Amid rapid diplomatic movements on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly meetings, the Iranian file has emerged as a focus of international communications, including the United States, China, Russia, and Qatar, at a time when pressure on Tehran is increasing due to the war and the Strait of Hormuz crisis. While Washington issued a direct warning to Beijing against providing any support to Iran, a point of consensus emerged between the two countries regarding the necessity of keeping the strait open to navigation.
US Ambassador to China David Perdue revealed part of the talks that took place between President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping, stressing that the Iranian file was present at the two leaders’ summit.
Perdue said, in statements reported by CNBC on Friday, that Trump made clear to Xi that any assistance provided by China to Iran would be “completely unacceptable.”
This message comes at a time when China plays an important economic role for Iran, while at the same time Beijing seeks to present itself as a party capable of helping to reduce escalation and push towards the diplomatic path.
After the summit, the two sides did not announce a breakthrough in the Iranian file. However, Xi stressed his support for the United States and Iran to return to previous understandings and resume dialogue, while Perdue's statements showed that Washington also took advantage of the meeting to draw clear boundaries against any potential Chinese support for Tehran.
Consensus about Hormuz
At another point related to the crisis, Perdue said that Washington and Beijing agree on the necessity of keeping the Strait of Hormuz open to shipping traffic.
The ambassador explained that China shares the United States' position on the importance of continuing passage through the Strait, which is a major corridor for global energy trade.
This consensus represents a point of intersection between Washington and Beijing, despite their different positions on how to deal with Iran. It comes at a time when the Strait has become one of the most prominent bargaining chips in efforts to end the war and reduce escalation in the region.
The Iranian file was one of the most prominent issues expected to be discussed between Trump and Xi, in light of the close economic relations between Beijing and Tehran, and China's efforts to maintain a diplomatic role in the crisis.
There is no substitute for diplomacy
Also in New York, Moscow and Tehran confirmed their adherence to a diplomatic solution to the crisis in Hormuz.
The Russian Foreign Ministry said that Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and his Iranian counterpart, Abbas Araghchi, discussed regional and international developments during their meeting, with a focus on the situation related to Iran. The ministry added that the two sides stressed “there is no alternative to a diplomatic settlement” to the crisis, which they described as resulting from “the illegal actions of the United States and Israel.”
The meeting also discussed bilateral relations and the schedule of upcoming Russian-Iranian contacts at various levels, in an indication of continued coordination between Moscow and Tehran in light of the regional escalation.
Creating conditions for dialogue
In parallel, Qatar intensified its contacts with Tehran as part of its efforts to mediate and reduce escalation.
The Qatari Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdul Rahman Al Thani discussed with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, in New York, “creating the appropriate conditions for dialogue.”
The meeting came on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly meetings, where the two sides discussed, according to the Qatari statement, “the latest developments in the situation in the region, and the efforts made to reduce escalation and create appropriate conditions for dialogue,” in a way that contributes to strengthening regional security and stability.
The Qatari moves come within the framework of Doha's efforts to help open political channels between the parties to the crisis, at a time when the chances of reaching a broader understanding are still linked to the positions of Washington and Tehran on the terms of the settlement.
Colombia cuts its ties with Tehran
In another development that reflects the expanding scope of political pressure on Iran, Colombia announced the severing of its diplomatic relations with Tehran, becoming the latest Washington ally in Latin America to take this step.
The decision, which was announced by the Colombian government on Thursday, entered into force on September 19, and Bogotá said it was based on considerations related to “the national security of the Western Hemisphere.”
The Colombian government accused Iran of establishing relations with “terrorist groups involved in the drug trade and threatening the country’s security,” without providing evidence for these allegations.
Bogota also criticized Tehran for obstructing shipping traffic in the Strait of Hormuz and attacking other countries in the Middle East, in the context of the ongoing conflict between Iran on the one hand, and the United States and Israel on the other. The Colombian government indicated that it would maintain consular relations with Iran.
