New US-Iran talks run into old question of who speaks for Tehran

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian devoted both the opening and closing sections of his address to the United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday to rejecting President Donald Trump's accusations against Tehran.

He also made clear that while Iran welcomed negotiations, it would not yield to coercion or what he described as Trump's “bullying.”

The tension between those two messages reflects the difficult political terrain surrounding the latest diplomatic opening. Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi have signaled a willingness to pursue talks, but criticism from hardliners has raised questions about how much room they have to negotiate.

Those divisions surfaced after Araghchi's contact with US envoy Steve Witkoff in New York on Tuesday.

The IRGC-affiliated Tasnim News Agency reported Wednesday that the contact had taken place without authorization from Iran's policymaking bodies, including the Supreme National Security Council.

Citing Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of the council, Tasnim said the approved plan had been limited to conveying Iran's seven conditions through mediators. It described Araghchi's reported interaction with Witkoff as a “major error” and called on the foreign minister to explain his actions.

The criticism points to a potentially important fault line in Tehran: not necessarily over whether diplomacy should continue, but over how direct that diplomacy is permitted to become.

Accounts of Tuesday's discussions have themselves differed. US officials have described a three-hour diplomatic exchange positively, while Iranian accounts have emphasized the role of mediators and said Tehran's conditions were conveyed to Washington.

An Iranian diplomat told Reuters before Pezeshkian's speech that discussions on ending hostilities could continue in New York and described the General Assembly as “a golden opportunity for America to return to diplomacy.”

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said any agreement would require sustained work over time and that Trump retained military options.

Rubio also pointed to divisions within Tehran, saying potential agreements had repeatedly faltered after being referred back to the country's revolutionary establishment. He blamed the IRGC for the collapse of an earlier US-Iran understanding after it attacked ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

Hardliners test the limits

Despite Tasnim's criticism of Araghchi, some hardline messaging immediately before and during the New York talks appeared to leave room for diplomacy.

Before opposition to the talks became more vocal, even the hardline Kayhan newspaper sounded unusually supportive of Pezeshkian on Wednesday morning.

IRGC spokesman Hossein Mohebbi also delivered a dual message following reports of the talks.

“We don't reject diplomacy, but we impose our own conditions. Our defensive power will be proven in the field,” he was quoted as saying.

The formulation suggested that the IRGC was not rejecting negotiations outright, even while insisting that diplomacy take place on Tehran's terms and alongside continued military pressure.

The dispute over Araghchi's contact with Witkoff suggests the argument may therefore be less about whether Iran should negotiate than about the format, limits and authorization of those negotiations.

Pezeshkian's own language at the United Nations appeared designed to preserve that room while demonstrating that negotiations would not amount to capitulation.

Responding to Trump's rhetoric, he warned the United States, Israel and regional actors that Iran would respond forcefully to threats, while insisting that Tehran still believed in diplomacy.

Major General Ali Abdollahi, chief of staff of Iran's Armed Forces, similarly argued that “rhetoric doesn't change the power calculus” and described Trump's remarks as “a sign of desperation” on the US side.

The sequencing problem

The mediation channel has so far allowed the two sides to exchange complex proposals without requiring the politically riskier spectacle of a meeting between Trump and Pezeshkian.

But even if Tehran's internal disagreements can be contained, substantial differences remain over what each side must do first.

Washington is reportedly insisting on the clearance of maritime choke points and assurances related to Iran's nuclear program before easing its naval blockade.

Tehran, by contrast, is demanding an immediate end to US interdictions and the release of $24 billion in frozen foreign assets as conditions for further progress, according to a source close to the Iranian diplomatic team.

Iran has also linked progress in negotiations to reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

The diplomatic opening in New York therefore leaves two related questions unresolved: whether Washington and Tehran can agree on the sequence of steps needed to end the conflict, and whether Iran's diplomats have sufficient authority at home to deliver whatever they negotiate.

The reaction from the IRGC and other hardline institutions in the coming days may provide an early indication of the answer.

