Iran President Accuses US, Israel of Attacks at UNGA Amid War; US Delegation Walks OutDeep Dive

What Happened

On Wednesday, September 23, 2026, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian delivered a contentious address at the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York City. During his speech, Pezeshkian accused the United States and Israel of launching attacks on Iranian civilians, displaying images of children reportedly killed in a school strike and photos of the late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. He specifically claimed the United States used 'weapons with multiple warheads' to target a sports hall, resulting in the 'martyrdom' and 'assassination' of Iranian scientists, men, women, and children. Pezeshkian defended Tehran’s conduct in its ongoing conflict with the United States, stating, 'America and Israel attacked us, equipped with the latest technology and weapons systems, and our people stood steadfast. Yes, they did hit us, but we did not bend the knee.' He further asserted that Iran would not surrender and was 'not afraid of fighting,' vowing to defend the country 'until our last breath.' As Pezeshkian began criticizing the United States, a member of the U.S. delegation walked out of the General Assembly hall, a move corroborated by multiple news outlets including Fox News Digital, The Hill, and Al Jazeera. Outside the UN headquarters, 'Free Iran' protests were held, with demonstrators, including former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, denouncing the Iranian government's repression of dissent and restrictions on women’s rights.

What the Evidence Establishes

The evidence establishes that Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian delivered a speech at the UN General Assembly on September 23, 2026, where he explicitly accused the United States and Israel of attacking Iranian civilians. This accusation included a specific claim that the U.S. targeted a sports hall in Lamerd. CENTCOM, the U.S. Central Command, has denied these specific allegations, stating that American forces did not strike Lamerd or anywhere within 30 miles of it on the opening day of 'Operation Epic Fury.' The U.S. delegation, as reported by Fox News Digital, The Hill, and Al Jazeera, walked out of the General Assembly during Pezeshkian's criticism of the United States. This walkout followed a similar action by Iranian and Cuban delegations during President Trump's speech the previous day. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly issued immediate rebuttals, with Rubio stating Iran 'has no credibility defending the international order' due to its alleged sponsorship of terrorist organizations and attacks on neighbors. Kelly added that the Iranian regime has 'murdered thousands of its own people, killed Americans overseas, executed acts of terrorism in the Strait of Hormuz, and launched indiscriminate attacks against its neighbors in the region.'

Where the Accounts Conflict

The primary conflict in accounts centers on the responsibility for attacks on Iranian civilians and the overall narrative of the ongoing war. President Pezeshkian explicitly stated, 'America and Israel attacked us,' and accused the U.S. of targeting a sports hall in Lamerd, leading to civilian casualties. He presented this as an act of aggression against Iran. Conversely, CENTCOM has directly refuted Pezeshkian's specific claim regarding the Lamerd strike, asserting that U.S. forces were not operating in that area during 'Operation Epic Fury.' U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly, framed Iran as the aggressor, citing its alleged sponsorship of terrorism, attacks on energy infrastructure, and human rights violations. Pezeshkian characterized Iran's actions as self-defense against 'cowardly attacks and aggressions imposed upon our country,' while U.S. officials described Iran's conduct as a violation of the UN system and international norms. This fundamental disagreement over who initiated hostilities and who is responsible for civilian casualties forms the core of the conflicting narratives presented by the Iranian and U.S. administrations at the United Nations General Assembly on September 23, 2026.

Context and Stakes

President Pezeshkian's address occurred amidst months of escalating conflict between Iran and the United States, characterized by 'failed diplomatic efforts and mounting international pressure on Tehran.' The war has been ongoing for nearly seven months, with President Trump having previously warned Iran would be hit 'really hard' if nuclear negotiations collapsed again, and even threatening to 'annihilate the Islamic Republic.' The United Nations General Assembly provides a high-profile international platform for both nations to present their narratives and garner support. For Iran, Pezeshkian's speech served to defend its actions, accuse its adversaries, and project an image of steadfast resistance against perceived aggression. For the United States, the walkout and subsequent rebuttals from Secretary Rubio and Deputy Press Secretary Kelly underscored its rejection of Iran's claims and its commitment to its own narrative of Iranian destabilization in the region. The stakes are significant, involving regional stability, international diplomatic credibility, and the potential for further escalation in a conflict that has already seen considerable military engagement and diplomatic tension. The exchange highlights the deep chasm in understanding and intent between Washington and Tehran, with each side portraying the other as the primary threat to peace and stability.

What to Watch Next

Observers should monitor several key developments following President Pezeshkian's UNGA address. First, watch for any further specific evidence or intelligence Iran might present to substantiate its claims of U.S. and Israeli attacks on civilians, particularly regarding the alleged Lamerd sports hall strike. The absence or presence of such corroborating details will be critical. Second, observe the nature and timing of any additional formal responses from the U.S. Mission to the UN or the State Department, beyond the initial statements from Secretary Rubio and Anna Kelly. A more detailed, evidence-based rebuttal could further clarify the U.S. position. Third, pay attention to President Trump's public statements in the coming days and weeks, especially concerning Iran's nuclear program and the ongoing conflict. His rhetoric often signals potential shifts in U.S. policy or military posture. Fourth, assess the reactions from other world leaders and international bodies to Pezeshkian's accusations and the U.S. walkout; their statements could indicate shifts in international consensus or diplomatic pressure on either side. Finally, any reported military actions or incidents in the Strait of Hormuz or the broader Middle East region will be crucial indicators of whether the diplomatic confrontation at the UN translates into renewed kinetic activity, particularly given the ongoing 'Operation Epic Fury' and the seven-month mark of the war.

Bottom Line

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian utilized his platform at the United Nations General Assembly on September 23, 2026, to directly accuse the United States and Israel of attacking Iranian civilians, including a specific claim about a sports hall in Lamerd. He presented Iran's actions as self-defense in an ongoing conflict. The U.S. delegation responded by walking out during his speech, and U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly, immediately refuted Pezeshkian's claims, with CENTCOM denying the Lamerd strike. They instead characterized Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism and a violator of international norms. This diplomatic confrontation underscores the deep and unresolved tensions between Iran and the U.S. amid a protracted conflict, with both nations leveraging the global stage to advance their respective narratives and rally international opinion. The exchange highlights a significant divergence in the interpretation of events and responsibilities, with no immediate indication of de-escalation or diplomatic breakthrough.