'Killers in suits': Iranians ask New York's mayor why Pezeshkian walks free

The warnings followed President Donald Trump's threat at the United Nations to “annihilate” Iran, while Tehran has said further negotiations depend on Washington accepting seven conditions it has put forward for ending the conflict.

Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, sharply criticized Trump in remarks broadcast on state television, saying Iran would not return to what he described as the previous model of diplomacy.

He said the United States would first have to meet Iran's seven conditions before Tehran would agree to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and begin negotiations.

Rezaei said it had been agreed at a meeting with President Masoud Pezeshkian that Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi would communicate the conditions to intermediaries during his visit to New York.

That account has become significant amid a growing dispute in Tehran over Araghchi's contact with US special envoy Steve Witkoff on Tuesday and whether the foreign minister had authorization to meet him directly.

US officials have described the latest contact between the two sides as face-to-face, while Iranian accounts have emphasized the role of mediators and said the purpose was to convey Tehran's conditions to Washington.

‘Childish and vile’

Iran's state broadcaster reported Tuesday evening that Araghchi had met Witkoff at the insistence of the American side and that the purpose of the meeting was to communicate Iran's conditions for reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said contact with the US side took place through Qatari mediators and was intended to communicate conditions including an end to the war on all fronts, a halt to US military operations, an end to the naval blockade and economic war, and the release of Iranian assets.

The contact prompted strong criticism of Araghchi from hardline and IRGC-affiliated media.

Tasnim News Agency, which is affiliated with the IRGC, described Araghchi's explanation as “childish and vile” and demanded an apology, questioning why he needed to meet Witkoff if Iran's conditions had already been communicated through intermediaries.

Ebrahim Rezaei, spokesman for parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, also questioned the meeting and asked Araghchi to explain what authorization he had received.

But parliament member Mojtaba Zarei defended Araghchi, saying his own review indicated that the foreign minister had been authorized to meet Witkoff.

“There was and is no negotiation,” Zarei wrote, saying Iran's seven conditions, including the lifting of the blockade of Yemen, had been communicated directly to Trump's representative.

Pezeshkian’s revised speech

The dispute unfolded as Pezeshkian and Trump publicly exchanged warnings while leaving open the possibility of diplomacy.

Pezeshkian said during his address to the General Assembly on Wednesday that he had changed his prepared remarks after hearing Trump's speech.

Holding up photographs of children killed in the attack on a primary school in Minab alongside an image of late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Pezeshkian accused the United States and Israel of imposing the war on Iran and said the Islamic Republic had “powerfully” defended itself.

But he also said Iran remained open to negotiations in pursuit of peace and would not accept what he called “the language of coercion.”

Trump, meanwhile, issued a fresh warning against Iran while also expressing optimism that the dispute between Washington and Tehran could be resolved.

Speaking Wednesday at a meeting with Gulf Cooperation Council leaders in New York, Trump said the United States would “immediately” attack Iran if it carried out activities at the Kolang underground facilities.

Later Wednesday, after meeting British Prime Minister Andy Burnham, Trump said negotiations were continuing and that he believed the two sides would ultimately reach an agreement.

Iran's General Staff of the Armed Forces and the Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters accused Trump of using the UN podium to justify military action and said Iran was prepared to deliver “stronger, crushing and unpredictable blows” in response to any renewed attack.

The simultaneous threats and diplomatic contacts have left the two sides pursuing negotiations while publicly warning that renewed military action remains possible.

The normally jovial ceremonies marking the first day of the Iranian school year were shadowed by the memory of children who might otherwise have returned to class this week.

Children were among those killed by Iranian security forces during the January protests, while 120 children died when a primary school in the southern city of Minab was struck on the first day of the war on Feb. 28.

More than 16.5 million students returned to over 124,000 schools across Iran for the new academic year, according to state media. Classes had been suspended after the United States and Israel launched strikes on Iran.

A United Nations fact-finding mission said last week there were reasonable grounds to believe US forces were responsible for the Minab attack and that the strike was indiscriminate and violated international law.

The mission also found that Iranian authorities committed crimes against humanity in their crackdown on the nationwide protests, including unlawful killings, torture and arbitrary detention.

War enters the classroom

But accounts sent to Iran International from several cities suggest the war and the government's response to it were following students back into school in other ways as well.

A parent in Mazandaran province said the principal of her son's school had warned students that failing to bring an Islamic Republic flag on the first day of school could negatively affect their end-of-year grades.

In Garmdareh, west of Tehran, another person said several flag-bearing vans and a vehicle equipped with loudspeakers entered Barati school on the first day, playing religious mourning music at high volume.

Military personnel were also present in the school grounds, the person said.

‘Cultural battle’

Iran's Education Ministry announced during the summer that material related to the conflict and the country’s military and nuclear capabilities would be incorporated into educational content.

The country's Organization for Educational Research and Planning has printed and distributed 12 million copies of educational materials titled “We Defend Our Iran” for older primary and secondary school students.

Officials with the student Basij have spoken of training tens of thousands of student “commanders” under a program called Yavaran-e Velayat for what they describe as a “cultural battle.”

