Iranian President Pezeshkian Signals Readiness for Agreements With US Under International Law

Key facts

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian reiterated Tehran's openness to diplomatic resolution with Washington, making explicit that Iran would not rule out bilateral agreements if they are anchored in international legal frameworks. According to TASS reporting on September 25, 2026, Pezeshkian specified that the Islamic Republic remains ready to reach understandings with any legitimate government in the United States, provided Washington operates within international law and demonstrates respect for previous state commitments.

Pezeshkian’s comments represent a continuing effort by his administration to present Iran as open to diplomatic re-engagement on the global stage. Since taking office, the Iranian chief executive has repeatedly stressed that Tehran does not seek conflict or international isolation, but rather the removal of heavy economic sanctions that have constrained the national economy for years. By framing potential agreements around adherence to international law, the Iranian presidency seeks to put the onus on Washington to demonstrate its own commitment to international treaties and established legal norms.

While Pezeshkian did not detail specific terms for potential talks during these remarks, his baseline posture aligns with previous statements indicating that Iran would require guarantees against sudden policy shifts in Washington. The mention of dealing with a "legitimate" administration serves as diplomatic shorthand emphasizing that Tehran seeks binding commitments that survive domestic political changes in the United States.

Why it matters

The willingness of Iran’s head of government to publicly discuss agreements with the United States carries significant implications for global energy markets, Middle Eastern regional stability, and international nuclear non-proliferation efforts. Sanctions imposed by Washington have severely constrained Iran's ability to export crude oil, access international banking networks, and attract foreign direct investment. Any eventual diplomatic breakthrough that leads to sanction relief could bring additional Iranian petroleum supply to global markets, altering energy flows and price dynamics.

For the broader international community, formal agreements between Washington and Tehran are viewed as the primary mechanism to address concerns surrounding Iran’s nuclear development program. Since the collapse of prior diplomatic pacts, Iran has significantly advanced its nuclear infrastructure, operating advanced centrifuges and accumulating uranium enriched well beyond commercial power generation requirements. A framework that brings both nations back to binding legal obligations is seen by non-proliferation experts as essential for reducing the risk of regional escalation.

Furthermore, Pezeshkian's framing highlights the persistent challenge of political trust in international relations. By anchoring Tehran's position in international law, the Iranian government is attempting to appeal to non-aligned nations and international bodies, arguing that its stance is defensive and grounded in global order rather than ideological rejectionism.

Direct diplomatic relations between the United States and Iran were severed in April 1980 following the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the subsequent takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. For over three decades, communication between the two states occurred largely through diplomatic proxies, such as the Swiss Embassy in Tehran and middle-eastern intermediaries including Qatar and Oman.

The most significant diplomatic breakthrough occurred in July 2015, when Iran and the P5+1 group of world powers—the U.S., United Kingdom, France, China, Russia, plus Germany—signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Under the terms of the JCPOA, Iran agreed to strict limits on its nuclear activity, including capping uranium enrichment at 3.67 percent and reducing its low-enriched uranium stockpile by 98 percent, in exchange for comprehensive relief from U.S., European Union, and UN sanctions. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors repeatedly verified Iranian compliance with the agreement.

However, in May 2018, U.S. President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew the United States from the JCPOA, reinstituting expansive economic sanctions under a policy termed "maximum pressure." In response to the withdrawal and the failure of European signatories to protect Iranian commerce from secondary U.S. sanctions, Tehran began incrementally reducing its compliance with the agreement's nuclear limits starting in May 2019. Over subsequent years, Iran expanded its enrichment capabilities up to 60 percent purity—a short technical step from the 90 percent threshold required for weaponization.

Efforts to revive the JCPOA through indirect talks in Vienna between 2021 and 2023 yielded no final agreement, leaving nuclear monitoring in a precarious state. Following the death of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi in a helicopter crash in May 2024, Masoud Pezeshkian was elected president in July 2024. Pezeshkian, a former heart surgeon and health minister who ran on a platform of domestic reform and pragmatic foreign policy, appointed veteran diplomats to his cabinet with the explicit goal of negotiating sanction relief. However, under Iran's constitutional system, ultimate authority over strategic state matters, including foreign policy and the nuclear program, rests with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Reaction

Official responses to President Pezeshkian's statements reflect the deep division and caution that characterize relations between Iran and Western capitals. U.S. officials have consistently maintained that statements of intent from Tehran must be matched by concrete steps to halt advanced nuclear activities and cooperate fully with IAEA inspectors.

Within Iran, Pezeshkian's diplomatic overtures face scrutiny from domestic conservative factions. Iranian hardliners in the Majlis (parliament) have frequently expressed skepticism regarding negotiations with Washington, citing the U.S. exit from the 2015 nuclear deal as evidence that American administrations cannot be trusted to honor long-term commitments. Conversely, reformist and moderate political groups in Tehran support the president's initiative, viewing sanction relief as vital to controlling domestic inflation and restoring economic growth.

European powers—specifically the United Kingdom, France, and Germany (the E3)—have repeatedly urged both Washington and Tehran to re-engage in formal negotiations. Regional nations in the Persian Gulf, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which have engaged in their own diplomatic normalization with Tehran in recent years, generally favor de-escalation between the U.S. and Iran to prevent regional conflict from jeopardizing regional trade and infrastructure.

What we don't know yet

Several crucial elements of any potential path toward bilateral or multilateral agreements remain uncertain:

What to watch

Key indicators will reveal whether Pezeshkian’s statements translate into practical diplomatic progress over the coming months:

This account is based on reporting by TASS.