Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian addressed the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Wednesday, September 23, 2026, becoming the first world leader believed to speak at the UN while their country is at war with the host nation.

Speaking at the international forum, Pezeshkian stated that Iran has never initiated war and remains committed to peaceful negotiations. He described Iran as a victim of terrorism, citing the assassination of a leader, a school bombing, and attacks on civilians in Minab and Lamerd. He accused the United States and Israel of using advanced weaponry against Iranian cities, targeting schools, hospitals, scientific centers, and infrastructure, which he said violated international law.

During his address, Pezeshkian held up a portrait of the late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and photos of children he said were killed by U.S. and Israeli attacks, including casualties from a school bombing in Minab on the first day of the war that killed more than 150 people, including approximately 120 children. A preliminary military investigation reportedly found the U.S. responsible for the strike, though the Pentagon has not released its official conclusions. A UN-backed fact-finding mission had previously concluded there were reasonable grounds that the U.S. committed a war crime in that attack, though the U.S. has not publicly accepted responsibility.

Pezeshkian directly addressed U.S. President Donald Trump, saying that Iran is ready for dialogue and diplomacy without accepting the language of force. He asserted that Iran will not seek permission to defend itself and rejected any limitations on its right to develop peaceful nuclear technology, while maintaining that Iran does not seek nuclear weapons. He argued that Iran's nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes and that the country will not bow to external pressure.

The Iranian president criticized what he called double standards in global diplomacy, pointing to Israel's possession of nuclear weapons and its exclusion from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while Iran faces inspections and sanctions. He argued that trust among nations cannot be built through words alone but requires equal treatment and the abandonment of geopolitical bias.

The speech came one day after Trump told the UN that he was considering whether to "annihilate" Iran, while also claiming that Iran desperately seeks a peace deal that would likely come after the November 3 midterm elections. Trump was not present at the UN during Pezeshkian's speech, having returned to Washington in advance of Chinese President Xi Jinping's arrival for a state visit.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqhaei outlined conditions for reviving diplomacy with the U.S., including ending the naval blockade in the Gulf of Oman, ceasing economic sanctions, releasing restricted assets, and agreeing on a safe shipping route through the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian officials confirmed that messages had been exchanged with U.S. officials through Qatari mediators, but stated that diplomacy would only resume if the U.S. met Iran's conditions, including ending the war, ceasing naval blockades, and releasing frozen assets.

Despite defiant speeches from both leaders, Iran's presence at the summit appears to have opened the door to renewed negotiations, though no evidence of a breakthrough has emerged. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio indicated that any deal would require significant effort over time. The only delegate remaining in the U.S. seats walked out as Pezeshkian spoke.

Calling for a future rooted in security, justice, and human dignity, Pezeshkian declared that lasting peace can only be achieved when all nations are treated equally and no single power determines the fate of others. He concluded by stating that either the international community builds security together or faces insecurity together.

Original Sources/Tags: iranpress.ir, nytimes.com, aljazeera.com, cnn.com, pbs.org, cnbc.com, abc.net.au, npr.org, (iran), (israel), (minab)

This article provides no actionable information for a normal reader. It offers no steps, choices, instructions, or tools that someone can use soon. There are no resources, contacts, or practical guidance to follow. The piece is entirely a speech delivered at a political forum, and it gives the reader nothing concrete to do with that information.

The educational value is shallow. The article repeats broad claims about war, terrorism, and international law without explaining how these systems work or why they matter. It mentions specific events such as assassinations and attacks, but it does not provide context, causes, or reasoning that would help someone understand the deeper situation. No statistics or charts appear, and where numbers might matter, they are absent. The information stays at the level of political rhetoric rather than analysis.

Personal relevance is limited. The content concerns international diplomacy and conflicts in distant regions. It does not affect a normal person’s safety, money, health, or daily decisions. Only a small group with direct ties to the region or politics might find it relevant, and even then, the article offers no practical benefit.

The public service function is missing. There are no warnings, safety guidance, or emergency information. The article simply recounts a speech without offering context that would help the public act responsibly. It appears to serve attention rather than public need.

No practical advice is given. The article does not provide steps or tips that an ordinary reader could follow. Even if someone wanted to act, there is nothing realistic or achievable presented.

Long term impact is absent. The article focuses on a short lived speech and offers no lasting benefit. It does not help a person plan ahead, stay safer, or avoid future problems.

The emotional effect is negative. The language creates fear and helplessness by describing violence and conflict without offering any way to respond. It leaves the reader with strong feelings but no constructive outlet.

Clickbait tendencies are present. The article uses dramatic and repeated claims about terrorism and war, but these add no substance. It overpromises by presenting sweeping accusations without evidence or balance.

The article misses clear opportunities to teach or guide. It presents a problem but fails to provide steps, examples, or context. A reader could compare independent accounts, examine patterns across sources, or consider general safety practices, but the article itself offers none of this.

To add real value, a reader can apply basic reasoning when encountering similar political speeches. One practical step is to seek multiple independent accounts before accepting any single version of events. Another is to focus on verifiable facts rather than emotional language. When a topic affects personal safety or finances, it helps to identify specific risks and prepare simple contingency plans. General decision making improves when a person separates what can be controlled from what cannot, and when they prioritize reliable information over dramatic claims. These habits support clearer thinking and safer choices in everyday life.