The digital sign on Interstate 405, near Westwood's Persian Square, briefly displayed the address of Goorkan, a Persian-language site that publishes names, photographs and personal information of people it identifies as opponents of Iran's government.

"It touches the heart of the diaspora and sends a message. We can touch you wherever you are. The sophistication is irrelevant. The message is chilling," said Roger Macmillan, an Iran and terrorism specialist and former director of security at Iran International.

Who carried out the intrusion has not been publicly established, and US authorities have not confirmed a link to the Revolutionary Guards.

Three cyber and security experts told Iran International that the incident shows how a simple intrusion can intimidate a community far from the people who carried it out.

A simple hack, a powerful message

The intrusion looked unsophisticated next to the capabilities of Russian and Chinese operators, said Amin Sabeti, a cybersecurity researcher who specializes in Iranian cyber operations.

"It's not that sophisticated hacking. It's more about the propaganda," Sabeti said.

The attackers did not need to disable a transport network or break into a secure system. Putting a web address on a public sign beside one of the largest Iranian communities outside Iran was enough.

Sabeti said the effect falls hardest on ordinary Iranians who attend protests and keep public social media accounts. Finding their photograph or their details on a threatening website leaves them wondering who is watching and what it may cost them.

"It's more about creating chaos amongst the diaspora," he said.

Emel Karsaz, an Iranian-born Los Angeles resident, told the New York Post she reported the matter to the FBI after finding her name, photograph and personal information on the site, and that she had also received threats on social media.

The California Department of Transportation confirmed that an unauthorized message appeared on the sign and said it had instructed a contractor to restore normal operations. A review is under way.

The crudeness offers no comfort, Macmillan said.

"That the hack itself is unsophisticated doesn't reassure me. If anything it confirms what this operation was actually for," he said. "Sophistication was never the point. Fear was."

Tehran has long used intermediaries and loosely affiliated actors to intimidate its opponents abroad, Macmillan said, which lets it benefit from such operations while keeping its own involvement out of view.

How vulnerable was the freeway sign?

It appears to have been a straightforward compromise of a badly secured system, said Annie Fixler, director of the Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

"This incident is 100% about intimidation," Fixler told Iran International.

Without the investigation's technical findings, she suspected the sign had an unsecured internet connection that let the attackers change what it displayed.

"It is deeply disturbing for those that saw the message but that is probably the extent of what the hackers could do with that access," she said.

The ease of it points to a larger problem with internet-connected public infrastructure, she added.

"The incident itself is not a big deal but the fact that so much of our systems are unprotected or misconfigured such that even low level hackers can do damage is the main take away. We need to be taking security seriously."

A familiar cyber playbook

The sign follows a run of cyberattacks on American infrastructure that experts have read as demonstrations of reach rather than attempts at damage.

In August, Iran International reported that attacks on water and wastewater facilities in at least seven states appeared aimed less at crippling infrastructure than at unsettling the public.

Federal authorities opened an investigation and did not publicly attribute responsibility, though US media reported that officials considered Iran the leading suspect.

• 

  Iran used water hacks to intimidate not cripple, experts say

Fixler described the tactic at the time as perception hacking: gaining limited access to a system, then publicizing it to suggest a far larger capability.

Los Angeles follows the same pattern with a narrower audience.

A wider campaign against dissidents abroad

The hack comes with renewed warnings about Iranian operations against opponents abroad.

• 

  Islamic Republic asks public to identify opponents abroad

On September 15, US, British and Dutch authorities issued a joint advisory that Iranian state cyber actors had deployed spyware known as Chosen Brick against dissidents, activists and journalists. The malware can pull communications and contacts from an infected device, exposing not only the target but everyone they know.

The same month, the Islamic Republic promoted a platform called Alaj, meaning remedy in Persian, which asks the public to identify and report opponents living abroad. Iranian state media say it has identified and monitored 1,600 people, 600 of them through public submissions.

It publishes names, photographs and, in some cases, further personal details, and lists measures that could follow, including asset freezes and restrictions on consular and citizenship services.

