Note: This article refers to the “Islamic Republic of Iran” when discussing official state rhetoric, and “Iran” when referring to the broader nation, people, or historical tradition. The distinction reflects the widespread rejection among many Iranians of conflating the regime with the country itself.
Last year, PersuMedia asked whether the Islamic Republic’s rhetoric at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) reflected continuity or change. President Masoud Pezeshkian’s 2024 address hinted at stylistic moderation while preserving familiar themes of anti-imperialism, resistance, and defense of the nuclear program. In 2025, Pezeshkian returned to the UNGA under even more volatile conditions—direct U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iranian soil, looming snapback sanctions, and a region shaken by protracted war in Gaza. His speech revealed the enduring features of the Islamic Republic’s diplomatic voice, as well as subtle refinements that matter for understanding its self-presentation to the world.
Continuity: The Familiar Cadence of Defiance
From the very first revolutionary address in 1979, the Islamic Republic’s leaders have used the UNGA to perform a familiar script: condemning Western hegemony, denouncing Israel’s occupation of Palestine, and asserting Iran’s sovereign right to nuclear technology under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Pezeshkian 2025 followed this template.
He accused Washington and Tel Aviv of crimes against international law, recalled the deaths of Iranian civilians and scientists, and described two years of “genocide, starvation, and apartheid” in Gaza. Like Ahmadinejad before him, he sought to turn the courtroom of world opinion against the United States and Israel. Like Raisi, he blended sharp denunciations of Western powers with insistence that the Islamic Republic has never sought nuclear weapons.
The continuity is striking: grievances, defiance, and the invocation of double standards remain the backbone of official rhetoric.
Subtle Shifts: From Resistance to Regional Vision
And yet, the 2025 speech contained nuances that distinguish Pezeshkian’s style.
-
Ethical universalism: He opened by citing the Golden Rule across Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Eastern traditions, and secular moral philosophy. He closed with Saadi’s Bani Adam poem. This broadened the message from narrow victimhood to a claim of universal moral authority.
-
Regional vision: For the first time in years, the president articulated a proactive vision of a “strong region” based on collective security, cultural diversity, environmental stewardship, and energy fairness. He contrasted Israel’s “peace through power” with the Islamic Republic’s “power through peace”—a rhetorical upgrade from defensive posture to positive branding.
-
Regional diplomacy references: Pezeshkian pointed to Armenia–Azerbaijan peace talks, the Saudi–Pakistan defense pact, and solidarity with Qatar after Israeli strikes. These examples embed Iran within a cooperative architecture rather than an isolated resistance camp.
Rhetoric vs. Reality: Hypocrisy or Realism?
-
Hypocrisy in tone: Invoking prophets and poets while repressing dissent at home creates a noticeable gap. The Islamic Republic’s domestic human rights record undermines its claim to a universalist posture. Likewise, calls for “power through peace” ring hollow when it continues to fund and arm militias across the region.
-
Realism in aim: At the same time, the vision of a “strong region” is not empty words. Tehran has already moved toward rapprochement with Saudi Arabia, engaged in mediation in the South Caucasus, and joined forums such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Its need for economic relief and regional integration makes such rhetoric more pragmatic than it appears.
-
The gray zone: Ultimately, Pezeshkian’s speech is aspirational realism. The ideas are strategically sound, but credibility remains fragile. As PersuMedia’s earlier analysis on negotiations in an age of crisis management demonstrates, diplomacy today is constrained by urgent trade-offs, rather than grand bargains. In this light, his soaring rhetoric functions as strategic framing—less a roadmap than an attempt to reposition the Islamic Republic’s global image.
Constraints and Crisis Diplomacy
Still, the limits of Pezeshkian’s maneuvering are evident. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has ruled out direct talks with Washington, and the Islamic Republic remains under intense economic pressure. His denunciations of “bullies” and “hegemonies” reveal the tight constraints on his diplomacy.
