for renewed diplomacy.

Pezeshkian has himself offered different emphases on his way to New York. Before leaving Tehran, he said he would firmly defend Iran's positions and highlight what Tehran regards as its unfair treatment. But Iranian officials have also signalled an interest in reviving diplomacy with Washington through intermediaries.

The question surrounding his visit is therefore less whether Iran is communicating with the United States than how visible that diplomacy can become.

Tehran has already conveyed proposals through mediators, while Pezeshkian has referred to the need to “accept the enemy's call for peace.”

Iranian officials say Pezeshkian does not plan to meet Trump, despite the US president saying he would be open to one. A public handshake or sit-down would carry considerable political risk for Pezeshkian at home.

Hardliners have accused him of conceding too much to Washington, his authority over war policy is contested, and the position of the new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, remains uncertain. Lower-level or mediated contacts avoid some of the symbolism surrounding a presidential encounter.

The circumstances are markedly different from previous UN gatherings at which speculation about a US-Iranian handshake became an annual ritual.

The two countries are now engaged in a direct war, although there is a historical precedent for an Iranian president attending the General Assembly during direct military confrontation with Washington.

Ali Khamenei attended the General Assembly as Iran's president in September 1987, when US and Iranian forces were confronting each other in the Persian Gulf. During his visit, US forces attacked and seized the Iran Ajr after saying they observed it laying mines in international waters.

Pezeshkian has been among the strongest advocates of diplomacy within Iran's senior leadership, arguing that it would be better to end the war while Iran still “enjoys power and dignity.” His allies increasingly link that argument to Iran's worsening economy.

The reformist daily Shargh argued on Monday that engagement should not be confused with capitulation, warning of the costs of shutting the door on diplomacy while inflation soars and Iran's international connections deteriorate.

The problem in New York may therefore be less an absence of communication than the contradictory messages surrounding it.

Trump is offering Tehran the prospect of rebuilding after a deal while threatening its destruction without one; Pezeshkian must demonstrate resistance at home while leaving room for diplomacy abroad.

Such ambiguity can create room for negotiation, but it can also make it harder for either side to judge what the other is prepared to accept.

The question this week may not be whether contacts take place, but how far either government can afford to let them become public.

The statements came within hours of each other, from MPs, a Tehran city council official and military figures, and they map the mood in the hardline camp on the eve of the president's departure.

It came as Donald Trump said he was willing to meet Pezeshkian in New York while warning that "something big" could happen to Iran.

Kamran Ghazanfari, a hardline MP, told Didban Iran that if the existence of the Islamic Republic came under serious threat, the new supreme leader could reconsider the question of nuclear weapons. Some MPs favor a nuclear deterrent to end the recurring threats against Iran, he said, though any decision would rest with senior officials and the Supreme National Security Council.

Parviz Sarvari, deputy chairman of Tehran city council, said he would welcome news that Iran had moved toward building nuclear weapons for deterrence. Membership of the Non-Proliferation Treaty had brought Iran no benefit, he said, while its adversaries threatened it from a position of nuclear superiority.

The push has gone beyond words. Hossein-Ali Haji-Deligani, an MP, submitted a triple-urgency bill for Iran's withdrawal from the NPT, arguing that membership had become more costly since the IAEA Board of Governors referred Iran to the UN Security Council. Similar proposals have circulated for months and the leadership of parliament has kept them off the floor. Haji-Deligani said the presidium has now acknowledged receipt of this one.

Military figures spoke the same day. Army commander Amir Hatami said the armed forces were at full readiness. Esmail Kowsari, of parliament's national security committee, said Iran's growing capabilities would eventually push American forces out of the region.

Revolutionary Guards spokesman Hossein Mohebbi said the war with the United States and Israel was not over and that the Guards had prepared for a long one, citing assessments that Washington may be considering fresh strikes.

What the day was for

Three things were happening at once.

The first is the argument about the last war. The ceasefire that ended the 12-day conflict left hardliners needing it not to look like a defeat at home, and insisting the war is unfinished keeps the account open.

The second is pressure on Pezeshkian. The NPT bill and the nuclear talk arrived alongside renewed parliamentary criticism of his government for allowing IAEA inspectors access, in a dispute over how far Iran should engage Washington and the monitors.

The third is the IAEA referral and the threat of snapback sanctions, which is the immediate cause of the NPT bill and the reason the timing is not a coincidence.