As children filed back into classrooms across Iran, Pezeshkian was in New York addressing the UN General Assembly, where diplomacy aimed at ending the war was also gathering pace.

He held up photographs of children killed in the Minab strike as he accused the United States and Israel of attacking Iranian civilians.

For the children returning to school at home, however, the events of the past nine months were already part of the new school year.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian devoted both the opening and closing sections of his address to the United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday to rejecting President Donald Trump's accusations against Tehran.

He also made clear that while Iran welcomed negotiations, it would not yield to coercion or what he described as Trump's “bullying.”

The tension between those two messages reflects the difficult political terrain surrounding the latest diplomatic opening. Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi have signaled a willingness to pursue talks, but criticism from hardliners has raised questions about how much room they have to negotiate.

Those divisions surfaced after Araghchi's contact with US envoy Steve Witkoff in New York on Tuesday.

The IRGC-affiliated Tasnim News Agency reported Wednesday that the contact had taken place without authorization from Iran's policymaking bodies, including the Supreme National Security Council.

Citing Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of the council, Tasnim said the approved plan had been limited to conveying Iran's seven conditions through mediators. It described Araghchi's reported interaction with Witkoff as a “major error” and called on the foreign minister to explain his actions.

The criticism points to a potentially important fault line in Tehran: not necessarily over whether diplomacy should continue, but over how direct that diplomacy is permitted to become.

Accounts of Tuesday's discussions have themselves differed. US officials have described a three-hour diplomatic exchange positively, while Iranian accounts have emphasized the role of mediators and said Tehran's conditions were conveyed to Washington.

An Iranian diplomat told Reuters before Pezeshkian's speech that discussions on ending hostilities could continue in New York and described the General Assembly as “a golden opportunity for America to return to diplomacy.”

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said any agreement would require sustained work over time and that Trump retained military options.

Rubio also pointed to divisions within Tehran, saying potential agreements had repeatedly faltered after being referred back to the country's revolutionary establishment. He blamed the IRGC for the collapse of an earlier US-Iran understanding after it attacked ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

Hardliners test the limits

Despite Tasnim's criticism of Araghchi, some hardline messaging immediately before and during the New York talks appeared to leave room for diplomacy.

Before opposition to the talks became more vocal, even the hardline Kayhan newspaper sounded unusually supportive of Pezeshkian on Wednesday morning.

IRGC spokesman Hossein Mohebbi also delivered a dual message following reports of the talks.

“We don't reject diplomacy, but we impose our own conditions. Our defensive power will be proven in the field,” he was quoted as saying.

The formulation suggested that the IRGC was not rejecting negotiations outright, even while insisting that diplomacy take place on Tehran's terms and alongside continued military pressure.

The dispute over Araghchi's contact with Witkoff suggests the argument may therefore be less about whether Iran should negotiate than about the format, limits and authorization of those negotiations.

Pezeshkian's own language at the United Nations appeared designed to preserve that room while demonstrating that negotiations would not amount to capitulation.

Responding to Trump's rhetoric, he warned the United States, Israel and regional actors that Iran would respond forcefully to threats, while insisting that Tehran still believed in diplomacy.

Major General Ali Abdollahi, chief of staff of Iran's Armed Forces, similarly argued that “rhetoric doesn't change the power calculus” and described Trump's remarks as “a sign of desperation” on the US side.

The sequencing problem

The mediation channel has so far allowed the two sides to exchange complex proposals without requiring the politically riskier spectacle of a meeting between Trump and Pezeshkian.

But even if Tehran's internal disagreements can be contained, substantial differences remain over what each side must do first.

Washington is reportedly insisting on the clearance of maritime choke points and assurances related to Iran's nuclear program before easing its naval blockade.

Tehran, by contrast, is demanding an immediate end to US interdictions and the release of $24 billion in frozen foreign assets as conditions for further progress, according to a source close to the Iranian diplomatic team.

Iran has also linked progress in negotiations to reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

The diplomatic opening in New York therefore leaves two related questions unresolved: whether Washington and Tehran can agree on the sequence of steps needed to end the conflict, and whether Iran's diplomats have sufficient authority at home to deliver whatever they negotiate.

The reaction from the IRGC and other hardline institutions in the coming days may provide an early indication of the answer.

Pedaran, born on June 26, 1985, was married and had two children, aged 15 and 11. He was arrested in July 2025 and executed on September 19 at Isfahan Central Prison, also known as Dastgerd Prison.

One informed source told Iran International that plainclothes agents raided Pedaran’s home when he was arrested and seized his personal and work belongings, along with electronic devices belonging to him and members of his family.

The source said Pedaran was then held for months in solitary confinement and in detention facilities run by security agencies, where he faced severe physical and psychological pressure.

Prolonged detention in dark conditions and deprivation of sunlight caused injuries and sores on his toes, the source said. Interrogators also pressured and threatened Pedaran and his wife to force him to make statements against himself, according to the source.

100%

Iran Human Rights previously reported that Pedaran spent four months at the Isfahan Intelligence Department’s detention center before being transferred to an intelligence detention facility in Tehran. He was returned to Isfahan a month later.

