Kayhan, in an editorial, addressed what it described as the United States’ desperation in the current phase of the war and its attempt to escape the situation. In the sixth week of the war, the enemy is continuing its policy of escalating the conflict to manufacture an achievement and secure an ‘honorable exit’ for itself.

Yesterday, Trump issued a message that bore clear signs of helplessness, telling Iran to open the strait and threatening that otherwise he would destroy bridges and power plants all at once. Analysts believe that the United States has not only failed to achieve its initial objective of defeating Iran within two days, but is now unable even to ensure the passage of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz without Iran’s permission. Meanwhile, the humiliation of its main strength—its air force—through the repeated downing of aircraft has left this superpower with little credibility.

Hamshahri: A reputational defeat in the first ground battle

Hamshahri, in an analysis of the US Army’s first ground engagement in Iran, wrote: Early Sunday morning, in its first ground operation to airlift forces into Iranian territory—aimed at rescuing the pilot of a downed fighter jet—the US military suffered heavy losses. This allowed the American public, beyond the rhetoric of their president, to become acquainted with the on‑the‑ground realities of the invasion of Iran. At a time when Western media narratives and claims about US ground operations in Iran are increasing daily, serving multiple purposes, the Americans faced a severe reputational defeat in their very first ground mission. In addition to its wide global repercussions, this showed that the claims about entering Iranian territory on the ground are less rooted in reality and more in ‘Hollywood-style scenarios’ designed to conceal the actual battlefield realities of the American–Israeli offensive against Iran.

Etemad: The diplomatic track must remain independent

Etemad, in an analysis, examined Iran’s strategy both on the battlefield and in diplomacy. The United States, under the guise of diplomacy, entered Israel’s game and adopted a costly strategy—one that, due to Iran’s initiatives and the alignment of the Resistance Axis with Iran, has now made Washington and Tel Aviv’s plans more complicated and expensive. As a result, the United States, without the support of NATO members, is trying on its own to find a way out of the crisis. The simultaneous intensification of battlefield clashes and diplomatic movements has pushed the war into a new phase—one that reveals both signs of strategic fatigue in the West and the increasing complexity of the diplomatic path. According to Jalal Sadatian, a former Iranian diplomat, the diplomatic process must proceed independently and without unnecessary pressure. No one should restrict the use of available opportunities through bias or premature judgment. What matters, he argues, is that the country recognizes existing opportunities and makes maximum use of them.

Arman-e-Melli: Iran’s exercise of sovereignty; transit fees for passage

Arman-e-Melli analyzed the possibility of new regulations for the Strait of Hormuz, stating that perhaps sooner or later such a development was inevitable and that Iran would establish a new legal framework for the strait. The strait, which geographically falls under Iran’s national sovereignty and holds immense geopolitical importance, became a focal point when Iran operationalized the closure of the Strait of Hormuz after the US attack. Fuel and oil prices worldwide surged to record highs. Although all parties emphasize ending the war—and Iran has announced its conditions for doing so—it appears unlikely that the situation in the Strait of Hormuz will return to its pre-war state. New regulations for passage through the strait will almost certainly be implemented. A protocol is expected to be drafted for joint Iranian–Omani oversight of traffic in the Strait of Hormuz. In peacetime, coordination and guidance of maritime transit will be the responsibility of these two coastal states, Iran and Oman.

Siasat-e-Rooz: Iran’s victory in the war and the future of relations with Arab states

Siasat-e-Rooz dedicated its editorial to the future of relations with Arab countries after the war. According to the paper, once the war imposed on Iran by the United States and Israel ends—with what it describes as Iran’s decisive victory—fundamental changes will occur in regional and international dynamics. Arab governments that participated in the war against Iran, the paper argues, must understand Iran’s role after its victory, which it said will coincide with the expulsion of US forces from the region. These states should sever relations with Israel and align their political, economic, and regional policies with those of Iran. They should not expect the United States to emerge victorious, as the historical experience of the Iran–Iraq war suggests otherwise.