TEHRAN - Jam-e-Jam, in an analysis, discussed the nature of the Iran-IAEA negotiations and wrote: According to the parliamentary law, relations with the International Atomic Energy Agency were suspended.

However, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, contrary to his claims that he avoids politics or serving the U.S. and Israel’s interests, opened the way for Israel and the U.S. to take hostile action against the Iranian nation. What could the serious interests of the head of the Agency in reestablishing contact with Iran and resuming inspections mean except that its inspectors are practically acting as Israeli spies. They enter the country to prepare reports on the current status of Iran's nuclear facilities, the extent of damage from U.S.-Israeli strikes (in June), and strategies for future U.S. and Israeli operations to cause the greatest possible damage to the Iranian nuclear facilities. In these circumstances, the foreign minister must be aware of his responsibility and consider the possible prospects, in a way that the country's nuclear facilities will not be bombed again. 

Arman-e-Emrooz: Is extremist wing concerned about national interests or settling factional scores? 

In an article, Arman-e-Emrooz discussed the extremists’ performance in regard to country’s critical situation and said: The extremist wing has tried to keep the country’s political atmosphere inflamed at various stages by making claims and putting continuous pressure against government officials, from pressure on negotiating teams to open threats against political and military figures. The reality, however, is that such behavior resembles a factional settling of scores rather than being concerned about national interests. It seems that proposing plans such as withdrawing from the NPT or closing the Strait of Hormuz is an excuse to keep the country in an atmosphere of constant tension; an atmosphere that benefits them more than anything else to maintain their political power. By exaggerating threats and attacking the architects of the JCPOA, the extremists are trying to instill the image that every failure today is the legacy of previous governments (particularly the Rouhani government). Experience will prove that extremism achieves nothing except increasing costs and undermining national interests. 

Ham Mihan: Snapback not the end of the world, but the return of sanctions is damaging 

In a commentary, Ham Mihan dealt with the path ahead of the diplomatic apparatus regarding the activation of snapback mechanism. It quoted Abdolreza Faraji Rad, a professor of geopolitics at the university, as saying: The fact that implementing snapback will not be the end of the world for us is true, but on the other hand, this process will bring losses to us and will increase tensions. The Europeans have made clear their three main conditions: first, Iran's cooperation with the IAEA; second, addressing some concerns related to the quality of the (IAEA-Iran) agreement; and third, entering into negotiations with the United States. Regarding the third condition, namely direct negotiations between Iran and the United States, it must be said that Iran has not yet shown much interest. However, if the agreement between Iran and the Agency is finalized, it can be said that Europe's two main conditions will be met, and this could be the basis for extending the snapback deadline for six-months and even lifting sanctions by Europe. Therefore, the minimum achievement that can be hoped for is a six-month postponement of the implementation of the snapback sanctions, and the maximum is the lifting of sanctions based on the JCPOA and the complete removal of Security Council pressure. This issue is considered a very important point in the current negotiation process. 

Kayhan: The West’s goal is to present Iran into enemy of Arabs 

In an article, Kayhan addressed the West’s goal of Iranophobia and creating hostility between Iran and Arab countries, and wrote: After the Zionist regime’s aggression against Qatar, it has been proven more than ever before that Iran’s logic that that “Israel is a cancerous tumor” has become clearer. One of these goals is the issue of the three Iranian islands, which was put on the agenda after the Islamic Revolution in Iran, under the provocation of the West and the Zionist regime, to turn Iran into an “enemy of the Arabs.” In fact, the Westerners who gave the green light to attack Qatar, through Iranophobia and creating a gap between Iran and the Arabs by questioning Iran's ownership of the three islands, presented our beloved country as a "danger" and, with this dirty policy, obtained the Arabs' petrodollars. That is, by selling them modern weapons and dominating the skies of these countries, they announced that they would protect them from the threat of an Iranian attack. However, during the Israeli regime's aggression against Qatar, they did not activate any of these weapons or air defense systems and they themselves invaded Qatar!