U.S. President Trump: Possible Meeting with Iranian President
Trump stated that he is likely to meet with Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi in New York this week, using the opportunity of the high-level United Nations General Assembly meeting to engage in discussions regarding the nearly seven-month stalemate in the U.S.-Iran conflict. Trump also described himself as being in "decision mode," and has not yet determined whether or when to take new military action against Iran.
The U.S. and Israel have been conducting joint airstrikes against Iran since February 28, 2026, triggering a nearly seven-month-long Gulf War that has disrupted global shipping trade routes and driven up global energy prices. Iran has conveyed seven ceasefire conditions through Qatar, including the unfreezing of Iranian assets, lifting the U.S. Navy's blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, and resolving tensions between Saudi Arabia and the Houthi forces.
Trump's statements regarding Iran are filled with duality—on one hand, he expresses a "willingness" to engage in dialogue, while on the other hand, he hinted through Fox News about "whether to blow up the whole country" and warned that "very significant things will happen soon." Mohsen Rezaei, head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, responded by warning that if the U.S. launches a new round of attacks, it will face a strong counterattack and consider other regional countries as accomplices.
The high-level United Nations General Assembly meeting will be held from September 22 to 29, with the general debate opening on September 22. Iranian President Raisi and Foreign Minister Amir-Abdollahian have received U.S. visas to attend, but State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott announced that the Iranian delegation's activities in New York will be strictly limited to their residence and the UN headquarters, prohibiting visits to retail locations such as Costco, Sam's Club, and Walmart, and restricting media access as well.
A former White House official believes that this meeting period provides a "window of opportunity for closed-door consultations to seek some consensus on ceasefire arrangements" for both the U.S. and Iran, but as of now, there is no official confirmation of a formal bilateral meeting, and Trump's statements remain at the level of "possible meeting," with significant uncertainty.
From a market perspective, if the U.S. and Iran use this opportunity to advance ceasefire negotiations, the blockade in the Strait of Hormuz and the supply gap of approximately 10 to 14 million barrels per day in the Middle East may gradually ease, which would directly impact JPMorgan's previous pessimistic forecast of global oil inventories reaching operational limits in September. However, if the meeting fails to achieve substantial progress or even collapses, Trump's statement about "blowing up the whole country" could indicate further escalation of the conflict, leading to significant volatility in oil and refined product prices in the short term.
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
Trump has a long history of handling foreign conflicts with a style of "maximum pressure + sudden turn to dialogue," having previously exhibited similar alternating statements of "threatening while offering goodwill" on issues such as North Korea and Venezuela. The U.S.-Iran war has been ongoing for nearly seven months since the joint airstrikes began in late February, during which both sides have communicated conditions through a third party (Qatar) without direct contact. This signal of engagement during the UN General Assembly continues his consistent approach of using international occasions to create diplomatic breakthroughs.
The war has significantly raised global energy prices and disrupted shipping trade routes for nearly seven months. JPMorgan has previously warned that global oil inventories may approach operational limits in September. If ceasefire negotiations make progress, funds may quickly flow back from oil longs and safe-haven assets to risk assets, and sectors such as shipping and refining, which have been negatively impacted by risk premiums in the Strait of Hormuz, may see valuation recovery. Conversely, if the meeting fails to yield results, funds will continue to concentrate on energy and defensive assets.
This scenario is reminiscent of the interactions between U.S. and North Korean leaders seeking contact through international venues from 2018 to 2019—during which Trump similarly switched between maximum pressure and direct meetings, attempting to achieve a personal diplomatic breakthrough. The current U.S.-Iran conflict is in a "military stalemate, accumulating economic costs, with both sides having motives for a ceasefire but mutual distrust," a situation highly comparable to the early stages of negotiations over the North Korean nuclear issue.
Essentially, this represents a transfer of geopolitical risk pricing power—a potential summit-level contact itself is a key variable for the market to reassess the duration of supply disruptions in the Middle East. As long as the expectation of a "possible meeting" exists, the risk premium for oil and refined products will be partially factored into prices; this means that even if the meeting ultimately does not occur, the mere act of "releasing a signal of engagement" has the practical effect of redistributing market hedging positions and pricing power.
ABAB News · Cognitive Law
The most expensive part of war is never the fighting, but the guessing of when it will stop.
A "possible meeting" can move oil prices more than a missile.
Maximum pressure and extending an olive branch are often two hands of the same person.