Iranian President Urged to Take Historic Risk, Meet Trump at UN

ERBIL (Kurdistan24) – As Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian prepares to travel to New York for the United Nations General Assembly, a chorus of prominent political activists, primarily from the reformist camp, is urging him to seize the moment by seeking full and unconditional authority from the country’s Supreme Leader to engage in transformative, high-stakes diplomacy on the world stage. Invoking the historic and decisive role played by the late Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani in ending the Iran-Iraq war, these figures are calling on Pezeshkian to go beyond a ceremonial address and instead use the trip to fundamentally alter Iran's perilous international standing, even if it means holding direct talks with U.S. President Donald Trump.

This bold call for a diplomatic gambit, reported on by the Tehran-based reformist daily Hammihan, comes at a moment of profound and multifaceted crisis for the Islamic Republic.

Iranian President Pezeshkian’s second appearance at the UN summit coincides with the recent re-imposition of crippling international sanctions through the "snapback" mechanism, an unraveling security situation in the Middle East following a direct military confrontation with Israel and the United States in June, and a domestic political atmosphere that has grown increasingly hostile to diplomacy, driven by hardline factions who have launched scathing attacks against the architects of the 2015 nuclear deal.

Gholamhossein Karbaschi, the influential editor-in-chief of the Hammihan newspaper, articulated this urgent appeal in a stark and uncompromising interview with the Jamaran news outlet.

"If Mr. Pezeshkian's trip is going to be like last year's trip and the trips of other presidents in past years, it's better he doesn't go," Karbaschi stated bluntly. He argued that for the trip to be more than a morale-boosting speech, the president must go "with a complete will and full authority."

Karbaschi drew a direct and powerful parallel to a pivotal moment in Iran's modern history. "He should play the same role that the late Hashemi Rafsanjani once played in 1988 when he went to Imam [Khomeini] and said this state of war cannot continue, and we must accept the [UN] resolution, because the social and economic conditions of the people can no longer bear its continuation," he urged.

Karbaschi contended that after a year in office, President Pezeshkian understands better than anyone that Iran's current social, security, and economic conditions are "more dire than in 1988."

He called on the president to "have the courage of Hashemi to say, 'prosecute and execute me,'" a reference to the immense personal and political risk Rafsanjani took in advocating for an end to the war.

The human cost of the current crisis, Karbaschi argued, is palpable in the daily lives of ordinary Iranians. "With one piece of news about snapback, the market fluctuates, and people become more worried," he said. "Every day when we go to the bread and milk queues, people ask us about snapback; even an old woman in a village is affected by snapback in her life... Mr. Pezeshkian must feel a sense of responsibility."

While the call for a "Hashemi-like" moment has resonated within reformist circles, other political activists have offered a more cautious and pragmatic assessment of the possibilities, emphasizing the necessity of internal consensus before any diplomatic breakthrough can be achieved.

Saeed Shariati, a member of the central council of the reformist Union of Islamic Iran People Party, told Hammihan that while the UN trip is a "suitable chance to adopt and announce a paradigm shift in Iran's foreign policy," such an event is "entirely dependent on a complete consensus being reached at the highest policymaking level" before the president even departs for New York.

Shariati warned that any unilateral action by Pezeshkian, without the backing of the Supreme Leader and other influential power centers, would "have no result."

He also cast doubt on the feasibility of a direct meeting with President Trump, questioning whether the American leader is even open to such a talk and warning that it could result in "nothing but the further humiliation of Iran's president."

He argued against raising public expectations for a dramatic diplomatic event, which he believes would only set Pezeshkian up for failure and disappointment.

Instead, Shariati suggested that the real hope for progress lies not in the president’s public speech or a high-profile meeting with Trump, but in the "unofficial negotiations on the sidelines of the Assembly."

He believes there is a "slim chance of stopping the snapback process" and that the priority must be to "open a path... to return to the path of a peaceful resolution of the issue through political and diplomatic solutions" in meetings with other world leaders.

Mohammad Atrianfar, a member of the centrist Executives of Construction Party, echoed the sentiment that any major diplomatic shift must have the explicit blessing of the Supreme Leader. In an interview with the Entekhab news site, he stated that at the beginning of Pezeshkian's government, an agreement was made that "the Leader would be the axis of affairs."

Therefore, "if Mr. Pezeshkian is to establish a turning point in the tradition of negotiations with the West and devise a new plan, he must have the Leader's approval."

However, Atrianfar suggested that with such an approval, a direct meeting with Trump would be not only possible but potentially "groundbreaking," as the U.S. would understand that Pezeshkian was negotiating with the full weight of the Iranian establishment behind him.

Interestingly, the call for a potential meeting with Trump has also found a voice from within the principlist, or conservative, camp. Ali Motahari, a prominent principlist political activist, took to X to offer three suggestions for the president's trip.

He urged the foreign minister to continue negotiations with the European powers, for the president to use his speech to explain the "reality" of the Israeli and American attacks on Iran, and, most notably, he advised that "if Trump requests a meeting with Pezeshkian, despite his hypocrisy and deceitfulness, our president should accept it for the sake of the nation's interests."

Motahari speculated that "Trump's personality cult and his desire to take credit for everything may end up benefiting Iran."

As President Pezeshkian prepares for his journey to New York, he does so under the immense weight of both internal and external pressures.

The voices from within Iran's political class, particularly the reformists, are clear in their desire for a decisive and courageous diplomatic initiative to pull the country back from the brink. Whether the president can, or will, secure the necessary authority to play the historic role they envision for him remains the critical and unanswered question that will define not only the outcome of his trip but potentially the future trajectory of the Islamic Republic.