Washington has answered. Tehran isn't saying what the answer was. If you're just joining us: the US and Iran have been at war for seven months. A June memorandum briefly brought a ceasefire, then collapsed. Last week at the UN, Qatari mediators shuttled between the two delegations, and Iran pitched a seven-day plan to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Trump publicly rejected it. As of yesterday's show, no formal US reply had been reported. You're on Iran War Daily. And it turns out the reply came right around the time Washington was, depending on who you ask, throwing Iran's foreign minister out of New York. We'll lay out both accounts. Plus the last US troops leave Iraq, tankers hit in Hormuz, and Britain's prime minister points at Iran over RAF Fairford. This story isn't over: US-Iran deal negotiations. Follow us wherever you're listening, and the next chapter comes to you.
Reuters, with Ahmed Rasheed, Jana Choukeir and Andrew Mills, via The Globe and Mail:
An official briefed on the talks, who is not Iranian and spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity, said the Qataris had briefed Araqchi on the U.S. response on Tuesday when Araqchi stopped off in Doha on his way home from New York. According to the official, the sides largely agree about the steps that are needed but still disagree about the order in which to take them.
So the answer we were all waiting on yesterday? Qatar had already handed it to Araghchi in Doha on Tuesday, on his way home. And the big reveal is: everyone agrees on the steps, nobody agrees on who goes first. Let's be careful about what's actually on the record. Iran's government spokesperson, Fatemeh Mohajerani, says Araghchi presented the US response to President Pezeshkian's Cabinet on Wednesday. The AP notes Iranian officials didn't say what it contained, or whether it was a rejection. The steps-agreed, order-disputed reading comes from one anonymous, non-Iranian official speaking to Reuters. And Pezeshkian's line was, quote, "The agreement must now be based on a win-win strategy." Win-win, from a government whose currency went past two and a half million rials to the dollar on Tuesday. Record low. The last record was September 2, at 2.2 million. That's the pressure behind the sequencing fight. The Institute for the Study of War assesses that Iran wants some economic relief before it eases Hormuz or makes any nuclear concessions. Washington's reported position runs the other way: relief only for concrete nuclear steps. And on Tuesday the Treasury sanctioned ten more people and companies in Iran, Hong Kong and Pakistan. A reply in one hand, the screws in the other. Who blinks before the next tanker gets hit?
Iran International reports:
Axios cited a US official as saying Rubio “kicked out” the Iranian delegation after it had “overstayed their welcome.” The US mission to the United Nations informed Iran’s mission Monday evening that the delegation had to leave immediately, according to the report.
"Overstayed their welcome." That's not diplomacy, that's a bouncer at closing time. And per Axios, that Monday started with the White House thinking there might still be progress. Two accounts here, and I'd keep them side by side. Axios, citing a US official and a second source, says Secretary of State Marco Rubio ordered the delegation out after the talks stalled. The AP, citing two US officials, says they were told to leave earlier than planned. Iran's UN mission says the departure followed a schedule given to the State Department back on September 17, and calls the story, quote, "baseless and worthless news." Notably, even Axios's second source says Araghchi was already scheduled to fly home Monday night. He boarded a flight to Doha at 1:20 a.m. Tuesday. So the fight is over whether he was kicked out or just walked out on time. Meanwhile Trump tells reporters in the Oval Office, "We blow them up or make a deal." And Hegseth tells troops at Quantico that US forces "destroyed" Iran's navy and air force. Those are their claims, on the record, per Gulf News. Set against them: the US reply still moved through Qatar the very next day. Rubio's order, if that's what it was, didn't close the channel. Just the door to the building.
France 24, with Reuters:
The departure, celebrated as a victory by Tehran and its allies, was agreed in 2024 under US President Joe Biden and carried out by current President Donald Trump's administration even as it wages war against Iran, which wields influence in Iraq through proxies.