Work in information technology

Information obtained by Iran International shows that before his arrest, Pedaran worked in information technology at a company called Gostareh Tarahan Naghsh Almas.

His work included designing and setting up USSD codes and developing digital businesses.

Iran’s judiciary said after his execution that Pedaran had been sentenced to death for “espionage and intelligence cooperation in favor of Israel” and that the sentence was carried out after being upheld by the Supreme Court.

The judiciary accused him of providing Mossad with information about military and missile facilities in Isfahan province.

100%

An informed source rejected the judiciary’s account that Pedaran had access to military or missile information, telling Iran International that his professional work was commercial and focused on information technology and digital services.

Iranian authorities have executed dozens of people in recent months on charges including involvement in the January uprising and espionage.

Trial process

A source familiar with Pedaran’s case told Iran International that Judge Mohammadreza Tavakoli of the Isfahan Revolutionary Court issued the death sentence and that defense submissions filed by the family’s lawyer were not considered.

The family had appointed lawyers at different stages of the case, the source said.

According to the source, one of the lawyers told the family on the night before the execution that no notice confirming the final approval of the sentence or setting an execution date had appeared in the judiciary’s Sana electronic system.

Pedaran’s family therefore did not know when he would be executed until the sentence was carried out, the source said.

Security agencies had also pressured Pedaran’s wife from the time of his arrest not to publicize the case and had told the family that he might receive a pardon, according to the source.

100%

Body handed over after two days

The source said Pedaran’s family faced obstacles when trying to recover his body after the execution.

His body was handed over to the family late in the day after about two days of attempts to obtain it, the source said.

Pedaran was buried under security restrictions at Bagh-e Rezvan cemetery in Isfahan, and his family was not allowed to hold a public mourning ceremony, according to information obtained by Iran International.

Relatives described Pedaran as calm, disciplined, kind and hopeful about life. They said he remained hopeful until his final family visit before the execution.

Mizan, the judiciary-affiliated news agency, did not provide details about when Pedaran was arrested, his access to legal counsel or the conditions of his detention in its report on his execution.

After his death, state media also broadcast excerpts of what authorities described as Pedaran’s “confessions.”

Washington has threatened sanctions against airports and companies that provide services to Iranian carriers as international travel options are already narrowing.

Mahan Air has suspended flights to Turkey and Oman, while Georgia has announced a halt to flights by all Iranian airlines.

Iran International asked its Instagram audience what they thought about the growing restrictions. Responses ranged from support for measures seen as increasing pressure on the state to concern about their consequences for medicine, essential goods and family travel.

“At last, the water has reached the upper decks,” one respondent wrote.

The phrase captured a recurring argument among those who welcomed the restrictions: hardships that have long affected ordinary Iranians may now be reaching wealthier or better-connected sections of society.

Others argued that air travel had already become unaffordable for much of the population and said they were prepared to tolerate further restrictions if they increased the economic and political cost for the authorities or made it more difficult for officials and those close to them to travel abroad.

The responses do not constitute a representative survey of Iranian public opinion, but they point to a revealing tension over who bears the cost of external pressure.

‘The issue isn't just travel’

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Iranian airlines would effectively be shut out of international operations from September 23, warning that airports and companies providing them with services could themselves face US sanctions.

The restrictions do not amount to the closure of Iranian airspace or automatically prohibit foreign airlines from flying to Iran. But the threat of sanctions could make it increasingly difficult for Iranian carriers to operate abroad.

For some respondents, that raised concerns extending well beyond passenger travel to medicine, raw materials, spare parts and other goods entering Iran by air.

“Everyone is thinking about passenger flights, but the real problem that will emerge is cargo flights,” one wrote.

“The issue isn't just travel,” another respondent wrote. “A lot of goods reached Iran by air, such as medicine … what is supposed to happen to patients now?”

Others pointed to higher ticket prices, longer journeys involving indirect routes and increasing difficulties visiting relatives abroad. Some feared higher import costs would feed into inflation, further squeezing household finances.

“In the war and confrontation between the government and America, it is the people who are being crushed,” one respondent wrote.

Some also pointed to congestion at land crossings such as Bazargan and Razi, fearing that further disruption to air travel would push more passengers onto already strained overland routes.

Where does tolerance for pressure end?

The responses also revealed differing interpretations of what Washington is trying to achieve.

Some saw the aviation restrictions as another sign of escalating confrontation, while others interpreted them as an attempt to increase pressure on Tehran to reach an agreement.

Several said years of sanctions and economic crisis had left society increasingly accustomed, or even numb, to new restrictions.

Measures perceived as restricting officials, state institutions or wealthier Iranians attracted support from many of those who responded to Iran International.

But that support became less straightforward when people contemplated medicine and essential goods becoming harder to obtain, more expensive travel, separation from relatives or further increases in household costs.

The responses suggest tolerance for outside pressure can be easier to sustain when its costs appear concentrated on the state. Once those costs become tangible in everyday life, the calculation becomes more complicated—even among Iranians who want greater pressure on Tehran.