"Iran’s president says Tehran wants a deal with U.S. before midterm elections"

#BigIfTrue but …

But why would you, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, say this out loud? TRUMP saying the similar? No surprise.

But, Iran, which has kept the upper hand? Aren’t you surrendering it?

“We don’t want it to get to the midterm elections,” Pezeshkian said Thursday in a brief meeting with NBC News and other news organizations on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly.

“We wish Americans to return to the MOU before the midterms,” Pezeshkian added, referring to a memorandum of understanding between the U.S. and Iran that laid out plans for a temporary ceasefire.

Sure sounds to me like a surrender.

One option of what’s behind this? Wrongfooting Trump’s comments at the UNGA:

“I believe we’ll make a deal right after the election because it doesn’t make sense for them not to,” Trump said. “They’re waiting to see how I do in the midterm election.”

In this case, we’re in the world of Shrub Bush strategery. Pezeshkian thinks Trump’s comment reflects that he’s worried about the midterms, and somebody is telling him that he’s got one week, no more, left before it’s too late to even mildly and consistently influence downward oil, gasoline and diesel prices before the election, and definitely before early voting starts in many states.

And, that bolded “consistently” is key.

We’re in the world of Trump peddling the latest round of Norman Vincent Peale vs Pezeshkian peddling the latest round of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khoumenei or something. And, since the ultimate audience for Trump’s peddling of Peale is one person — himself — Pezeshkian should know better.

I mean, even during Trump 1.0, it was pretty much a mug’s game for anybody trying to outthink him. Now, in Trump 2.0, the word “think” isn’t even operative.

Option 2 is that Iran is worried that in the “lame duck” session, Trump will be more pissed than now, especially if Democrats retake the Senate as well as the House in midterms. In that case, they must be looking at Kalshi and other predictions markets.

Option 3? Hardliners in the mullahs, Revolutionary Guards or other elements are pushing Pezeshkian and this is ultimately a statement for internal public consumption. Exactly what that pressure might be, I don’t know. I’m not an Iran expert, but, that said, I’ve heard nothing recently about such pressure.

There had been pressure before the UNGA, but that appears to have abated, per this piece. Note this:

A notable signal came from Yahya Rahim Safavi, a former commander-in-chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps who now serves as military adviser to [Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei].

“If the leader of the revolution has now deemed it in the country’s interest and has left the government open to negotiations, that is a very important act of prudence,” Maj Gen Safavi said, leaving room for talks without requiring Iran’s security establishment to describe them as a retreat.

So, right now, he’s OK again. Or is he?

Also from the same piece, note this:

The ultraconservative Kayhan newspaper warned that “New York is not a place for smiles and negotiations”, urging Mr Pezeshkian instead to turn the UN into “a courtroom for American crimes”. Other hardline voices have questioned whether Iran should have attended the General Assembly at all.

There you are.

Option 4 could be trying to further undercut Netanyahu’s UNGA visit, but per this piece, I don’t think that needs much help.