The United Nations General Assembly is opening a rare diplomatic window for the United States and Iran after nearly seven months of war, with the Strait of Hormuz emerging as the most plausible starting point for a limited deal.
Middle East experts caution that New York may reveal the direction of the conflict rather than produce an immediate breakthrough.
U.S. President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian are both heading to New York for the U.N. General Assembly's high-level week as Washington and Tehran leave the door open to diplomacy while warning of further escalation. The General Debate begins Tuesday.
Trump said last week he hoped the war was nearing an end.
"Well, hopefully we are towards the end of the war," Trump told reporters, adding that Iran "want to make a deal."
The U.S. president has also kept renewed military action on the table. Tensions intensified over the weekend following fresh attacks by Yemen's Iran-aligned Houthis on Saudi Arabia, while Trump publicly pressed Tehran to reach an agreement.
The competing signals have turned the U.N. gathering into a test of whether Washington and Tehran can rebuild the diplomatic channel that opened under a 60-day memorandum in June, or move closer to another round of escalation.
A first indication could come Tuesday, when Trump is expected to meet leaders or senior officials from all six Gulf Cooperation Council states on the sidelines of the General Assembly. The talks are expected to focus heavily on Iran and the regional fallout from the war.
Attention will then shift to the Iranian delegation and Pezeshkian's message in New York.
Washington has approved entry for a core Iranian delegation including Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi despite the continuing conflict, although their movements in New York will be tightly restricted. No formal Trump-Pezeshkian meeting has been announced.
The diplomatic activity comes days after Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, said Tehran had sent Washington seven conditions through Qatar for renewed negotiations.
Only three have been publicly identified. Iran wants an end to the war on all fronts, the release of frozen Iranian assets and an end to the U.S. naval blockade. Tehran says it is awaiting Trump's response.
The demands carry echoes of the June U.S.-Iran memorandum, which called for an end to military operations and set a 60-day period for negotiating a broader settlement. Washington agreed to begin lifting its naval blockade and make frozen Iranian funds available, while Tehran undertook to restore commercial passage through Hormuz and reaffirmed that it would not develop or acquire nuclear weapons.
The latest signal nevertheless carries weight because it came from Rezaei, a prominent figure in Iran's security establishment, said Kim Deok-il, a research fellow at Korea University's Middle East and Islamic Center.
"Rezaei is not someone who normally talks about negotiations," Kim told AJP. "The fact that he has expressed a willingness to negotiate suggests that Iran is not completely ruling out talks."
Kim cautioned that Tehran is unlikely to soften its position quickly.
Jang Ji-hyang, a principal fellow and director of the Center for Regional Studies at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies, was more skeptical that the terms could form the basis of an immediate settlement.
The demands presented by Rezaei, who represents a harder-line current in Tehran, would be difficult for Trump to accept in their current form, she said.
Both sides therefore arrive in New York with a similar contradiction. Each is leaving room for diplomacy while making clear it is prepared to keep fighting.
The presence of Pezeshkian and Araghchi does not mean the Iranian delegation has authority to make all the concessions required for a broader settlement.
Kim pointed to the influence of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in wartime decision-making and said Pezeshkian has considerably less freedom over security policy than a U.S. or South Korean president.
Indirect exchanges could still occur through mediators such as Qatar and Pakistan even without a Trump-Pezeshkian meeting, he said.
Baek Seung-hoon, a research professor at Myongji University's Institute of Middle Eastern Affairs, cautioned against drawing too sharp a division between a negotiation-minded civilian leadership and a Revolutionary Guard establishment committed to war.
Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran's parliament speaker and chief negotiator with Washington, is a former Revolutionary Guard commander and conservative figure. Yet he has publicly backed the conditions Tehran is putting forward.
Ghalibaf said Sunday that Hormuz would remain closed unless Iran's conditions were met and U.S. commitments implemented.
"You can't simply divide it into the president wanting negotiations and the Revolutionary Guards wanting war," Baek told AJP.
Iran's hard-liners also appear to support the current negotiating terms, he said, suggesting the security establishment does not automatically oppose diplomacy.
Iran also needs an exit
Economic pressure gives Tehran and its security establishment reasons to consider a way out of a prolonged conflict.
