Iran signals nuclear flexibility at UNGA, but breakthrough remains distant

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian arrived in New York for the UN General Assembly this week with a carefully calibrated message: his country was open to talking. In an interview with Fox News, he said Iran would comply with its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and international law. When pressed directly on whether Iran wanted nuclear weapons, he rejected the notion flatly, invoking religious edicts issued by Iran's supreme leader against weapons of mass destruction.

The timing and tone mattered. Pezeshkian made a point of meeting with American journalists and media representatives, a deliberate signal of willingness to communicate. Yet the substance of what he offered remained vague, and the gap between his words and Iran's actions is substantial. The International Atomic Energy Agency has assessed that Iran possesses more than 440 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent—far beyond what civilian nuclear programs require. Since the US and Israeli attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities in 2025, Iran has suspended its cooperation with the IAEA, refusing the agency access to its facilities and withholding information about its nuclear stockpile and material locations.

Arman Mahmoudian, a Middle East scholar at the University of South Florida, told Deutsche Welle that a major breakthrough is not imminent. Pezeshkian, he explained, does not have the authority to initiate comprehensive de-escalation on his own. Hard-liners and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps continue to wield considerable influence over Iran's decision-making. Still, Mahmoudian sees potential in what happened this week. The president's visit could establish a more direct communication channel between Tehran and Washington. Meetings between Iranian and US delegations already took place, and the White House confirmed that "positive and constructive" talks were continuing through intermediaries. A framework for future negotiations might emerge, Mahmoudian suggested, one that could eventually lead to more substantive discussions and, over time, contribute to de-escalation.

The Strait of Hormuz has become central to these discussions. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi reportedly presented Washington with a proposal to resume negotiations, suggesting the strategically vital waterway could reopen within seven days if certain conditions were met. Those conditions remain unspecified, though Iran has previously demanded the release of frozen assets, an end to the US blockade of Iranian ports and vessels, and a commitment that Washington would not interfere in Iran's internal affairs. The strait is no small matter: roughly 20 million barrels of oil pass through it daily, representing about 20 percent of global oil consumption. It is one of Iran's most potent sources of leverage.

The United States has not succeeded in eliminating Iran's ability to threaten shipping in the strait, despite significant damage inflicted by recent attacks on Iran's navy and defense infrastructure. Kelly Grieco, a senior fellow at the Stimson Center, explained that some targets are simply difficult to find—they are mobile and distributed. Without a long-term strategy, Grieco warned, the US risks becoming trapped in a cycle: Iran rebuilds, Washington strikes, the cycle repeats. Iran has also expanded its reach beyond the Persian Gulf. The Iran-backed Houthi movement now controls much of Yemen's Red Sea coast and the area around the Bab al-Mandab Strait, giving Tehran leverage along another critical shipping route.

Mahmoudian expects Iran to pursue a dual strategy going forward: military pressure paired with diplomacy. Tehran will likely continue using the Strait of Hormuz as leverage and obstruct the return to normal shipping traffic. Simultaneously, Iran is already rebuilding military and strategic infrastructure damaged by the attacks. On the diplomatic front, negotiations with the US will continue, either directly or through intermediaries. Iran understands that the current state—marked by threats of military action, sanctions, and economic pressure—is unsustainable long-term. A political agreement with Washington remains in Iran's interest.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, speaking in New York on September 23, cautioned against expecting a quick deal. Negotiations with Iran, he said, will require time and difficult conversations. He also made clear that President Donald Trump retains military options alongside the diplomatic path. The signal from both sides, then, is one of continued engagement without illusions about speed or ease. Iran has signaled flexibility on the nuclear question, but the broader conflict—the military posturing, the proxy warfare, the control of shipping lanes—remains unresolved. What happens next depends on whether the diplomatic channel that may be opening can hold long enough for substantive talks to begin.