Pezeshkian vows no surrender in war with US

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has accused President Donald Trump of a "bullying ​mentality", saying Iran would not surrender in the war with the United States, but remained open to diplomacy to end the conflict.

In a wartime address to the 193-member UN General Assembly on Wednesday, Pezeshkian said threats would only harden Iran's resolve, rejecting Trump's warning that he could annihilate Iran if no deal were reached.

"The resistance of the Iranian people will only increase in the face of sanctions, increased pressure, increased bullying," Pezeshkian said, responding to Trump's threat to "annihilate" the Islamic Republic if a deal is not reached soon.

There was no immediate comment from the US, whose delegation walked out of the chamber at the start of Pezeshkian's address.

"The US president described us as terrorists. We have been the victims of terrorism," Iran's president told the UN General Assembly.

He then held up a photo of the country's late Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed in a strike on his residence when the US and Israel launched a joint attack in late February.

He also presented pictures of some of the more than 175 civilians, two-thirds of them children, who Iranian authorities say were killed in missile strikes on a primary school in Minab and a sports complex in Lamerd that day. "Our innocent people have been the targets of cowardly attacks and aggressions imposed on our country. And we defended ourselves with utmost strength," Pezeshkian said.

In his address to the UN General Assembly on Tuesday, Trump said he faced a "big decision" - either negotiate a deal that would allow Iranians to rebuild their country, or "annihilate the Islamic Republic and do it quickly".

Pezeshkian said the threat was "a sign of a bullying mentality".

"[Trump] must know that the resistance of the Iranian people will only increase in the face of sanctions, increased pressure, increased bullying. We will never bow our head or bend the knee," he said.

But he added, "We are ready for dialogue and diplomacy and negotiations without accepting the language of force."

Pezeshkian made clear that the US blockade would have to end as part of any deal.

"It cannot be the case that everyone benefits from the Strait of Hormuz while we are denied access to shipping through this waterway," he said.

He also reiterated that Iran would not give up its right to have a civilian nuclear program and that it would not seek to develop nuclear weapons.

"We say it clearly: no nuclear weapons and no limitations on peaceful nuclear technology."

Trump argued in his speech that the war had prevented Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb and demanded that its leaders "relinquish their nuclear ambitions".

On Tuesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US envoy Steve Witkoff held indirect talks brokered by Qatari mediators on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York.

Witkoff said he hoped the discussions – the first since June – would "prove constructive and promising", adding that the mediators would continue their work.

But Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Esmail Baqai said the talks were "not anything new" and that Araghchi had maintained Iran's conditions, including the end of the US blockade and the release of frozen Iranian assets.

In June, the US and Iran reached a preliminary agreement to end the war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, but it collapsed within weeks after the Iranian attacks on shipping resumed and the US reinstated its blockade.

 

Technological Superiority Cannot Guarantee Victory

For months, I have been convinced that President Donald Trump has pursued a strategy aimed at securing nothing less than Iran's unconditional surrender. More than five months into the conflict, however, that objective remains unfulfilled despite the overwhelming military and technological superiority of the United States and Israel. This raises a fundamental question; can military dominance alone compel a determined nation to surrender?

The conflict has steadily moved beyond its originally stated objective of curbing Iran's nuclear and missile programs. Instead, it increasingly appears to have become an effort to weaken the Iranian state itself. The repeated attacks on Iranian infrastructure have intensified human suffering and drawn criticism from those who argue that such operations risk violating international humanitarian law. Whatever the legal verdict may ultimately be, the war has expanded far beyond its declared purpose.

Ironically, the countries paying an increasingly heavy price are America's Arab allies. By hosting US military bases, they have become vulnerable to retaliation despite having little direct stake in the conflict. Their economies, energy infrastructure, shipping routes, and national security now face growing risks as the confrontation deepens.

The greatest lesson of this conflict is that technological superiority cannot guarantee victory against a dispersed and resilient adversary. Precision-guided weapons, advanced intelligence, and air superiority have not eliminated Iran's ability to respond. Even many Western analysts acknowledge that Tehran retains the capability to launch missiles and drones against American military installations, Gulf allies, and commercial shipping transiting the Strait of Hormuz. As long as that capability exists, expectations of forcing Iran into unconditional surrender appear unrealistic.

If President Trump refuses to alter course, America's Arab partners may eventually conclude that protecting their own national interests requires a different approach. They should insist that offensive military operations against Iran are no longer conducted from bases located on their territory and seek a transparent timetable for redefining the role of foreign military forces. If those bases cease to be launch pads for attacks, Iran would have far less incentive to target Arab states.

Any durable regional security arrangement should also include China, whose growing economic and diplomatic influence makes it an indispensable stakeholder in Gulf stability.

My greatest concern is that trust has been severely damaged. The current war erupted while diplomatic engagement was still underway, making future negotiations far more difficult. Peace cannot rest on demands for unconditional surrender. It requires credible diplomacy, mutual security guarantees, and respect for commitments. The enduring lesson of this conflict is unmistakable: technological superiority may win battles, but it cannot, by itself, guarantee political victory.