"🔥 TRUMP VS. IRAN AT THE U.N: THE SHOCKING MOVE NO ONE SAW COMING!"
President Donald Trump said American officials held three hours of talks with Iran Tuesday alongside the United Nations General Assembly.
The discussions followed Trump’s forceful U.N. speech, where he threatened further military action unless Tehran accepts a negotiated settlement.
Trump said special envoy Steve Witkoff and adviser Jared Kushner participated in what he described as a “very good meeting.”
He said the session lasted roughly three hours and added that they expected another meeting “in the very near future.”
However, accounts differed over whether American and Iranian officials actually met face-to-face during Tuesday’s diplomacy.
Witkoff said mediators “shuttled between the two sides throughout the day,” describing the contact as lengthy indirect discussions.
He said the mediators “successfully completed a round of discussions” that Washington hopes will prove “constructive and promising.”
Reuters reported that the talks were the first sustained U.S.-Iran shuttle negotiations in months during the nearly seven-month conflict.
The diplomacy came hours after Trump delivered some of his strongest public warnings yet against Iran’s government.
“I have a big decision to make,” Trump told world leaders gathered at United Nations headquarters in New York.
He asked whether Iran would make a deal allowing the country to rebuild or face overwhelming American military escalation.
Trump said the alternative could be to “annihilate the Islamic Republic,” language that prompted Iran’s delegation to walk out.
Another portion of Trump’s address asked whether he should “drive them into hell” if Tehran rejected an acceptable agreement.
Despite that rhetoric, Trump later sounded more optimistic while discussing the diplomatic contacts with reporters in New York.
“I think that a settlement is going to be reached,” Trump said after meeting British Prime Minister Andy Burnham.
He added, “They want to talk to us,” and said contacts between Washington and Tehran were continuing Tuesday.
Trump nevertheless repeated his longstanding condition that Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon under any future agreement.
The president also predicted the broader conflict could end after November’s midterm elections, while acknowledging timing remained uncertain.
“We think that the situation with Iran could end right after the midterm elections, maybe before,” Trump said.
Negotiations are heavily focused on the Strait of Hormuz, whose wartime disruption has shaken global oil and shipping markets.
Before the war, roughly one-fifth of globally traded oil and gas moved through that strategically critical Persian Gulf passage.
A senior Iranian official told Reuters Tehran could reopen Hormuz within seven days if Washington satisfies several conditions.
Those demands include easing American military pressure and lifting the U.S. blockade imposed on Iranian ports during the war.
Iran said it conveyed its latest reopening proposal to Washington through mediators last week before the U.N. negotiations.
Tehran has also demanded an end to hostilities and the release of frozen Iranian assets as part of broader discussions.
Gulf governments are pressing for restored shipping while remaining concerned about Iran’s regional military influence and continuing instability.
Trump met regional leaders Tuesday as Qatar advanced a proposed security framework involving Iran and neighboring Arab Gulf states.
Qatar’s prime minister also met Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, underscoring Doha’s continuing role as an intermediary.
Oil markets reacted to the diplomatic movement after months of elevated prices tied to war and restricted Gulf shipping.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Washington remained open to diplomacy, while warning the regional conflict remained highly dangerous.
Trump’s administration is pairing negotiations with economic pressure and the continued possibility of additional military action against Iran.
No final agreement was announced Tuesday, and neither side publicly described any substantive change in its core negotiating positions.
Time will tell what happens next and if any deals are announced.
"🚨 BRANSON'S SCATHING ATTACK! — HE BLASTS TRUMP OVER PUTIN TIES AND URGES EUROPE TO STAND FIRM!"
British billionaire Sir Richard Branson has launched a fierce public attack on Donald Trump, accusing the U.S. administration of appeasing dictators and putting personal preferences ahead of American and allied interests.
The Virgin Group founder made his criticism in a LinkedIn post published this week, questioning why Trump appeared so willing to accommodate Russian President Vladimir Putin while Ukraine continues to face Russia’s invasion.
Branson described the administration as an “appeaser to autocrats and dictators,” arguing that its approach could weaken confidence among America’s traditional allies and undermine the interests of democratic nations.
He also raised a pointed question about the president’s relationship with Putin, asking why Trump seemed to flatter the Russian leader despite the continuing war and widespread international concern over Moscow’s actions.
The remarks come amid renewed controversy over a reported agreement involving Russian diesel supplies and a temporary easing of U.S. sanctions on Russian energy exports.
Trump has defended the arrangement as beneficial to fuel markets, while critics argue that allowing Russian energy revenues to flow could indirectly help Moscow sustain its war effort.
Branson called the deal deeply hypocritical, pointing to the contrast between Washington’s previous willingness to penalize countries purchasing Russian energy and its own decision to ease restrictions.
His criticism extended beyond energy policy. He also condemned Trump’s public attacks on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, describing the administration’s treatment of Ukraine as a betrayal during a period of war and suffering.
The billionaire’s intervention follows mounting concern in Kyiv and across Europe about the durability of American support for Ukraine, particularly as diplomatic efforts have struggled to produce a lasting settlement.
Branson also expressed alarm about reports involving restrictions on Starshield services used by Ukraine, a technology issue that has raised questions about the country’s access to crucial battlefield communications.
Some of Branson’s claims about the consequences of satellite-service restrictions have not been independently confirmed, and the details of decisions involving military communications remain disputed.
He urged European leaders to respond more decisively, arguing that the continent cannot simply wait for Washington to determine the future of Ukraine’s security and its broader relationship with Russia.
His proposed response reportedly included considering the use of frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine and supplying more advanced weapons, measures that would intensify the confrontation with Moscow.
The comments place Branson among a relatively small group of prominent business leaders willing to criticize Trump directly over foreign policy, despite the political and commercial sensitivities surrounding such interventions.
Branson has previously spoken out in support of Ukraine and criticized approaches that he believes would pressure Kyiv into accepting an unfavorable peace agreement with Russia.
The latest dispute also comes at a politically sensitive moment in the United States, with congressional midterm elections approaching and foreign policy increasingly intertwined with domestic debates over leadership and national priorities.
Supporters of Trump’s approach may argue that direct engagement with Moscow and energy-market flexibility can serve American interests, even when such policies provoke disagreement among allies.
Critics counter that concessions to Russia risk weakening deterrence and sending an unsettling message to countries relying on the United States for diplomatic, economic and military support.
The disagreement reflects a broader debate over whether negotiations and economic pragmatism can help end the war—or whether they could give Moscow additional leverage without securing meaningful concessions.
For Ukraine, the stakes remain immediate: continued military pressure, uncertainty over international support and the search for a settlement that preserves its sovereignty remain central concerns.
Branson’s intervention adds another prominent voice to the dispute, challenging the White House’s handling of Russia and demanding a stronger response from Europe as the conflict continues.
