Delegations from the U.S. and Iran are traveling to New York for the world’s largest diplomatic gathering this week in what experts say could be a key moment for determining the direction of the Iran war nearly seven months in.
Tensions between the warring countries are mounting ahead of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), with Iranian leaders and President Donald Trump exchanging a fresh round of threats.
Trump on Sunday weighed whether he should “blow the entire nation up” in an interview with Fox News, warning that Iran “better behave” and saying that “very big things” would happen in the war, without offering more detail. According to the outlet, Trump described his options as “wiping Iran out, letting them rot economically, or making a deal.”
A spokesperson for Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Hossein Mohebbi, responded with a warning that if the U.S. were to launch fresh attacks against Iran, Tehran would use “new weapons and capabilities,” according to Iran's Fars news agency. “If a new aggression takes place, we will definitely change the weapons and geography of the war,” Mohebbi said.
The threats come after active hostilities in the conflict resumed in the last month when the U.S. and Iran traded fresh strikes amid tensions over the Strait of Hormuz, a key waterway in the global oil market. Meaningful negotiations between the two countries have meanwhile been stalled for weeks following the breakdown of a memorandum of understanding leaders signed in June. And Yemen’s Iranian-backed Houthi rebels have further shaken the Gulf region by launching attacks against Saudi Arabia and capturing Perim Island, a strategic foothold in the Bab El-Mandeb Strait, another vital maritime trade route in the region.
Experts tell TIME that the U.N. General Assembly gathering, where delegations from Iran, the U.S., and key Gulf states will be in attendance, could offer a critical chance to deescalate the situation and attempt to revive peace efforts—although making progress in negotiations could be an uphill battle.
“This week in New York, there is an opportunity, especially for the mediating countries, to try to prevent tensions from once again spiraling, and potentially this time spiraling out of control,” says Ali Vaez, the deputy program director for the Middle East and North Africa at the International Crisis Group. “It's the last best opportunity to try to prevent an escalation either in October or in November.”
What to expect at this week’s U.N. General Assembly
Top officials from the U.S. and Iran will be present at the U.N. meeting this week, including Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi will be in attendance as part of a slimmed-down delegation from the country. Both Trump and Pezeshkian are set to deliver addresses to the assembly.
Vaez says, however, that any effort to revive peace talks between the two countries during the event will largely rely on mediation by Gulf states.
Trump is set to hold talks with leaders from the Gulf Cooperation Council—a regional alliance including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, and Bahrain—on the sidelines of the gathering in the coming days. Sources with knowledge of the anticipated meeting told Axios, which first reported the news, that discussions are expected to concern next steps in the war with Iran, with a focus on U.S. ideas for a strategy after the conflict concludes.
Vaez believes that the Qataris could play a leading role in mediation efforts, with the support of countries such as Saudi Arabia, Oman, Turkey, Pakistan, and Egypt.
“It all depends on whether the mediating countries would be able to find a mutually acceptable formula,” he says of the possibility of the U.S. and Iran coming to some kind of agreement. “Because at this moment, both sides are in a zero-sum situation in which there is literally no overlap between what the Iranians demand and what the U.S. is seeking to achieve.”
Given what he characterized as maximalist demands from both the U.S. and Iran, Vaez contends that “some sort of a sweetener,” or incentive, must be given to each side for a deal to be reached, which he says may come in the form of revisions to the now-expired memorandum of understanding.
Sanam Valki, director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at the policy institute Chatham House, agrees that it is far more likely that Gulf states mediate between Iran and the U.S. But, she adds, a direct exchange between U.S. and Iranian delegations is also a possibility—albeit a very slim one.
“The big question out there is: Will there be some sort of surprise encounter between the Iranians and the U.S.?” Valki says.
Trump told Fox News’ Trey Yingst on Sunday that he would be willing to meet with Pezeshkian during the U.N. gathering.
Beyond either mediated or direct discussions during the event, another potential outcome of this week’s General Assembly meeting is a United Nations Security Council Resolution regarding the Iran conflict, Vaez says. Unlike a memorandum of understanding like the one the U.S. and Iran previously reached, a security resolution would be legally binding by international law and would compel both parties to abide by certain conditions in the war.
Adopting a resolution would require the votes of at least nine out of the 15 members of the security council. And as a complicating factor, the U.S.—as well as the other four permanent members—would have the ability to defeat any such measure by casting a veto.
How could the U.N. meeting impact the Iran war moving forward?
“This is a very important week at UNGA for regional states, as well as the Iranians themselves, to try and roll back or manage how things evolve,” Valki tells TIME. “The President is very clearly weighing and considering the military options that are on his desk, which include not just responding to the Houthis, but another round of serious and severe strikes against the Islamic Republic.”
If a direct exchange between the U.S. and Iranian delegations does unexpectedly occur during the gathering, she says, “it's a big deal. It's a big outcome. It means that the Iranian president is willing to risk his standing at home, attacks at home, in order to stave off a serious military attack and build a direct lifeline to the Trump team.”
Up until now, both sides have sought “maximalist outcomes with minimal concessions,” Valki says. But Iran, through direct conversation with the U.S. delegation, could “signal a more transformational type of policy outreach, rather than the defensive reaction of traditional hardliners in the country.”
On Trump’s end, Vaez says the President could potentially make concessions to Iran by removing naval blockades on Iranian ports, rolling back sanctions against Tehran, or returning access to certain frozen assets. “That's what the President can put on the table … The most important thing for Iranians is economic reprieve and that's precisely where President Trump has tremendous leverage.”
A security council resolution, meanwhile, “could provide a degree of assurance about the sustainability of a new understanding between Iran and the U.S.,” Vaez says. He adds that through such a resolution, the U.N. could also establish an “observer mission”—what he describes as “an established mechanism that could look into disputes and adjudicate” if there are disagreements over alleged violations of the resolution, as there were previously over June’s memorandum of understanding.