Twenty-three years after Saddam fell, the last US troops leave their bases in Iraq on Wednesday. In the middle of a war with the country next door. And an Iraqi militia commander calls it, quote, "a crushing defeat for the American project." That's Abu Mojtaba al-Yasiri, of the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, the umbrella group of Iran-backed factions, speaking to Reuters. For context: the Pentagon says US forces will keep up targeted training and intelligence support for Iraqi partners. And Iraq is not a sideshow in this war. Of the 18 US service members listed as killed since February, seven died there. So here's my second-order question: who disarms the militias now? ISW points to a Washington Post report that defectors from Asaib Ahl al-Haq formed a new armed group with "significant" Iranian support. The Post says it's taken part in recent attacks on Saudi energy. And Wednesday was the original deadline for disarming those militias. Iraq's prime minister has pushed it to June 2027. And France 24's sources raise a separate worry: Islamic State sleeper cells, with US surveillance gone. So the troops leave, and the militias keep their missiles.
Atlantic Digest writes, drawing on UK maritime security alerts:
UKMTO issued delayed reports covering four incidents involving vessels in the Strait of Hormuz on September 28 and 29. One involved the very large crude carrier Al Funtas, operated by Kuwait Oil Tanker Company. It was struck by an unknown projectile on September 28, resulting in a fire that was extinguished. The crew was reported safe and there was no reported pollution.
A Kuwaiti supertanker on fire in the Strait while the diplomats argue about sequencing. And three more tankers hit after that, one of them described in some accounts as an LNG carrier. Two cautions. First, counts and dates differ by outlet. Atlantic Digest tallies four incidents across September 28 and 29. Reuters says UKMTO reported on Wednesday that two ships had been hit by projectiles the day before. Second, attribution. UKMTO describes unknown projectiles and doesn't name an attacker. Iran is the obvious suspect, but responsibility hasn't been established. Fine. Now the real-economy part. Kpler data cited in the piece puts September flows through Hormuz at around 7.4 million barrels a day, against about 18.8 million before the war. Better, nowhere near normal. And Saudi crude through Hormuz jumped to about 2.58 million barrels a day, up from about one million in August. Which is a strange reversal. Early in the war, Riyadh moved more crude through its East-West pipeline to the Red Sea to avoid Hormuz. Then Houthi attacks made that route hazardous, and the pipeline itself was attacked on September 10. So Saudi oil is back in the strait Iran is threatening. Squeezed between two chokepoints. Insurance and freight costs stay elevated, per the same piece. Drivers pay for that long before anyone signs a memorandum.
Gulf News, in its live coverage:
Prime Minister Andy Burnham said there are “strong indications” Iran played a role, while stressing the investigation is ongoing. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi rejected the claim on X, arguing the suspects’ release undermined the allegation. Police said petrol was found in the men’s vans but no explosives, the BBC reported.
On Monday we told you about five men arrested near RAF Fairford, the Gloucestershire base US B-1 and B-2 bombers flew from to strike Iran. Now the British prime minister says "strong indications" of Iran. And the five men are out on bail. That tension is the story. Burnham says strong indications, and in the same breath says the investigation is ongoing. Police, per the BBC, found petrol in the vans but no explosives. Araghchi says the release itself undercuts the allegation. Nothing in front of us lays out the evidence behind those indications. And Trump says more information will come out about why Britain released them on bail. An allegation, a denial, and a bail decision. I'd wait for Counter Terrorism Policing before anyone calls this an Iranian plot on British soil. Fair. But if it holds up, this war's spillover map just reached a lot further than Lebanon and Iraq.
If Iran War Daily helps you keep the claims and the confirmed facts apart, take a moment to rate and review us wherever you're listening. It really does help other listeners find the show.
We'll be watching for any sign of what Washington's reply actually says, and whether Tehran answers it through Doha. We're also keeping an eye on the next maritime alert out of Hormuz. Links to every story are in the show notes if you want to read more about anything that caught your attention. That's Iran War Daily for today. We'll be back tomorrow. This is a Lantern Podcast.