Iran ‘Cannot Be Made to Surrender,’ Pezeshkian Tells UN but Keeps Door Open to Diplomacy With US
SCN AUDIO: https://scn-audio-generator.editor-af6.workers.dev/audio/scn-normal-hera-2026-09-23-89cba3d4-e8d2-4f58-9978-5af2d4767980.mp3
By Shahnoor Saqib — SCN News
UNITED NATIONS — Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian declared Wednesday that Iran “cannot be made to surrender” in its war with the United States but said Tehran remained prepared for dialogue and diplomacy, delivering a defiant wartime message from the United Nations podium a day after President Donald Trump threatened to “annihilate” the Islamic Republic if no peace agreement was reached. The U.S. delegation walked out at the beginning of Pezeshkian’s address, highlighting the depth of the confrontation even as diplomatic efforts continued in New York.
Pezeshkian directly challenged Trump’s message from the same General Assembly hall a day earlier, accusing the U.S. president of adopting a “bullying mentality” and saying sanctions, military pressure and threats would only strengthen Iranian resistance. He told world leaders that Iran would not “bow” under pressure while repeatedly stressing that Tehran remained willing to negotiate if Washington abandoned what he described as the language of force.
The competing speeches have placed the U.S.-Iran war at the centre of UNGA81. Trump used his Tuesday address to defend the conflict as necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and warned that he could “annihilate the Islamic Republic” if negotiations failed. Pezeshkian’s response Wednesday rejected the prospect of capitulation but stopped short of shutting down diplomacy, leaving negotiations as one of the few potential routes out of nearly seven months of war.
Diplomatic contacts have continued alongside the increasingly confrontational public rhetoric. U.S. and Iranian officials have resumed indirect shuttle talks after a months-long interruption, but the two governments remain far apart over the conditions required to end hostilities. No ceasefire, peace agreement or significant publicly announced concession emerged from the latest contacts by Wednesday.
Pezeshkian also rejected Washington’s description of Iran as a leading sponsor of terrorism, arguing instead that Iranians themselves had been victims of terrorism and military attacks. During his address, he displayed photographs including one of late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and images of children killed during the conflict, seeking to place Iranian civilian casualties prominently before the international community.
The Iranian president portrayed his country’s military actions as defensive and accused the United States and Israel of initiating the conflict. Washington and Israel dispute Tehran’s characterization and have defended their military operations by citing Iran’s nuclear programme and wider security threats. Pezeshkian nevertheless insisted that Iran had not sought the war and would continue defending itself against further attacks.
The walkout by the U.S. delegation provided one of the most visible demonstrations of the hostility surrounding the General Assembly. American representatives left as Pezeshkian began speaking, a day after Trump delivered his own forceful address against Tehran. The public confrontation inside the UN hall unfolded alongside diplomatic contacts elsewhere in New York, producing an unusual combination of escalating rhetoric and continued negotiations.
Iran’s nuclear programme remains one of the principal obstacles to an agreement. Pezeshkian said Tehran does not seek nuclear weapons but would not relinquish what it considers its right to peaceful nuclear technology. Washington says any settlement must provide credible guarantees that Iran cannot acquire a nuclear weapon, making enrichment, inspections and verification central to any future negotiations.
Pezeshkian sought to draw a clear distinction between those two issues. Iran, he said, could accept a prohibition on nuclear weapons but not restrictions that permanently deny it civilian nuclear technology. The disagreement means that even if Washington and Tehran agree to continue negotiations, difficult questions remain over enrichment levels, nuclear material, international inspections and the conditions under which sanctions or military pressure could be eased.
The Strait of Hormuz has emerged as another critical bargaining point. Pezeshkian warned that Iran could not accept a situation in which other countries benefited from shipping through the strategic waterway while Iranian access was restricted. Before the war, roughly a fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies moved through the Strait, making its security an international economic issue as well as a central part of the U.S.-Iran confrontation.
Tehran has indicated that it could reopen the Strait within seven days if Washington reduces military pressure and lifts its blockade on Iranian ports. Iranian officials say a proposal for ending hostilities was transmitted to Washington through intermediaries on Sept. 16 and that the delegation attending the General Assembly has authority to pursue diplomatic negotiations.
Pezeshkian warned that permanently deploying what he called “hostile fleets” and expanding the war would not produce peace. His message linked freedom of navigation through Hormuz directly to Iran’s own access to international shipping, signalling that the waterway remains part of Tehran’s negotiating position rather than a separate maritime dispute.
That issue extends the consequences of the conflict far beyond Washington and Tehran. Disruption around Hormuz affects oil supplies, shipping costs and economies across the Gulf and global markets, giving regional governments a strong interest in preventing further escalation. It also gives mediators another potential area in which a limited agreement could reduce tensions even before Washington and Tehran resolve their broader nuclear and security disputes.
Trump’s position remains similarly uncompromising in public. He told the General Assembly on Tuesday that Iran faced a choice between reaching an agreement and potentially devastating U.S. action, while also predicting that diplomacy could eventually produce a settlement. Secretary of State Marco Rubio separately said Washington remained open to discussions with Iranian representatives at the UN if such talks offered a realistic prospect of progress.
Pezeshkian’s response therefore did not amount to a rejection of negotiations. Instead, he attempted to establish the conditions under which Iran says those negotiations could proceed: Tehran will discuss an end to the war but will not negotiate on the basis of surrender or accept demands imposed through military threats.
That distinction is what makes his declaration that Iran “cannot be made to surrender” the central message of Wednesday’s address. It was a direct response to the coercive element of Trump’s strategy while simultaneously preserving room for diplomacy. Pezeshkian told Trump and others seeking to pressure Tehran that Iran remained ready for dialogue, diplomacy and negotiations but would not accept “the language of force.”
The two governments nevertheless remain separated by substantial differences. Washington wants guarantees preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon and continues to use military and economic pressure as leverage. Tehran wants an easing of U.S. military pressure and restrictions while insisting that its peaceful nuclear programme and broader sovereign rights cannot be negotiated away.
Pezeshkian also entered the negotiations from a position of deep distrust. Iranian officials have repeatedly argued that previous diplomatic efforts were undermined by military action and have questioned whether Washington genuinely intends to negotiate a settlement or use talks to increase pressure. The United States maintains that its pressure campaign is intended to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and force meaningful negotiations.
UNGA81 has consequently become an important diplomatic arena because senior officials from both sides are in New York even though the countries do not maintain normal diplomatic relations and remain at war. The General Debate continues through Sept. 28, providing several more days for mediators and regional governments to pursue contacts away from the public speeches.
No breakthrough has yet emerged. The renewed shuttle talks have not produced a publicly announced ceasefire or agreement on the nuclear programme, Hormuz, sanctions or the broader conditions for ending the conflict. Both governments are therefore continuing to negotiate while publicly maintaining positions intended to demonstrate that neither is yielding under pressure.
Pezeshkian’s UN address captured that contradiction. Iran’s president delivered one of Tehran’s strongest declarations of resistance since the war began, directly challenged Trump’s threat from the same podium and insisted that military pressure would not force Iran to capitulate. Yet he repeatedly returned to diplomacy, making clear that Tehran still sees negotiations as a possible route toward ending the conflict.
For now, that is the central development emerging from Iran’s appearance at UNGA81: Trump has threatened devastating consequences if Tehran refuses an agreement, while Pezeshkian has answered that Iran cannot be forced to surrender — but neither side has closed the diplomatic door.