The Iranian president’s remarks came amid an atmosphere of open hostility. Reports from the chamber said boos could be heard when his appearance was announced, setting the stage for an unusually tense address.
As Pezeshkian continued criticizing the United States and defending Iran’s actions, members of the American delegation stood and exited the chamber.
The confrontation was particularly striking because it came less than 24 hours after American and Iranian representatives had reopened a diplomatic channel on the sidelines of the U.N. gathering.
Trump revealed Tuesday that his envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, had participated in a three-hour meeting involving Iranian representatives. Trump subsequently described the discussions positively, saying the meeting was productive and suggesting that another round of talks could follow.
“It was a very good meeting,” Trump said.
Witkoff later explained that the negotiations were conducted indirectly, with intermediaries carrying messages between the two sides rather than American and Iranian officials sitting together for a conventional face-to-face negotiation. Reports identified Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi as among Tehran’s representatives.
The talks represented a significant diplomatic development after months of escalating confrontation. Trump has continued to demand major concessions from Tehran while simultaneously leaving open the possibility of a negotiated settlement.
On Tuesday, Trump delivered a blunt warning to Iran from the U.N. podium, saying he faced a choice between reaching an agreement and driving the country “into hell.”
The president also accused Tehran of intentionally prolonging negotiations and suggested Iranian officials could be waiting for the November midterm elections in hopes that political pressure over energy prices would turn against his administration.
Those comments represented Trump’s stated assessment of Iran’s strategy and motives, rather than an independently established finding.
At the center of the diplomatic standoff is the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important energy shipping routes.
The waterway has become a major flashpoint during the conflict, with restrictions on shipping contributing to concerns about energy supplies and prices. Iranian officials have made reopening the strait a central part of their demands in discussions with the United States.
According to reports, Tehran has tied any reopening of the waterway to broader conditions, including measures involving the conflict and economic pressure on Iran. Qatar has also played a role in facilitating communication between the two sides.
Yet despite Tuesday’s lengthy negotiations, neither Washington nor Tehran announced a final agreement restoring normal shipping through the strategic waterway.
That leaves the diplomatic situation in an unusual position.
On one hand, American and Iranian representatives are once again communicating through intermediaries and discussing potential terms for ending the conflict. Trump has said the talks went well and indicated that further discussions could take place soon.
On the other hand, Pezeshkian’s U.N. address demonstrated just how far apart the two governments remain on fundamental questions about the war, responsibility and Iran’s future relationship with the United States.
Pezeshkian rejected the idea that Tehran should surrender under American pressure and continued to defend Iran’s conduct during the conflict. At the same time, he indicated that diplomacy remained possible, provided negotiations were not conducted through threats or force.
The competing messages highlight the uncertainty surrounding the latest diplomatic effort.
The United States is demanding changes from Tehran while maintaining military and economic pressure. Iran, meanwhile, is publicly rejecting Trump’s characterization of its government while keeping the door open to negotiations.
For now, the Strait of Hormuz remains one of the biggest unresolved issues.
With no final agreement announced and another potential negotiating session reportedly in the works, the next phase of U.S.-Iran diplomacy could determine whether the New York discussions become the beginning of a serious diplomatic breakthrough—or simply another temporary pause in an increasingly dangerous confrontation.