The United States and Iran are looking for a gradual path to end the war that has been ongoing between them for about seven months, at a time when the Strait of Hormuz has become a major axis of bargaining between the two parties. According to informed sources, the negotiations are examining the possibility of reopening the vital shipping lane to ship traffic in exchange for Washington lifting part of the economic blockade imposed on Tehran, with the possibility of releasing some frozen Iranian assets.
But the path to an agreement is still thorny, as each party clings to the pressure cards it possesses, and refuses to make a prior concession without obtaining a clear return and guarantees that any settlement will continue.
Hormuz in exchange for lifting the siege
A senior Iranian official said that one of the most realistic scenarios for emerging from the crisis is an interim agreement that begins with ending the US economic blockade and reopening the Strait of Hormuz to navigation, according to what Reuters reported.
Speaking on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly meetings, the official added, “One possible way forward is to resolve the crisis in stages, starting with ending the blockade and reopening the Strait of Hormuz.”
According to Iranian, regional and Western sources, Tehran appears ready to reconsider the demand to impose fees on ships crossing the Strait, after lifting the sanctions and blockade has become a more urgent priority. This requirement may be moved to a side annex instead of being included in the basic agreement.
The Gulf states reject the idea of imposing fees on shipping traffic, while regional sources say that any possible arrangement regarding the strait will be temporary, and will not necessarily mean Iran officially abandoning its position regarding its management of the waterway.
One of the main points of disagreement centers on the nature of control over the strait. While Washington wants to ensure freedom of navigation and the continued flow of ships in one of the most important global energy supply corridors, Tehran is committed to maintaining its administrative role in the corridor.
Siege of Washington's main paper
In contrast, the administration of President Donald Trump continues to tighten economic pressure on Iran, with new sanctions targeting the remaining arteries of its economy, including commercial airlines and their associated support networks.
The American campaign specifically targets Iranian oil exports, which represent a major source of hard currency, in addition to sectors that Washington considers linked to the government and the Revolutionary Guards.
A White House official said that Iran is “desperately seeking to reach an agreement,” but added that Trump “is in control and will make the decision that is most appropriate for the United States.” He stressed that the US President remains “open to dialogue with Iran under appropriate circumstances,” but he does not feel compelled to negotiate.
According to the same official, the US administration believes that the sanctions and blockade have put the Iranian economy under severe pressure, and that Washington currently has strong cards against Tehran.
Former American negotiator, Dennis Ross, believes that the blockade represents one of the most important elements of pressure on Iran, but at the same time he believes that economic pressure may push Tehran to escalate instead of making concessions, if it concludes that softening its position will expose it to danger.
Congressional elections narrow the margin for maneuver
The US midterm elections scheduled for November 3 are of particular importance in the negotiation calculations. Trump had expressed his belief that an agreement could be reached with Iran after the elections, while officials and experts believe that the election date may affect the calculations of both parties, without necessarily representing the end of the diplomatic path.
Ross said that the probability of reaching an agreement before the elections does not exceed, according to his estimate, 30 percent, but he pointed out that the two parties have reasons that may push them to conclude a settlement before its date.
Reopening the Strait of Hormuz would ease tensions in the Gulf and help reduce pressure on oil and gasoline prices in the United States, an issue of political sensitivity for the US administration.
On the other hand, Iran may benefit from any economic relief at a time when it is facing severe pressure on its economy.
Ross warns that Trump's room for maneuver may expand after the elections, which may allow him to continue pressure or explore other options if negotiations fail.
The “pressure papers” themselves impede the settlement
The irony of the New York negotiations is that the tools that brought Washington and Tehran back to the dialogue table may be the same obstacle to reaching an agreement. The United States has economic and military tools through which it can put pressure on Iran, while Tehran has the Strait of Hormuz card, through which a large portion of global energy supplies passes. Neither party seems ready to give up its main card before obtaining a tangible reward, which makes the negotiation revolve around a basic question: Who starts by giving up?
