During an address at the United Nations, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian firmly condemned U.S. airstrikes against Iranian cities, labeling them a “grave betrayal of diplomacy.” He voiced these accusations during his inaugural speech to the U.N. General Assembly, marking a significant moment in Iran’s international posture amid ongoing tensions. Pezeshkian pointedly stated that the airstrikes violated international law and undermined ongoing peace efforts. This act of military aggression, he argued, not only weakened diplomatic negotiations but also threatened global stability.
Pezeshkian’s remarks were underscored by a direct reference to previous U.S. military actions. He noted that the U.S. launched strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities in June, coinciding with Iran’s engagement in diplomatic discussions. “This aerial assault … constituted a grave betrayal of diplomacy and a subversion of efforts toward the establishment of stability and peace,” he declared. Such framing highlights the tension between military actions and diplomatic efforts in the region.
The details of the U.S. operation, involving seven B-2 bombers dropping massive “bunker buster” bombs on Iran, set the stage for Pezeshkian’s critique. While the former President heralded these strikes as a “success,” claiming they obliterated Iran’s nuclear program, Pezeshkian countered that Iran’s nuclear activities were strictly civil in nature. “We do not seek the weapons… This is our belief based on the edict issued by the Supreme Leader and by religious authorities,” he emphasized, portraying Iran as a victim of external aggression rather than a perpetrator.
Pezeshkian also highlighted the perceived double standards in U.S. foreign policy. While condemning Iranian actions, the U.S. continues to support Israel in its conflicts in Gaza and other areas, he argued. This inconsistency, he suggested, paints a picture of Iran as unjustly villainized. He expressed outrage at what he referred to as a “genocide in Gaza,” while Iran’s own citizens suffer from military aggression that has resulted in civilian casualties, including the loss of lives among its scientists and intellectuals. This stance illustrated a broader narrative that positions Iran in solidarity with those it perceives as victims of Western intervention.
Linking the U.S. actions against Iran to a larger pattern of Western aggression in the Middle East, Pezeshkian didn’t shy away from severity. He called Israel’s military operations “genocide” and criticized what he described as the “Greater Israel” project—an initiative he believes destabilizes the entire region. Citing the destruction and suffering across various Middle Eastern nations, he urged unity among Muslim states in the face of Western-supported aggression: “The world in these two years has witnessed a genocide in Gaza, the destruction of homes in Lebanon, the devastation of Syria’s infrastructure… all of this under the full support of the most heavily armed regime on the face of the earth.”
Pezeshkian’s rhetoric serves to galvanize support within Iran by portraying a strong narrative of resilience against oppression. He claimed that military and economic sanctions imposed by Western powers have instead backfired, revealing the strength of Iranian unity. “The patriotic and valiant people of Iran laid bare before the aggressors the fallacy and self-destruction of their arrogant calculations,” he insisted, asserting that external pressures have only strengthened national resolve. This narrative positions the Iranian populace not as a group in disarray but as one that stands proudly against aggression.
Furthermore, Pezeshkian voiced particular hostility toward Israel. He condemned those who would target children in conflicts such as Gaza, stating emphatically that they “are not worthy of the name human being.” This remark encapsulates the deep-seated animosity and moral outrage felt towards Israel’s actions in the region, reinforcing Iran’s position as a champion for the oppressed. He concluded that historical hostilities towards Israel indicate that they will never be trusted partners, solidifying a stance that seeks not just to criticize but to delegitimize any call for peace from the Israeli side.
The president’s address at the U.N. reveals not only his condemnation of perceived injustices but also his intent to rally support against external threats. By framing Iranian military actions and nuclear ambitions within a context of self-defense and victimization, Pezeshkian crafts a narrative aimed at cementing national unity and resilience. His statements resonate with the ongoing challenges Iran faces, while attempting to project strength amidst adversity.
"*" indicates required fields
