US and Iran hold indirect talks after tough UN speech
Trump threatened escalation at the United Nations, while mediators brought new talks between Washington and Tehran into motion.
_(3x4_close_cropped).jpg){kind=link}
The United States and Iran held indirect talks during the United Nations General Assembly. This happened shortly after President Donald Trump set out a stark choice in his speech between an agreement and further escalation.
Trump said at the United Nations on Tuesday that he faced a major decision: an agreement with Iran or to ‘destroy’ the country quickly. The statement came in a speech in which he defended his policies and the US war effort. He held Iran responsible for threatening the region.
Behind the scenes, US and Iranian representatives made contact, according to reports. Reuters reported that Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner communicated through mediators. These were indirect talks, not a formal meeting between Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian.
The talks were reportedly partly about the Strait of Hormuz, an important shipping route for energy and trade. Trump said Iran had breached the ceasefire by attacking commercial vessels. The sources consulted attribute that claim to Trump; independent confirmation of all its elements is lacking.
According to Axios, Arab countries are trying to facilitate a meeting between US and Iranian representatives. The Gulf states have a direct interest in the outcome, as they host US military bases and have suffered economic damage from the war. No final agreement or breakthrough has been reported.
The Iranian government is presenting the contacts more cautiously. According to reports, Tehran emphasises that these are indirect talks and that its own starting position has not changed. Washington, too, has announced no concrete concessions. The diplomatic movement is therefore mainly a signal that communication has once again become possible.
The contrast between public language and quiet diplomacy is not unusual. Governments may try to increase pressure for their domestic audiences, while negotiators simultaneously seek limited arrangements on security, shipping or temporary de-escalation. Until there is a joint communiqué or verifiable agreement, it is too early to speak of a peace process.
For the region, the risk remains high that political statements and military actions will reinforce each other. In the coming days, it will become clear above all whether the indirect contacts lead to a concrete channel or produce only temporary contact during a busy UN week.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- There were indirect contacts between US and Iranian representatives during UN week.
- Trump used tough escalation rhetoric in his UN speech.
- No public agreement has been reported.
Left
Arguments Diplomacy must take precedence over threats and military pressure. A war with major consequences for civilians and the region can only be ended sustainably through negotiations and international guarantees.
Values International law, civilian protection and multilateral cooperation.
Consequences More room for mediation could prevent escalation, but opponents may see it as a concession to Iran.
Centre
Arguments Indirect talks are useful as long as they remain limited to concrete security issues, such as shipping and communication channels. At the same time, allies and regional states must be involved in any agreements.
Values Stability, verifiability and institutional diplomacy.
Consequences A step-by-step approach can limit risks, but is unlikely to provide a quick solution to the wider conflict.
Right
Arguments Negotiations work only if Iran is under credible pressure. The US must maintain military deterrence and economic pressure and must not accept an agreement that does not adequately protect the security of its allies.
Values National security, deterrence and the protection of allies.
Consequences Pressure may move Iran towards agreements, but also increases the risk of retaliation and further escalation.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The public statements and the existence of indirect contacts have been confirmed by multiple public sources. Claims about military events and the content of the negotiations have been carefully attributed or marked as uncertain.
- confirmed Trump spoke at the UN about a choice between an agreement with Iran and further escalation. — The Associated Press quotes and describes the passage from his UN speech. source
- confirmed US and Iranian representatives held indirect talks during UN week. — Reuters reported shuttle talks through mediators; The Guardian also reported talks. source
- confirmed Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner were involved in the contacts on behalf of the US. — This is mentioned in Reuters’ account of the talks. source
- confirmed No concrete agreement or joint breakthrough has yet been announced. — The sources consulted report contacts and hopes for progress, but no agreement. source
Editor's note
The existence of indirect contacts has been reported by Reuters and other public sources. The content, aims and possible outcome of the talks are largely not public and remain uncertain.Sources
- Trump in address to world leaders at the UN defends his decision to start the war against Iran — Associated Press
- Hope for progress after US, Iran hold first shuttle talks in months — Reuters via WDSM
- Arab mediators push for U.S.-Iran meeting at U.N. to de-escalate crisis — Axios
- Iran and US hold talks on sidelines of UN summit, says Trump — The Guardian