A Western official familiar with the talks said, “The entire issue is related to opening the Strait of Hormuz,” adding that internal pressures on the various parties have become part of the negotiations’ calculations.
Analysts believe that the midterm elections may represent, in this context, an important date for reevaluating the diplomatic path, rather than a final deadline for negotiations. If Washington and Tehran are unable to turn pressure cards into an agreement before the elections, the room for maneuver for diplomatic solutions may narrow and the risk of a return to escalation may increase.
Tehran: The agreement is not guaranteed
Despite continuing diplomatic contacts, Iran is not acting on the basis that the war is over or that an agreement is guaranteed. A senior Iranian official said that his country is preparing for the possibility of renewed fighting, accusing the United States of using the economic blockade and the threat of force to pressure Tehran.
He added: “Our fingers are on the trigger.” The Americans know what they have to do, but the chances of resolving the crisis through diplomacy are very slim because of their exaggerated demands.”
This position reflects the state of contradiction that governs the negotiations: Tehran needs to ease economic pressure, but it fears that making broad concessions will weaken its position, while Washington wants to use pressure to obtain concessions before providing significant economic relief.
Alan Eyre, a former American negotiator on the Iranian file, said that the sanctions are harming Iran, but they may also push it to extremism, because the Iranian leadership may see that making major concessions threatens its survival.
Bezeshkian: The decision is in Washington's hands
In parallel with the New York negotiations, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian sought to hold Washington responsible for determining the future of the war, stressing that Tehran does not seek to continue the fighting, but will not accept submission to the United States.
In an interview with the American Fox News network broadcast on Thursday evening, Pezeshkian said, “America is the one that must choose whether it wants to end this matter or not.”
He added that Iran is ready to reach an agreement with Trump, noting that solving problems through dialogue is better than “killing each other.” He accused Israel of incitement, which, according to his account, led to the outbreak of war.
Pezeshkian wondered about the reasons for the collapse of the previous ceasefire two weeks after it was signed, and said that Tehran is ready for an agreement “within international legal frameworks,” whether it is reached before or after the midterm elections.
The Iranian President's statements came after a meeting between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, US envoy Steve Witkoff, and Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly meetings. The talks did not result in an announced breakthrough.
Possible resumption of military action
The repercussions of the negotiations are not limited to Washington and Tehran. During separate meetings with Trump in New York, leaders of regional countries sought clarification about American plans after the midterm elections, including the possibility of resuming military action if Iran fails to return to the negotiating track.
The countries of the region expressed their rejection of any Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz, and stressed the necessity of ensuring freedom of navigation and not turning the strategic corridor into a tool for pressure on the countries of the region. But this position was accompanied by strong calls to reduce the escalation and start a political path, an indication of the desire of the Gulf states to avoid being drawn into a new confrontation between Washington and Tehran.
No decisive breakthrough in New York
Analysts believe that the current contacts have not yet led to a fundamental change in the positions of the two parties. Danny Citrinovic, a regional analyst and former Israeli military intelligence officer, said that the New York talks did not change the basic positions of Washington and Tehran, and that Iran may not be ready to make major concessions as long as it believes that Trump is seeking to avoid a broader escalation before the midterm elections.
At the same time, Washington faces a delicate equation: it wants to maintain pressure to push Tehran to make concessions, but it also needs to avoid a continued closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its possible repercussions on energy markets and the global economy.
As for Tehran, it seeks to lift the blockade and obtain an economic outlet, but it wants to preserve as much of its negotiating cards as possible.
In light of this equation, it seems that the key to any potential agreement lies in a phased formula that allows each party to obtain an initial gain without having to announce its abandonment of its main pressure cards. However, ensuring the continuation of any understanding, after the collapse of previous agreements, remains the biggest challenge facing the negotiators from Washington and Tehran.
