TEHRAN -Writing an article in the Etemad newspaper, ex-diplomat Nosratollah Tajik said: "Regarding the alleged objectives of Israel's aggressive attacks on our country's territorial integrity, it must be said that the main goal of Israel and the United States is to disrupt regional balance.

 In this context, these two countries have defined specific objectives regarding Iran, including the claimed attempt to halt Iran’s nuclear program and eliminate nuclear capabilities. However, evidence and indicators—especially the nature of the selected targets and operations—clearly show that these countries, particularly Israel, are pursuing goals that go beyond nuclear discussions. For example, during these operations, a wide range of civilians were targeted and more than 900 people were martyred; this indicates that the objectives of the recent aggressions are much deeper and more dangerous than what is officially claimed.

It seems that the selection of such methods—particularly the first day’s operation, which had a complex, combined, and multilayered nature—could have been designed with objectives such as toppling the government and even disintegrating the country. In fact, the enemy's goals are directed not only at the national level but also regionally at weakening Iran’s position and dismantling the Islamic Republic’s levers of power. Therefore, it can be said that in this confrontation, Iran is facing more than NATO: Israel, U.S., some European assistance have all played a role in this alignment. Nonetheless, it is notable that despite having no hope of reaching an agreement with the Trump administration, Iran decided to enter negotiations—an action indicating a preference for diplomacy over direct confrontation. However, what Trump did was essentially a blow to diplomacy—even before any dialogue took shape. This decision not only lacked international legitimacy, but also had no legal foundation within the global order or international law. The U.S. action effectively trampled and discredited the legal structures and institutions that were established after World War II.

Iran: Moving towards strategic ambiguity

In a commentary, the Iran newspaper addressed the ambiguities in the post-war Iran-U.S. negotiations and wrote: This war may ultimately strengthen Iran’s position in the region and in diplomacy. Trump and his envoy Steve Witkoff continue to insist that Iran must completely abandon uranium enrichment, but Tehran has firmly stated that enrichment is non-negotiable. At the same time, Trump has offered to ease sanctions and even allow China to buy Iranian oil. These conflicting signals reflect a deeper reality: both Washington and Tehran seem increasingly focused on stabilizing the situation rather than resolving the fundamental nuclear differences. In practice, both sides may now be willing to accept strategic ambiguity. Rather than calling for the destruction of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, which Trump claims has been destroyed, the United States appears prepared to de-escalate through diplomacy and economic incentives. Iran, on the other hand, appears content to maintain its existing capabilities in a non-transparent manner and avoid further escalation.

Kayhan: Missiles, not negotiations

Keyhan said it is missiles and not negotiations that protected Iran in Israel’s 12-day war against Iran. It wrote: What enabled Iran to endure the current critical situation in this war was the country's missile power. Missiles that not only targeted the enemy's defense systems but turned their secret bases in the region into hell. This was only a fraction of Iran's defense capabilities. The enemy, who thought it could undermine Iran with a few bombs and media war, now sleeps with the nightmare of Iranian missiles roaring over Tel Aviv and Haifa. It was these missiles that paralyzed the enemy, not negotiations. The Islamic Republic of Iran pushed the enemy back with military power, active resistance, and missile deterrence. Now the enemies themselves have revealed in official confessions that the bombing of Iran was carried out in complete coordination. This is just the beginning, not the end. Because Iran has not yet revealed its main power. Israel should be prepared for darker and scarier days.

Khorasan: Multipolar order and the crisis of trust

In an article, Khorasan addressed the biased behavior of the International Atomic Energy Agency toward Iran’s nuclear program. It wrote: In the current tense situation in the world that trust is the most important asset in nuclear diplomacy, regulatory bodies must be impartial and trustworthy. The International Atomic Energy Agency, once known as a technical and impartial authority, has now come under criticism and is accused of bias and political activity. Today's world is no longer unipolar. In such a world, multilateral institutions can only survive by remaining impartial. However, the Agency has lost some of its trust capital in recent years. When a country like Iran has the highest level of cooperation and inspection, but a regime like Israel remains immune from any supervision, it shows that justice in supervision has become a victim of politics. If the Agency wants to regain its status in the international community, it has no choice but to be a technical, transparent, and impartial institution, otherwise it will become an ineffective organization and a symbol of failure in global trust-building in the not-too-distant future.