Something extraordinary happened at the United Nations today.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian stood at the same lectern President Trump had occupied a day earlier and delivered a very different version of the war between the United States and Iran.
Trump had warned that without an agreement, Iran could face annihilation. Pezeshkian’s answer was essentially: You attacked us. You killed our people. But you did not make us surrender.
He held up photographs of people killed in the war. He talked about assassinated Iranian leaders, civilian casualties and the economic suffering of the Iranian population.
And then came the line designed to resonate far beyond that room:
“We did not bend the knee.”
Reuters reports that Pezeshkian said Iran would not surrender, while at the same time maintaining that diplomacy remained possible. (Reuters)
And that second part may ultimately be more important than all the fiery language.
Because while the leaders are exchanging threats and accusations publicly, something very different is happening behind the scenes.
They’re talking.
American and Iranian representatives have reopened indirect communication through mediators. President Trump has also said negotiations are continuing. (Reuters)
Think about that contrast.
On the stage, we hear words like “annihilate” and “surrender.”
Behind closed doors, diplomats are discussing how to stop the fighting.
That’s international politics in a nutshell.
And there’s another fascinating aspect to this.
The Iranian president is standing in New York while his country is at war with the United States.
The United States allowed the Iranian delegation to attend because of America’s obligations as host of the United Nations under the U.N. headquarters agreement, although Washington imposed travel restrictions on the delegation. (Reuters)
That creates an almost surreal scene.
A foreign leader whose country is fighting the United States comes to New York, receives security protection, travels under diplomatic restrictions and walks into the United Nations to publicly condemn the country hosting him.
But that’s also part of the purpose of the United Nations.
The institution was created precisely because countries need someplace to communicate when relations become dangerous.
The U.N. secretary-general opened this year’s General Assembly by warning that geopolitical divisions are widening and that international law and cooperation are under growing pressure. (UN in DPRK)
And right now, Iran may be one of the clearest examples of that tension.
There are two conversations occurring simultaneously.
The first is the public conversation.
Trump is telling Iran that the United States will not accept an Iranian nuclear weapon and is threatening devastating consequences if diplomacy fails. Reuters reported that his U.N. address included a warning that Iran could face annihilation without a peace agreement. (Reuters)
Iran is answering that military pressure will not force it into submission.
That’s the rhetoric.
But underneath it is a second conversation:
What would an agreement actually require?
Iran has indicated that it could reopen the Strait of Hormuz if the United States eases military pressure and lifts its blockade on Iranian ports. (Reuters)
The United States continues to insist that Iran cannot obtain nuclear weapons. (Reuters)
Those are enormous differences.
But at least they are differences that can be negotiated.
And that’s why the most important development today may not have happened at the microphone.
It may have happened in rooms somewhere around the United Nations where intermediaries were carrying messages between Americans and Iranians.
Because wars eventually confront the same basic question:
How does this end?
Military power can destroy targets.
It can change calculations.
It can impose enormous costs.
But ending a war generally requires somebody, eventually, to sit across a table—or communicate through someone who does.
And there is another reality worth remembering.
The people paying the greatest price aren’t standing behind those podiums.
They’re civilians.
Iranian families.
American military families.
Israelis.
People throughout the Gulf.
People whose economies are affected when shipping routes close and energy prices rise.
They’re the ones who live with the consequences of decisions made by leaders thousands of miles away.
So I watched Pezeshkian standing at the United Nations holding those photographs, and I thought about the strange contradiction of this moment.
Yesterday, the American president stood there talking about overwhelming force.
Today, the Iranian president stood there talking about resistance.
Yet somewhere behind both speeches, their governments are communicating.
Maybe nothing comes from it.
Maybe the positions remain too far apart.
But diplomacy doesn’t begin when everybody suddenly likes one another.
Diplomacy begins when both sides recognize that continuing the alternative carries costs they may no longer want to bear.
And perhaps that’s the real story coming out of New York.
Not Trump’s threat.
Not Pezeshkian’s defiance.
But the fact that after months of war, the two sides are still finding a way to talk.
And in a war, sometimes a conversation is where the road out begins.
Join the Conversation