MADRID – Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian made his debut at the United Nations General Assembly with a powerful speech addressing the Israel-Palestine conflict, condemning the atrocities committed against the people of Gaza.

In his address, he emphasized the importance of focusing on similarities rather than differences, while denouncing the injustices inflicted on the Iranian people by sanctions.

Pezeshkian expressed his willingness to engage in dialogue with neighboring countries and major world powers, a gesture analysts interpret as an attempt to balance Iran’s foreign policy. He highlighted that “injustice,” “oppression,” “greed,” and “poverty” are fundamental causes perpetuating war and bloodshed around the world. He also stressed Iran’s “readiness to cooperate with members of the nuclear agreement,” the “restoration of the Palestinian people’s right to determine their own destiny,” and the “violation of human rights through sanctions” as central themes of his message.

Regarding the war in Gaza, the president stated: “In the past year, the world has witnessed the true nature of the Israeli regime. It has seen how the leaders of this regime commit atrocities, killing more than 41,000 innocents in Gaza in just eleven months, the majority of whom are women and children. They call this genocide, the killing of children, these war crimes, and state terrorism ‘legitimate defense.’ They label hospitals, daycare centers, and schools as ‘legitimate military targets.’ And they accuse the brave people of the West and East who protest against this genocide of ‘antisemitism.’”

On the nuclear agreement, known as the JCPOA, Pezeshkian noted that Iran is prepared to engage with the signatory countries and that if the commitments of the original agreement—remember, unilaterally broken by the United States—are met, discussions can expand to other issues. For the Islamic Republic, the breakdown of the nuclear deal is seen as a manifestation of the West's lack of honesty and commitment. This distrust, coupled with the belief that the West never acts in good faith in its relations with Iran, forms part of Iran’s ideological perspective. Therefore, the Islamic Republic considers it necessary to seek guarantees from the other JCPOA signatories to ensure they fulfill their commitments should the agreement be renewed.

In this context, if the nuclear agreement is renewed, Iran may demand verification measures, especially in light of what occurred with the previous pact. This verification would need to be accompanied by economic penalties in case any of the signatory parties unilaterally decide to break the agreement again.

Pezeshkian also focused his speech on the need to “build a better world” in economic, political, and security terms, asserting that Iran is firmly willing to collaborate with the international community to achieve this goal. In an interview with Al Jazeera, the president stated that “Iran has no objections to dialogue, but the U.S. has never truly committed to it and constantly tries to destabilize the Islamic Republic. We are ready to negotiate with the U.S., as long as they approach the discussions with honesty and sincerity.”

These statements are similar to those made by Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei who in 2015, amid the negotiations for the nuclear agreement, made it clear that “if the agreement were fully implemented and with good faith by the United States, it would be possible to engage in dialogue and reach compromises on other issues.” This highlights that Iran is willing to maintain a constructive dialogue, provided it is based on honesty and does not exceed the political red lines of the Islamic Republic.

From a political perspective, the notion of dialogue must be understood as a discursive space influenced by varying distributions of power. The liberal idea that presents dialogue as a neutral domain, where actors engage in a balanced exchange, conceals the inequality inherent in the distribution of power within this space. In this liberal model, dialogue is configured as a non-political space, where it is unnecessary to take sides between “us” and “them.” This space relies on the illusion of unrestricted and total communication that will resolve differences.

However, what truly occurs is that one party imposes the rules of the game, while the other is compelled to operate under norms that are not their own. This dynamic reveals an unequal distribution of power. Any attempt to force a rupture that allows for a new political order is perceived by the more powerful party as a form of violence against rules that claim to be universal, when in fact they are particular.

For instance, when Resistance in Palestine or Lebanon responds to Zionist aggression, it is labeled as “violence” and condemned by the liberal discourse that seeks to protect the colonial status quo. Another strategy of this discourse is to speak of “two sides” in a supposed conflict, a construct based on the myth of denying the foundational moment of violence: the establishment of the Zionist colonial regime in 1948.

This episode was not an isolated event but rather a recurring occurrence in various forms and manifestations. Ignoring that foundational moment and its daily reiteration hinders the understanding of the violence inflicted upon Palestinians and Lebanese by the occupying and illegitimate regime.

The liberal myth relies on the omission of this crucial moment and tends to focus on the actions of Hamas or Hezbollah, which are perceived as “unjustified and completely irrational violence.” In other words, by overlooking the structural violence of Zionism, each act of Resistance against colonial aggression is misinterpreted as an initial act of violence.

This signifies an attempt to keep all political actors within a discursive framework filled with rules and norms that are applied unevenly: Israel's "right to defend itself" is labeled as "terrorism" when exercised by members of the Resistance. This phenomenon exemplifies the necessity of analyzing how power is distributed in the real world.

The Iranian president’s remarks, emphasizing that any dialogue must be conducted with honesty, underscore the importance of creating a common space that is free from power inequalities and, consequently, oppressions. This perspective suggests the need to establish an environment where all parties can express their viewpoints equitably, without one imposing its rules on the others. Honesty is presented as a fundamental requirement for facilitating a constructive exchange that can address injustices and inequalities in international relations.