Iran's president defends expired US deal as economy seeks foreign investment

Iran's president stood before the cameras on Sunday with a simple message: his country needed a deal with the United States, and the expired agreement signed in June remained the best path forward. Masoud Pezeshkian was defending a memorandum of understanding that had already failed to deliver results. The 60-day timeline embedded in that accord had passed without movement from either side. Yet he pressed on, framing the stalled conflict as neither war nor peace—a liminal space that was suffocating the Iranian economy.

The core of Pezeshkian's argument was economic desperation. Foreign investors, he explained, are allergic to risk. Capital flees uncertainty. As long as Iran remained locked in this undefined state of hostility with the United States and Israel, money would stay away. The country needed to exit this phase, to resolve the ambiguity, to signal stability. He had the backing of Iran's Supreme National Security Council on this position, he said, grounded in what he called dignity, wisdom, and national interest. The agreement itself, he insisted, contained no capitulation. "The supreme leader sets the policies, and we will follow that path," he said—a careful reminder that ultimate authority rested elsewhere, with the religious establishment that holds final say over all major decisions.

The memorandum Pezeshkian was defending had been signed by Donald Trump in June. It promised a framework for ending the broader US-Israeli military campaign against Iran and required Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program. But the real world had moved differently. Six months earlier, Iran had closed the Strait of Hormuz in response to American and Israeli strikes. That chokepoint—through which much of the world's oil flows—remained sealed, strangling global commerce and energy markets. The deadline for the accord had come and gone with no breakthrough.

Yet even as Pezeshkian spoke of compromise and economic necessity, another voice from Tehran was delivering a starkly different message. Mohsen Rezaei, the newly appointed hardline leader of the Supreme National Security Council, issued a warning to Iran's neighbors: do not help the Americans. If they did, he said, Iran would retaliate "in a seismic manner." He was specific about the threat. If neighboring countries joined what he called the US economic war against Iran, Tehran would target the oil-shipping routes of the Persian Gulf—the alternative passages that bypass the closed Strait of Hormuz. The threat was unmistakable: Iran could escalate further, tightening the economic noose around the entire region.

This contradiction at the heart of Tehran's leadership—the president pleading for negotiation and investment, the security chief threatening escalation—played out against a backdrop of diplomatic activity. Pakistan's top military official, Asim Munir, was scheduled to arrive in Tehran on Monday. Pakistan had been instrumental in brokering the original memorandum between Washington and Tehran, and now it was trying again. The visit was framed as part of Islamabad's effort to consolidate peace and security in the region. Yet Pakistan's own recent moves complicated the picture. Earlier in August, Pakistan had signed a regional security cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia and Turkey—a move observers read as an attempt to counter Iranian influence. So Pakistan was simultaneously trying to mediate between Iran and the US while also aligning with countries wary of Iranian power.

The situation reflected a region in flux, with no clear resolution in sight. Pezeshkian's economic argument was rational and perhaps even compelling to investors and policymakers focused on commerce and stability. But Rezaei's threats suggested that significant elements within Iran's security establishment were not prepared to compromise. The Strait of Hormuz remained closed. The global economy remained disrupted. And Tehran was sending two incompatible signals—one toward negotiation, one toward escalation—leaving everyone from neighboring governments to international markets uncertain about what would come next.