Shargh, in a note, addressed changing the venue of the nuclear talks with the U.S. from Turkey to Oman upon Iran’s insistence. It wrote: Insistence on changing the playing field of negotiations from Istanbul to Muscat has put Washington in a state of 'either-or-nothing' ultimatum. Iran insists that the negotiations be held solely bilaterally so that it can limit the subject of the talks to the nuclear file and avoid discussing its missile capabilities and the resistance groups it supports.

Washington emphasizes that any real agreement must include two parallel tracks: direct nuclear negotiations and multilateral talks on the missile program, support for proxy groups, and what it calls human rights violations in Iran. Washington's goal is to quickly reach a real agreement; otherwise, the more stringent options that Trump has repeatedly mentioned will be activated. According to Araghchi, the Islamic Republic of Iran is ready to re-enter the nuclear talks if these negotiations are fair. The Islamic Republic of Iran will not accept negotiations on any issue outside the nuclear file, and raising issues beyond the JCPOA could seriously challenge the process of talks.

Vatan-e-Emrooz: A project that failed

After the failure of the American-Zionist project of unrest against Iran, Washington and Tel Aviv pursued an intensive media project, with Reza Pahlavi playing an active role. But now one of the leading Western media outlets has shed light on the hidden dimensions of this failure. What the Le Figaro report clearly shows is that the project of unrest and narrative-building against Iran has not only failed but has also faced media revelations in the virtual arena. This French newspaper, unintentionally but documented, confirms that Reza Pahlavi's likes, trends, and virtual popularity are the product of an Israeli-led digital operation and have no real basis in Iranian society. Simply put, the Le Figaro report establishes a reality: when a figure is not popular, it is necessary to create fake accounts for him, buy fake likes, and create the illusion of popular support; a project that even Western media outlets have now been forced to expose.

Arman-e-Melli: Iran's hand on the trigger

Arman-e-Melli commented on Friday's talks between Iran and the U.S. in Muscat. It quoted political analyst Shams al-Waazin as saying: The fact that the U.S. is (was) raising new conditions 48 hours before the talks shows that Washington is, in fact, seeking to please Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel. This is quite clear from the recent behavior of the United States. Some believe that the U.S. may repeat the previous behavior during the talks - when it attacked Iran (in June 2025)- but it must be said that this time Iran's hand is on the trigger and is even more prepared militarily than diplomatically. Iran has emphasized that it will only negotiate one issue, and that is the nuclear files and any issues related to it. When Iran emphasizes that it will only negotiate about the nuclear issue, it is actually emphasizing that it will leave the talks if any other issue is raised. The U.S. also raised another condition: Iran’s space and satellite-related activities. The U.S. believes that this will increase Iran's capability in intercontinental missiles, so it believes that it must stop this Iranian capability right now.

Iran: Indirect negotiations make things difficult

The Iran newspaper assessed the chances of the success of negotiations between Iran and the U.S. in an interview with Kourosh Ahmadi, a former diplomat. According to him, the framework and order in which the negotiations begin and how the preliminary understandings are formed play a decisive role in determining the speed and direction of the talks. If the talks are held indirectly, as in the previous time, and focus solely on nuclear enrichment, it may be difficult to achieve significant progress. Trump has personalized foreign policy, and decisions are mainly made directly and in the moment by himself; for this reason, world leaders prefer to enter direct talks with him. The experience of the previous talks showed that in the absence of a clear and flexible framework, the negotiations were, in practice, limited to the transmission of messages through intermediaries. And with Trump’s constantly changing positions, the possibility of achieving real progress was lost. If the issue is to be seriously resolved this time, a change in the way negotiations are conducted and the way the talks are managed is essential.