US Iran Talks at UN Last Three Hours as Hormuz Blockade and Regional Attacks Raise Stakes

By Daniel Harper | Senior U.S. Military, International Affairs & Geopolitical Correspondent
September 23, 2026

US Iran Talks Open a Diplomatic Channel After Trump’s Threat

The latest US Iran talks in New York lasted for hours, opening a new diplomatic channel just after President Donald Trump threatened to “annihilate” Iran if Washington and Tehran fail to reach an agreement.

The discussions took place on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly. U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff said mediators shuttled messages between the American and Iranian delegations throughout the day. Trump gave a more direct account, saying Witkoff and Jared Kushner held a three-hour meeting with Iranian officials.

The differing descriptions matter. The U.S. side has publicly described the broader process as mediated discussions rather than a conventional direct summit between Trump and Iranian leaders. Iranian state media, however, reported that Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi later met Witkoff directly.

Trump said the discussions were productive and suggested that further talks could follow. Iran, meanwhile, continues to reject surrender as a basis for ending the conflict and has demanded an end to U.S. military pressure.

The Strait of Hormuz remains at the center of the dispute. Shipping has been severely disrupted, while Tehran has linked any return to normal passage through the waterway to changes in the U.S. military and maritime pressure.

At the same time, Houthi attacks involving Saudi Arabia and new restrictions on Iranian aviation show how the conflict is reaching beyond the immediate U.S.-Iran battlefield.

What Happened During the New York Diplomatic Channel?

The New York contacts developed quickly after Trump addressed the UN General Assembly on Tuesday.

Witkoff said American officials engaged the Iranian delegation through mediators and that the mediators moved between the two sides throughout the discussions. He said the process had produced a round of talks that Washington hoped would prove constructive.

Trump later told reporters that Witkoff and Kushner had held a three-hour meeting with Iranian representatives. He described the encounter as “very good” and “very productive.” Those comments were Trump’s assessment of the discussions, not evidence that the two governments had reached an agreement.

Iran’s account focused on its own conditions. Iranian state media reported that Araghchi conveyed Tehran’s messages, particularly its demands concerning the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

Qatar has played an important role in keeping communication open. Qatari officials have said Doha is working to reduce tensions and facilitate dialogue between Washington and Tehran.

That role is especially important because direct U.S.-Iran relations remain deeply strained. Mediators can pass proposals and responses without requiring the two governments to publicly frame every contact as a formal negotiation.

No final peace agreement has been announced. No public statement confirms that Washington has accepted Iran’s conditions, and further talks remain dependent on decisions by both sides.

Iran Refuses Surrender and Demands an End to Military Pressure

Tehran has rejected the idea that it should surrender as the price for ending the war.

Iranian officials have instead presented the conflict as one in which Washington must also make concessions. Those demands include ending U.S. military pressure and lifting what Tehran describes as a naval blockade of Iranian ports.

Iran has also connected the blockade to the Strait of Hormuz. According to reporting on the New York discussions, an Iranian official said Tehran could reopen the waterway within seven days if Washington eased military pressure and lifted the blockade.

That is an Iranian negotiating position, not an agreed arrangement.

Iran has also called for the release of frozen assets and an end to military action on several regional fronts. Tehran has communicated these conditions through mediators, but Washington has not publicly accepted them.

The disagreement goes to the heart of the US Iran talks. Washington is seeking an outcome that addresses its security concerns, while Tehran is demanding an end to military and economic pressure before making wider commitments.

Neither side has publicly indicated that it has abandoned its core position.

Strait of Hormuz Is the Central Obstacle

The Strait of Hormuz has become one of the most important subjects in the negotiations because it connects the military conflict with the global economy.

The narrow waterway carries a major share of international energy shipments. Prolonged disruption affects tanker operators, insurers, Gulf producers and buyers far beyond the Middle East.

Iran has made the future of Hormuz part of its diplomatic position. Tehran says normal passage can return if U.S. military pressure and the blockade are reduced. Washington, by contrast, has emphasized maritime security and freedom of navigation.

The earlier U.S.-Iran crisis surrounding sanctions, UN diplomacy and the Strait of Hormuz provides additional context for why the waterway has become central to the current negotiations.