The text uses strong words like "victim of terrorism" and "defended their homeland with strength" to make readers feel sorry for Iran and see it as brave. These words push feelings instead of just saying what happened. The bias helps Iran look good and hides the fact that the text does not explain who started the fighting. The words make Iran seem like the good guy without showing the full story.

The president says the United States and Israel used "advanced weaponry" and "targeting schools, hospitals, scientific centers, and infrastructure" to make them look cruel and mean. These words make readers angry at the United States and Israel. The bias helps Iran by painting its enemies as evil. The text does not say if these claims are true or give proof.

The text says Iran "has never initiated war" and "remains committed to peaceful negotiations" to make Iran look calm and kind. These words make readers trust Iran. The bias helps Iran seem innocent. The text does not say if this is really true or if Iran did other things.

The president calls the United States and Israel actions "violated international law" to make them look like bad guys who break rules. These words make readers think the United States and Israel are wrong. The bias helps Iran by making its enemies look guilty. The text does not explain what law was broken or who says so.

The text says Israel has "nuclear weapons" and is "excluded from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty" to make the world look unfair to Iran. These words make readers feel angry at the world for treating Iran badly. The bias helps Iran by showing it as a victim of double standards. The text does not say if Israel really has these weapons or why it is excluded.

The president says "trust among nations cannot be built through words alone" to make the United States and Israel look fake and lying. These words make readers doubt what the United States and Israel say. The bias helps Iran by making its enemies seem untrustworthy. The text does not say what proof Iran has for this claim.

The text says "lasting peace can only be achieved when all nations are treated equally" to make Iran look fair and just. These words make readers agree with Iran. The bias helps Iran by making it seem like the good side. The text does not say how Iran treats other nations itself.

The president ends by saying "either the international community builds security together or faces insecurity together" to make readers feel scared if they do not listen to Iran. These words push fear to make people agree. The bias helps Iran by making its ideas sound like the only safe choice. The text does not say what Iran will do if others do not agree.

The text carries a strong feeling of pride and dignity that appears in the way President Pezeshkian describes Iran’s actions. When he says the country has never started a war and remains committed to peaceful talks, the tone is calm but firm. This pride is not loud or boastful. It is steady and confident. Its purpose is to show that Iran sees itself as a nation that chooses peace even when others do not. The pride helps the reader see Iran as a victim that acted with honor rather than as an aggressor.

A deep sadness runs through the parts of the text that describe attacks on Iranian people. The mention of a school bombing, the killing of a leader, and violence against civilians in Minab and Lamerd brings a quiet sorrow. These words are not shouted. They are stated plainly, which makes the sadness feel heavier. The sadness serves to remind the reader of real loss and suffering. It makes the reader feel that Iran has paid a high price for conflict.

Fear appears in the description of advanced weapons being used against Iranian cities. The words targeting schools, hospitals, and scientific centers create a sense of danger and vulnerability. This fear is sharp because it suggests that no place is safe, not even places meant to protect people. The fear serves to make the reader worry about what war can do to ordinary life and to build sympathy for those who live under threat.

Anger builds in the accusations against the United States and Israel. The text says they used advanced weaponry and attacked civilian places, which it calls a violation of international law. The anger is strong and direct. It serves to make the reader hold these countries responsible for harm. The anger also helps the reader see Iran as standing up against injustice rather than as a nation that provokes conflict.

Suspicion and distrust appear in the criticism of global diplomacy. The text points to double standards, saying Israel has nuclear weapons and is not part of the Non-Proliferation Treaty while Iran faces inspections and sanctions. This language creates doubt about fairness in world affairs. The suspicion is strong and serves to make the reader question whether the rules of international law are applied equally. It helps the reader see Iran as unfairly treated.

Hope and determination show in the call for a future based on security, justice, and human dignity. The words lasting peace and equal treatment carry a calm strength. This hope is not naive. It is purposeful. Its purpose is to offer a vision that the reader can believe in. It serves to inspire action by suggesting that a better world is possible if nations work together fairly.

These emotions work together to guide the reader’s reaction. Pride makes Iran seem noble. Sadness builds sympathy. Fear creates urgency. Anger assigns blame. Suspicion questions fairness. Hope offers a path forward. The writer uses this mix to lead the reader to feel that Iran is a victim acting with dignity and that the world should listen to its call for justice.

The writer uses several tools to make these emotions stronger. Repeating the idea that Iran has never started a war and remains committed to peace reinforces the message of innocence and strength. Listing the attacks one after another, such as the school bombing and the killings in Minab and Lamerd, builds a picture of ongoing suffering. Comparing the treatment of Iran with the treatment of Israel highlights what the text calls unfairness. Using strong words like violation of international law makes the accusations feel serious and final. The phrase either the international community builds security together or faces insecurity together creates a clear choice that pushes the reader toward agreement.

The writer also chooses words that sound emotional instead of neutral. Saying the country defended its homeland with strength sounds more powerful than simply saying it fought back. Calling Iran a victim of terrorism makes the reader feel protective. Describing attacks on schools and hospitals makes the harm feel personal and wrong. These choices increase the emotional impact and steer the reader toward seeing Iran as a nation that deserves respect and support. The overall effect is to shape the reader’s opinion by appealing to feelings of fairness, safety, and hope for a better future.