This matches PersuMedia’s broader analysis in Negotiations in an Age of Crisis Management and Negotiations Are Not Dead, But They’re Down to Crisis-Management Trade-Offs. Negotiation space has narrowed: what remains is crisis bargaining under duress, not expansive diplomacy. Pezeshkian’s vision of regional cooperation may be aspirational, but the structural reality is transactional crisis management—whether over sanctions relief, nuclear inspections, or military de-escalation.
Khamenei and Pezeshkian: Converging Lines, Diverging Registers
To understand Pezeshkian’s address, it is essential to set it against Ayatollah Khamenei’s televised remarks to the Iranian public just a day earlier. Both men spoke in the aftermath of the “12-day war” and amid looming sanctions snapback. Both invoked national resilience, celebrated scientific progress, and warned against the use of coercive diplomacy. But the way each framed these points reveals the dual track of the Islamic Republic’s political narrative: one inward, one outward.
Convergence: The Shared Script of Resistance
At their core, the two speeches align. Both stress unity as the bedrock of survival. Khamenei called the people’s cohesion “a clenched fist of steel on the enemy’s head”; Pezeshkian spoke of the “sacred national unity” forged in defense. Both underscore the value of scientific achievement, particularly enrichment, as a symbol of sovereignty. And both insist that negotiations dictated by the United States are illegitimate: Khamenei described them as “useless and harmful,” while Pezeshkian dismissed dialogue with “bullies and coercive powers.”
Divergence: Registers and Audiences
Yet the divergences are telling. Khamenei’s register is domestic and disciplinary. His speech is aimed at reinforcing red lines, mobilizing the faithful, and inoculating the system against any hint of concession. Negotiation with America is a “trap,” and the only cure is to “grow strong in all dimensions—military, scientific, organizational.” The emphasis is sovereignty through resistance, full stop.
By contrast, Pezeshkian’s UNGA speech is international and aspirational. He invokes prophets and poets, cites the Golden Rule, and positions the Islamic Republic as custodian of “power through peace.” He embeds Iran in a wider regional vision—pointing to Armenia–Azerbaijan talks, Saudi–Pakistan pacts, and solidarity with Qatar. His is a vocabulary designed to resonate with non-aligned states and global civil society, not just his domestic base.
Implications: Dual Narratives, One Ceiling
Seen through PersuMedia’s lens, this is not contradiction but calibration. Khamenei sets the ceiling: no U.S.-dictated negotiations, no compromise on enrichment, no reliance on Western promises. Pezeshkian sketches the floor: a moral and regional narrative that seeks legitimacy abroad and soft power among audiences less hostile to Iran. One voice disciplines the domestic sphere; the other courts the international arena. Together, they illustrate how the Islamic Republic narrates its diplomacy under constraint—anchored in resistance, but experimenting with frames that might soften its isolation.
The Broader Arc of the Islamic Republic’s UNGA Voice
Looking across four decades, a pattern emerges:
-
Defiance (Ahmadinejad, Raisi): confrontational rhetoric against the West.
-
Engagement (Khatami, Rouhani): gestures toward dialogue and moderation.
-
Moral framing (Pezeshkian): blending resistance with appeals to universal ethics and cultural heritage.
The substance remains consistent—Palestine, sanctions, sovereignty—but the frame evolves. Where Rouhani sought global reassurance, and Raisi sought ideological alignment, Pezeshkian seeks moral legitimacy and regional ownership.
Conclusion: Continuity in Substance, Refinement in Framing
Pezeshkian’s 2025 UNGA speech confirms that continuity outweighs change in the Islamic Republic’s rhetoric. The anti-imperialist backbone remains intact. Yet the shift matters: by invoking prophets and poets, by branding “power through peace,” and by embedding the Islamic Republic in a “strong region” vision, Pezeshkian refines its self-presentation.
For analysts and policymakers, the lesson is clear: these speeches are less about signaling imminent policy shifts than about framing legitimacy in a constrained diplomatic landscape. As PersuMedia has argued elsewhere, in an era of crisis-management trade-offs, the UNGA remains the stage for narrating resilience, defiance, and—now—regional aspiration.
© PersuMedia 2025. All rights reserved.
PersuMedia analysis may be cited with proper attribution to PersuMedia (PersuMedia.com).