Importantly, severe disruption does not automatically mean the Strait is completely closed. Recent reporting indicates that some commercial traffic has continued, although flows remain affected by the conflict. Reuters reported that Saudi Arabia had resumed some crude exports through Hormuz while overall energy movements remained below normal levels.

The economic consequences can therefore be significant even without a formal closure. Higher insurance costs, longer routes, shipping delays and uncertainty over supply can affect energy prices and businesses worldwide.

Iran’s Aviation Pressure Adds Another Economic Front

The maritime crisis is not the only form of pressure facing Tehran.

Iraq has moved to suspend Iranian airline flights to Baghdad following pressure linked to new U.S. sanctions on Iran’s aviation sector, according to two Iraqi sources cited by Reuters. The suspension was expected to begin Wednesday.

Iranian aviation officials separately said flights to Baghdad and Muscat were being canceled, while authorities explored alternative arrangements. Reports about the exact implementation of the Iraqi restrictions have varied, so the aviation situation remains subject to further confirmation.

Washington has expanded sanctions against Iranian airlines and related aviation companies. The U.S. Treasury said in September that it had targeted 36 entities connected to Iran’s aviation sector, including 27 Iranian airlines.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also warned that companies providing services such as fuel, landing assistance or ticket sales to sanctioned Iranian carriers could face U.S. penalties.

The aviation restrictions are separate from the maritime blockade, but together they create broader pressure on Iran’s international connectivity.

That distinction is important. Iraq’s aviation decision is its own governmental action, while Washington’s sanctions create the financial and legal pressure that foreign airports and service providers must consider.

Houthi Attacks Add a Second Regional Pressure Point

The wider conflict is also affecting Saudi Arabia.

Saudi authorities said their defenses intercepted a ballistic missile launched toward Riyadh by the Houthis. Saudi officials also reported additional attempted attacks against other locations. The Houthis claimed separate missile and drone operations against Saudi targets.

Reports also described a fire near a fuel facility close to Riyadh’s King Khalid International Airport. The circumstances and responsibility for individual incidents should remain clearly attributed to the authorities or groups reporting them.

The Houthis are supported by Iran, but that relationship does not by itself prove that Tehran ordered a specific attack. The group has its own political and military leadership and publicly claims responsibility for its operations.

The regional consequences are significant because Yemen sits alongside the Red Sea and Bab el-Mandeb. A conflict affecting both Hormuz and the Red Sea can create separate pressures on major maritime routes.

The wider Houthi campaign around Yemen and the Red Sea therefore adds another security problem for Gulf governments and international shipping.

It also complicates diplomacy. The more fronts that become active, the more difficult it can become for Washington, Tehran and regional governments to isolate the conflict to a single negotiating issue.

What Happens Next in the US Iran Talks?

The next phase will depend on whether the New York channel produces another round of discussions.

Witkoff said mediators would continue their work. Trump has also expressed optimism about reaching an agreement, although his comments do not establish that Tehran has accepted Washington’s terms.

The biggest question is whether the two sides can bridge their opposing positions on military pressure, the blockade, sanctions and Hormuz.

Iran wants the pressure reduced before it makes broader commitments. Washington continues to demand an agreement that addresses its stated security concerns. The gap between those positions remains substantial.

Events outside the negotiating room could also influence the process. A new U.S. strike, Iranian retaliation, another attack on Saudi Arabia or a major maritime incident could change the atmosphere quickly.

Shipping will be another important indicator. If commercial traffic through Hormuz improves, it could reduce some immediate economic pressure. If disruption deepens, energy markets and Gulf governments could face renewed uncertainty.

The same applies to Iran’s aviation sector. Further restrictions could increase the economic pressure already created by sanctions and maritime disruption.

The New York talks have therefore created a diplomatic channel, but they have not resolved the central dispute.

The biggest obstacles remain the same: continuing military pressure, the U.S. blockade, Iran’s refusal to surrender, the future of the Strait of Hormuz and the wider regional security crisis.

For now, diplomacy and confrontation are operating at the same time. The US Iran talks show that communication remains possible, but the next steps will depend on whether either side is prepared to move beyond its current conditions without triggering another round of military escalation.