TEHRAN - Etemad examined a possible nuclear agreement between Iran and the United States and the obstacles ahead in an interview with reformist political activist Ali Bagheri.

He said: The parties to these negotiations are seeking to reach a common point of understanding and stability in mutual relations for different reasons. Therefore, despite all the differences between the parties, the path towards an agreement will eventually open. For different reasons, there is a will for an agreement by both the Iranian and American sides. The foreign policy in Iran indicates a change. Trump also needs an important foreign policy achievement in the first four months of his presidency. Trump has not succeeded in ending the Russia-Ukraine and Gaza-Israel wars. In the meantime, the Iran case can be face-saving for Trump. There is good news about an imminent agreement. Both parties, given global and regional conditions, need an accord, and it will eventually be achieved.

Ettelaat: Fateful moves against Iran in the IAEA board

In a commentary, Ettelaat addressed the fateful moves against Iran in the IAEA Board of Governors and wrote: Western diplomats have claimed that Western powers are seeking to pressure countries on the IAEA Board of Governors to take action against Iran at the upcoming quarterly meeting of this international body. This move is likely to anger Tehran and complicate negotiations between the United States and Iran on sanctions and addressing concerns about the country's nuclear program. Iran has always rejected the claims of the Zionist regime and Western countries about its nuclear program, emphasizing that its nuclear technology is only intended for peaceful purposes. The immediate impact of this resolution is likely to be on Tehran's negotiations with the United States and Iran's subsequent actions regarding its nuclear program. Russia and China are the only countries that have consistently opposed such resolutions. Iran has typically reacted sharply to resolutions and criticisms by the IAEA Board of Governors, taking actions such as accelerating and expanding its uranium enrichment program or preventing the presence of senior IAEA inspectors.

Sobh-e-No: America seeking dual plan toward Iran

Sobh-e-No wrote about the negotiations and a possible nucler agreement: The Americans have apparently entered the negotiations with two parallel plans: Plan 1 is based on media pressure, promoting an idea that an agreement is within reach and attempting to impose a zero-enrichment condition; a condition that is unacceptable to Iran and fundamentally conflicts with the Islamic Republic's principled positions. Plan 2 is based on recognizing Iran's right to uranium enrichment, with proposals such as forming an international consortium to monitor and participate in enrichment activities. This plan, which was apparently proposed by one of the Persian Gulf Arab countries, has not met with opposition from Iran and remains on the table as one of the possible options. In this regard, the recent visit of Pezeshkian to Oman also carried specific messages within the framework of the second plan. Reportedly, during the visit, Iran insisted on receiving serious guarantees to protect its nuclear rights, and some progress has been made. Informed sources say that credible executive guarantees were among the key issues in the Oman talks.

Sazandegi: Dual creation

In an article, Sazandegi dealt with Trump's psychological operations against Iran and said: If we analyze Trump's statements carefully, we clearly see that he is trying to convey the message that an agreement is within reach, but they (Iran) cannot have access to nuclear weapons. Regarding this issue, it should be noted that our country's negotiating team basically believes that the United States is playing with words through the media and injecting some information. The U.S. negotiating team uses disinformation at different times against the negotiations, an issue that the head of our country's diplomatic service has criticized many times. Given all these interpretations, it should be noted that the continuation of this process by the United States could trigger a kind of psychological front against Iranian public opinion as well as our country's negotiating team. Even in this regard, the commentary and news by European media can complicate the process and increase its psychological, media, and political costs.