On 22 September 2026, in the middle of one of the most volatile years in US-Iran relations, American and Iranian officials sat down for three hours of talks on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. Hours earlier, US President Donald Trump had threatened to “annihilate” Iran from the UN podium. By the afternoon, he was calling the meeting “very good.” Here is what happened — and why it matters.

What Happened on Tuesday

Trump revealed the meeting during a press availability alongside Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He said his special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner had completed a three-hour session with the Iranian delegation that morning — the sitdown had begun around 10 a.m., even as Trump was delivering his own combative address to the Assembly. Iranian state media confirmed the session, identifying Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi as leading Tehran’s delegation.

The talks were indirect in form. Witkoff said in a post on X that the two sides engaged “through the mediators, who shuttled between the two sides throughout the day.” According to reporting on the talks, those mediators were from Pakistan and Qatar. Witkoff described the round as “constructive” and “promising” and said the mediators would continue their work.

Two Messages in One Day

Trump’s tone swung sharply through the day. In his General Assembly speech he warned he was weighing a “big decision” on Iran, asking whether to “drive them into hell with no chance of survival.” After the talks, the language flipped: “It was a very good meeting, I must tell you,” he said. “They had a very good meeting, very productive meeting, and they have another one scheduled in the very near future.”

The framing was stark. “It’s potential greatness or obliteration. It’s two choices,” he told reporters. He also predicted a deal could come “right after the election” — the US midterm elections, then about six weeks away.

What Each Side Says It Wants

Trump disclosed no proposed terms, concessions or agreements from the American side, and did not say when the next session would take place. Iran’s position, as reported by its state broadcaster IRIB and carried by international outlets, was clearer: Tehran agreed to the meeting to restate its conditions for reopening the Strait of Hormuz — an immediate lifting of the US naval blockade, the release of frozen Iranian assets, and an end to fighting across what Tehran calls the “resistance fronts,” including Lebanon.

Notably, the publicly reported Iranian conditions focused on the strait and the wider regional conflict; they did not publicly address Iran’s nuclear program. Days earlier, Iranian officials had publicly warned that the country’s nuclear doctrine could change if pressure continued.

Why This Meeting Matters

The talks were the first known high-level contact between the two sides since a ceasefire and memorandum of understanding collapsed in July, according to US reporting. They came after months of direct confrontation: according to reports, Trump announced “major combat operations” against Iran on 28 February involving joint US-Israeli strikes, and later threatened a “crushing economic operation” to force Tehran’s submission.

The stakes center on the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway between Iran and Oman through which a large share of the world’s seaborne oil flows. Iran has repeatedly threatened the strait during the conflict, and any sustained disruption would send shockwaves through global energy markets. A negotiation that even discusses reopening it is, by that measure, significant — whatever its outcome.

What to Watch Next

Trump says another round is already scheduled, though no date has been announced. The contradictions in his own messaging — a threat of “obliteration” paired with a prediction of a deal within weeks — have left observers unsure whether the talks represent a genuine opening or diplomatic theater ahead of the midterms. What is certain is that the channel, once reopened, is fragile: one collapsed agreement in July is already behind these negotiators, and the gap between Iran’s stated conditions and Washington’s silence on terms remains wide.

FAQs

Were the talks direct or indirect?
Indirect. According to envoy Steve Witkoff, US and Iranian officials did not sit at the same table; mediators from Pakistan and Qatar shuttled between the two delegations throughout the day.

What is the Strait of Hormuz, and why does it keep coming up?
It is the narrow strait between Iran and Oman through which a large portion of the world’s seaborne oil passes. Iran has used threats to the strait as leverage in the conflict, making its status a central bargaining chip.

Did the two sides agree on anything?
No agreement or concrete terms have been publicly disclosed. Trump called the session “very productive” and said a follow-up is scheduled; beyond that, both sides have revealed little.

Why did Trump threaten Iran and praise the talks on the same day?
The pattern — maximum-pressure threats paired with claims of deal momentum — has defined his approach to Tehran all year. Whether the threats are leverage for the talks or a sign they could collapse is the central unanswered question.

Compiled by the Khabar 24h Editorial Desk from publicly available sources.