The language stayed inside limits. Ghazanfari attached any reconsideration of weapons to an existential threat. Sarvari's endorsement was of a hypothetical. Neither said Iran should build a bomb now, and neither Mojtaba Khamenei nor the Supreme National Security Council has said anything on the question.

The risk is how it reads elsewhere. Open parliamentary discussion of leaving the NPT and of nuclear contingencies is the kind of material Washington and Israel have previously cited as evidence that Iran is moving toward a weapon, and the United States struck Iranian nuclear sites during the last war. On the same day, the Guards said they expected it to happen again.

Speaking on an online program last week, Soltani said networks built to evade oil sanctions stood to lose from the June memorandum between Tehran and Washington, because implementing it would have cut their role in oil sales.

Three Saudi and Qatari tankers were attacked in the Strait of Hormuz less than three weeks after the memorandum was signed. Soltani said the attacks served to derail the agreement and prevent sanctions on Iranian oil from being lifted for good, keeping the networks in business.

The people he described as trustees are not the traders who sell the oil, he said, but the intermediaries who move the money. He named Ruhollah Razavi, son-in-law of Majid Motaghifar, spokesman for the hardline Paydari Party, as one of four who control much of the trade.

The margins are the point. Moving the proceeds of a single tanker carrying about $90 million of oil costs roughly $4 million through these intermediaries, Soltani said. Through SWIFT, the international banking system Iran is cut off from, it would cost about $500.

He also said the four had run monthly debts to the government in the hundreds of millions of dollars while using the money for other business, putting the monthly average attributed to Hossein Shamkhani, son of the late security chief Ali Shamkhani, at about $800 million.

Iranian outlets have recently named Razavi, Shamkhani and two others as the network's main trustees, and asked how they were chosen and how the system works.

The backlash

Fars News Agency, affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards, said Washington had violated the memorandum, particularly its provision on the Strait of Hormuz, and rejected any suggestion that Iran bore responsibility for its collapse.

"Recent reports, including material published by Yashar Soltani and affiliated media, seek to switch the roles of victim and culprit and portray Iran as responsible for the failure of the memorandum," Fars wrote. "The narrative that vigilantes broke the agreement is simple and attractive, but when placed alongside the successive violations by the United States, it falls apart."

Tasnim, also linked to the Guards, called it performative justice-seeking. "If a nation is told that the war with the United States and Israel is not the product of the wickedness and crimes of these two regimes, but rather the result of the mischief of some people inside the country seeking to continue benefiting economically, what incentive will remain there for unity?" it asked.

The state broadcaster's political program Be Vaght-e Iran argued on social media that no commercial network could have carried out the attacks whatever its motive.

"Trustees have neither a military structure, nor anti-ship cruise missiles, nor links to the command levels of the IRGC and army," the post said. "This type of narrative is not only unprofessional, but also a dangerous and disturbing game aimed at discrediting the defenders of the country's security who have stood by this land for years."

A military analyst in an accompanying video said that while the United States had violated the memorandum, only Iran's wartime command, the Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, could have ordered missile strikes.

The accusations

Hardline users have accused Soltani of serving those who want to pressure Iran's armed forces.

Ehsan Hosseini, who edits the hardline publication Khat-e Energy, said Soltani was trying to swap one set of trustees for another: "The project Yashar Soltani has launched is not against the trustees; it seeks to oust some and replace them with other trustees, those who failed to return $13 billion in oil revenues and caused the January protests."

Majid Shakeri, an adviser to parliament speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, called the revelations a propaganda campaign by one group of trustees against another. Both groups, he said, had contributed to two wars and to last year's protests, and anyone attributing Iran's response to the American violation to this rivalry deserved a "field trial for wartime treason."

Journalist Davoud Modarresian put the blame on the government, which he said had neither the nerve to leave the dollar-based financial order nor the ability to control the trustees.

"By implementing currency shocks and releasing the dollar exchange rate in December, they pushed the economy to the brink of collapse and created the conditions for the enemy's military greed," he wrote.

Not all of it was hostile. "If oil is sold without obstruction or sanctions by the ministry under the memorandum, and its money returns through transparent channels, the profits of the trustees and the IRGC will be cut," one user wrote, arguing that this pointed to collusion between the two.

Sasan Zare, spokesman for the Janfada campaign, said the main organisation of volunteers would be based around adults aged 18 and over, but acknowledged that younger people were also being brought into the initiative.

“The stronger their value system is formed from childhood, and the more familiar they become with concepts such as patriotism and self-sacrifice, the more significant the impact can be on their future,” Zare told the Iranian news agency ILNA.