No operational connection between Alaj, Goorkan and the freeway sign has been publicly established.

"Treating it as trivial because the hack was crude would be a mistake," Macmillan said.

US President Donald Trump's speech at the UN General Assembly on Tuesday contained little indication of a change in his pre-UNGA position.

He urged other countries to join Washington in economically isolating Iran, while saying he expected the two sides to reach an agreement after the US midterm elections.

Trump framed his choice as whether to reach a deal that could help Iran rebuild and become a “great nation,” or “annihilate” the Islamic Republic to prevent it from waging war again. The stark alternatives illustrate a potential problem for renewed diplomacy.

Pezeshkian has himself offered different emphases on his way to New York. Before leaving Tehran, he said he would firmly defend Iran's positions and highlight what Tehran regards as its unfair treatment. But Iranian officials have also signalled an interest in reviving diplomacy with Washington through intermediaries.

The question surrounding his visit is therefore less whether Iran is communicating with the United States than how visible that diplomacy can become.

Tehran has already conveyed proposals through mediators, while Pezeshkian has referred to the need to “accept the enemy's call for peace.”

Iranian officials say Pezeshkian does not plan to meet Trump, despite the US president saying he would be open to one. A public handshake or sit-down would carry considerable political risk for Pezeshkian at home.

Hardliners have accused him of conceding too much to Washington, his authority over war policy is contested, and the position of the new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, remains uncertain. Lower-level or mediated contacts avoid some of the symbolism surrounding a presidential encounter.

The circumstances are markedly different from previous UN gatherings at which speculation about a US-Iranian handshake became an annual ritual.

The two countries are now engaged in a direct war, although there is a historical precedent for an Iranian president attending the General Assembly during direct military confrontation with Washington.

Ali Khamenei attended the General Assembly as Iran's president in September 1987, when US and Iranian forces were confronting each other in the Persian Gulf. During his visit, US forces attacked and seized the Iran Ajr after saying they observed it laying mines in international waters.

Pezeshkian has been among the strongest advocates of diplomacy within Iran's senior leadership, arguing that it would be better to end the war while Iran still “enjoys power and dignity.” His allies increasingly link that argument to Iran's worsening economy.

The reformist daily Shargh argued on Monday that engagement should not be confused with capitulation, warning of the costs of shutting the door on diplomacy while inflation soars and Iran's international connections deteriorate.

The problem in New York may therefore be less an absence of communication than the contradictory messages surrounding it.

Trump is offering Tehran the prospect of rebuilding after a deal while threatening its destruction without one; Pezeshkian must demonstrate resistance at home while leaving room for diplomacy abroad.

Such ambiguity can create room for negotiation, but it can also make it harder for either side to judge what the other is prepared to accept.

The question this week may not be whether contacts take place, but how far either government can afford to let them become public.

The statements came within hours of each other, from MPs, a Tehran city council official and military figures, and they map the mood in the hardline camp on the eve of the president's departure.

It came as Donald Trump said he was willing to meet Pezeshkian in New York while warning that "something big" could happen to Iran.

Kamran Ghazanfari, a hardline MP, told Didban Iran that if the existence of the Islamic Republic came under serious threat, the new supreme leader could reconsider the question of nuclear weapons. Some MPs favor a nuclear deterrent to end the recurring threats against Iran, he said, though any decision would rest with senior officials and the Supreme National Security Council.

Parviz Sarvari, deputy chairman of Tehran city council, said he would welcome news that Iran had moved toward building nuclear weapons for deterrence. Membership of the Non-Proliferation Treaty had brought Iran no benefit, he said, while its adversaries threatened it from a position of nuclear superiority.

The push has gone beyond words. Hossein-Ali Haji-Deligani, an MP, submitted a triple-urgency bill for Iran's withdrawal from the NPT, arguing that membership had become more costly since the IAEA Board of Governors referred Iran to the UN Security Council. Similar proposals have circulated for months and the leadership of parliament has kept them off the floor. Haji-Deligani said the presidium has now acknowledged receipt of this one.