"Even to fight a war, you need money," Baek said.
Recovering frozen assets or securing other economic relief could therefore give Iran an incentive to negotiate. A concrete timetable setting out when funds would be released and what Tehran would receive in return could give even the Revolutionary Guards reason to consider an agreement, Baek said.
Iran's seven conditions can consequently be read both as hard demands and as an opening bargaining position from a government searching for a workable exit.
Rezaei's decision to communicate the terms through Qatar also suggests negotiations have not been ruled out.
"Both sides are in a situation where negotiations would be better for them," Baek said.
The Strait of Hormuz may offer the clearest path toward a limited agreement.
Washington is unlikely to accept Iran's conditions exactly as presented, particularly if Tehran demands the immediate release of frozen assets or other major concessions before substantive negotiations begin, Baek said.
Room may exist, however, to revive elements of the earlier 60-day arrangement.
The June memorandum linked the easing of the U.S. naval blockade with the restoration of commercial shipping through Hormuz, making the waterway one of the few areas where each side can offer something the other wants.
Reopening Hormuz could also provide Trump with a visible economic payoff by easing pressure on energy prices and allowing Washington to claim progress in restoring navigation through one of the world's most important oil routes.
Oil has remained around or above $100 a barrel amid disruptions in Gulf shipping, keeping energy costs among the clearest global economic stakes surrounding the conflict.
Washington and Tehran could then extend negotiations for several more weeks or another 60 days over more difficult questions involving frozen assets, sanctions and maritime restrictions without claiming to have settled the war.
"Even if there is an agreement, it would not mean that everything has been resolved," Baek said.
"If an interim agreement restored traffic through Hormuz and helped bring oil prices down, Trump could gain time while delegations worked on the more difficult questions," he said.
Baek sees negotiating room even with a final settlement still distant.
"The possibility is not zero," he said.
Trump's threats may be part of the bargaining
Trump's renewed threats of military action can also be read through the lens of coercive diplomacy.
Baek said the rhetoric may be intended to convince Tehran that rejecting talks now could leave Iran facing higher costs and worse terms later.
The larger question is how much additional pressure Washington is prepared to impose.
The United States would have to weigh the costs of deeper involvement in a conflict already approaching seven months, while Iran understands its own ability to sustain economic and military pressure is limited.
Mutual constraints leave some space for bargaining even as both sides maintain hard public positions.
Trump's discussions with Gulf governments could provide another signal of whether Washington leans toward renewed military pressure or gives diplomacy more time.
Kim expects the U.S. president to listen closely to regional governments exposed to Iranian retaliation and Houthi attacks.
"If the Gulf states agree with taking a harder approach, the United States could move more strongly," Kim said. "If they instead ask for restraint and say they want negotiations, it could move toward talks."
The Houthis add another complication.
Jang said Tehran is likely to argue that although the group belongs to its wider "axis of resistance," Iran does not exercise complete control over its decisions.
Recent Houthi operations have strengthened Iran's bargaining leverage by increasing pressure on Saudi Arabia and threatening shipping around the Red Sea, Baek said.
The leverage has limits. Further disruption around the Bab el-Mandeb Strait could threaten Egypt's Suez Canal revenues and invite stronger regional opposition.
The coming days in New York therefore offer a narrow diplomatic opening rather than a clear path to peace.
An agreement restoring more normal navigation through Hormuz and opening another defined period of negotiations could mark the beginning of a new diplomatic phase.
Failure would provide a different kind of clarity.
It would show how far Washington and Tehran remain from an exit and how close the region may be to another round of escalation.
AJP Takeaways
- U.S. President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian head to the U.N. General Assembly as Washington and Tehran test whether diplomacy can reopen after nearly seven months of war.
- The Strait of Hormuz has emerged as the clearest path to a limited U.S.-Iran deal, potentially linking restored shipping with talks over frozen Iranian assets, sanctions and the U.S. naval blockade.
- Iran’s economic strain, Trump’s pressure campaign, Gulf state concerns and Houthi attacks could determine whether the U.N. week opens a new negotiating phase or pushes the region toward renewed escalation.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.