Those registered with the campaign were over 15, he said, while women taking part in its training courses were over 18. For children below that age, Zare said the emphasis should be on patriotism, responsibility, first aid, safety and what he called a “culture of self-sacrifice and resistance.”

The Islamic Republic has stepped up a broad campaign to mobilise civilians since the US-Israeli war began in February.

The Janfada initiative was launched in late March, and authorities have since promoted registration through mosques, Basij bases and public events, alongside plans for military and emergency-response training.

The campaign has drawn scrutiny over the involvement of minors, with rights groups accusing Iranian authorities of recruiting children into the Basij and using them at checkpoints.

Amnesty International said in April that Iranian law allows children under 15 to join as ordinary Basij members, while those aged 15 and over can become active Basij members and collaborate with the Revolutionary Guards on assigned missions.

The rights group said it had verified evidence of children as young as 12 deployed at checkpoints and patrols, including some carrying rifles.

Iran International has separately received accounts from several provinces describing children and teenagers taking part in checkpoint operations and handling weapons at state-sponsored gatherings.

Asked specifically about teenagers being used at checkpoints, Zare said he did not know how such deployments were being carried out because checkpoints fell under the authority of local police and security bodies.

His campaign, he said, provided training related to urban and public security, while the units deploying volunteers would decide whether they were used at checkpoints.

“The United States, if it wants to extricate itself from the predicament it has created, must accept Iran’s rights and conditions,” Rezaei wrote on X, saying the seven demands had been communicated to Washington.

He did not spell out all seven in the post. Earlier Saturday, however, Rezaei told Al Jazeera that Tehran was demanding an end to the war “on all fronts,” the release of frozen Iranian assets and an end to the US naval blockade as conditions for a settlement.

He said a Qatari mediator had conveyed Iran’s terms to Washington and that Tehran was awaiting Trump’s response.

Iran and the United States have remained engaged in indirect diplomacy throughout months of fighting and since the collapse of the Islamabad memorandum of understanding.

The memorandum, signed in June after Pakistan-hosted talks, was intended to halt the fighting and pave the way for a broader agreement. Both sides later accused the other of violations, and it expired in August without producing a lasting settlement.

Trump told Axios on Thursday that he had a “big decision” coming over whether to resume large-scale attacks on Iran, while saying Tehran remained in direct contact with Washington and wanted a deal. He is due to discuss the war with leaders of six Persian Gulf states in New York next week.

Pakistan, another key intermediary, is sending Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi to Tehran on Sunday. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said the visit was focused on bilateral ties and previous agreements between the two countries and that he was not aware of any specific US message or proposal due to be conveyed.

Baghaei acknowledged Pakistan’s continuing mediation role, saying it was natural for Islamabad to pursue diplomatic efforts, but said he had no information about any particular initiative attached to the visit.

Rezaei meanwhile struck a harder military tone, saying Iran had changed its strategy toward Washington after the United States withdrew from the memorandum. He said Tehran had recently tested an anti-ship missile near a US aircraft carrier and claimed Iran was better prepared to confront American air attacks after identifying weaknesses in the US military.

Nuclear pressure

On nuclear policy, Rezaei said Tehran remained committed to the late supreme leader’s fatwa against nuclear weapons and had not changed its nuclear doctrine, though he added that “we do not know what will happen in the future.”

He said Israeli and US actions already provided grounds for Iran to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but Tehran had not made such a decision and any move would depend on Washington’s conduct.

Last month, Rezaei suggested Tehran could reconsider its longstanding rejection of nuclear weapons, arguing that US attacks on Iran have strengthened the case for acquiring an atomic bomb as a deterrent.

Rezaei told the state TV Washington had demonstrated that adherence to the global nuclear non-proliferation system offered countries little protection from military attack.

Saudi-Yemen escalation

In his Saturday interview, Rezaei also said Iran wanted the fighting between Saudi Arabia and Yemen to end and believed the Yemeni side also sought an agreement with Riyadh.

Hours earlier, an air attack struck a jet-fuel storage facility at Riyadh’s King Khalid International Airport, marking the first direct assault on the Saudi capital in months, The Wall Street Journal reported.

The Houthis later claimed two operations using missiles and drones, saying they struck “sensitive and important” targets in Riyadh and Saudi Aramco facilities in Yanbu. Military spokesman Yahya Saree did not explicitly identify the airport as a target.