Military figures spoke the same day. Army commander Amir Hatami said the armed forces were at full readiness. Esmail Kowsari, of parliament's national security committee, said Iran's growing capabilities would eventually push American forces out of the region.

Revolutionary Guards spokesman Hossein Mohebbi said the war with the United States and Israel was not over and that the Guards had prepared for a long one, citing assessments that Washington may be considering fresh strikes.

What the day was for

Three things were happening at once.

The first is the argument about the last war. The ceasefire that ended the 12-day conflict left hardliners needing it not to look like a defeat at home, and insisting the war is unfinished keeps the account open.

The second is pressure on Pezeshkian. The NPT bill and the nuclear talk arrived alongside renewed parliamentary criticism of his government for allowing IAEA inspectors access, in a dispute over how far Iran should engage Washington and the monitors.

The third is the IAEA referral and the threat of snapback sanctions, which is the immediate cause of the NPT bill and the reason the timing is not a coincidence.

The language stayed inside limits. Ghazanfari attached any reconsideration of weapons to an existential threat. Sarvari's endorsement was of a hypothetical. Neither said Iran should build a bomb now, and neither Mojtaba Khamenei nor the Supreme National Security Council has said anything on the question.

The risk is how it reads elsewhere. Open parliamentary discussion of leaving the NPT and of nuclear contingencies is the kind of material Washington and Israel have previously cited as evidence that Iran is moving toward a weapon, and the United States struck Iranian nuclear sites during the last war. On the same day, the Guards said they expected it to happen again.

The index measuring manufacturers’ raw material inventories fell to 39.3 in August from about 44.5 in July, while the Purchasing Managers’ Index for the overall economy dropped to 46.9, according to the survey. A reading below 50 indicates contraction.

Continued depletion of raw material inventories, combined with weakness elsewhere in the supply chain, could become one of the “most serious constraints on industrial production growth” in the coming months, the Iran Chamber of Commerce warned.

War damage adds to supply pressure

Part of the shortage cannot be explained by restrictions on imports alone. Iran was a major producer and exporter of several affected products, including petrochemicals and steel, before the war.

• 

  Iran faces postwar winter with major gas capacity still offline

Major petrochemical facilities in Asaluyeh and Mahshahr and the Mobarakeh Steel and Khuzestan Steel complexes were targeted during the war. Asaluyeh and Mahshahr together accounted for roughly three-quarters of Iran’s petrochemical production before the strikes.

Mobarakeh and Khuzestan Steel also sustained damage to production infrastructure.

The chamber attributed pressure on raw material stocks to limited access to foreign currency, difficulties with imports and customs clearance, goods being held at customs, logistical disruptions and higher procurement costs.

The oil and gas products sector recorded the lowest raw material inventory index at 23.3, followed by vehicles and related parts at 28.7. Rubber and plastics and the clothing and leather industries each recorded 32.2.

100%

Only the food industry and the wood, paper and furniture sector recorded raw material inventory readings above 50.

Input costs climb

Manufacturers also reported a sharp rise in raw material costs, with the purchase-price index increasing to 88.2 in August from 80.4 in July.

The index exceeded 100 for oil and gas products, while machinery and household appliances and non-metallic mineral products recorded readings above 92. Raw material purchase-price indices were above 50 across every industrial sector surveyed.

Other major PMI components remained below 50, including output or service activity at 47.8, new customer orders at 47.5, suppliers’ delivery times at 48.6 and employment at 47.3. All deteriorated from July except employment, which was unchanged.

Consumer prices were more than 84% higher in August than a year earlier, while annual inflation stood at about 69%, according to the Statistical Center of Iran.

• 

  Iran's appliance industry is collapsing, and so is the market it was built for

The sharp increase in manufacturers’ input costs adds to inflationary pressure on consumer prices. The Chamber warned that shrinking inventories could also reduce production capacity and disrupt or halt some production lines if current conditions persist.