Shargh, in its editorial, refers to the illegitimate US–Israel war against Iran. They have left nothing of international law intact in this war and have not refrained from committing any war crime against Iran.

The attack on Iran cannot be justified under any legal basis: it was not authorized by the UN Security Council, it cannot be considered legitimate self‑defense because Iran had not attacked the United States, and it cannot be framed as a pre‑emptive strike because Iran had taken no action that could be interpreted as a clear indication of a imminent attack. Under the Convention on the Law of the Sea, Iran has the right to close the Strait of Hormuz. The United States or any other government has no legal right to use force to reopen the strait or use such a claim as a pretext for war. The editorial concludes that the US–Israel war against Iran and its people is unlawful in every respect and constitutes a broad, explicit violation of humanitarian law.

Etemad: Negotiation is not a sign of weakness but the result of a shift in the balance of power

Etemad, in an interview with political activist Mohammad Mohajeri, discusses the war and Iran’s approach to it. Mohajeri argues that Iran has moved its military capabilities from the theoretical realm into real battlefield testing. Iran not only did not collapse under pressure but continued its counterattacks, demonstrating that external military threats cannot easily dismantle the country’s political and security structure. No war can continue indefinitely; eventually, every conflict reaches a point where the parties must discuss a ceasefire or an agreement. Iran, by relying on its deterrent power and by exerting pressure on US and Israeli interests, has established itself as an actor that cannot be ignored. Under such conditions, negotiation is not a sign of weakness but the outcome of a changed balance of power.

Farhikhtegan: Iran’s plan; using the geopolitical lever to achieve a sustainable end to the war  

Farhikhtegan examined Iran’s plan for ending the war. The newspaper stated: Based on Iran’s general positions throughout the war, Iran’s demands likely include the following: a complete halt to the war, benefiting from the Strait of Hormuz, lifting of sanctions, and flexibility in the nuclear file. The core of Iran’s plan is preserving the leverage of the Strait of Hormuz. The Strait of Hormuz guarantees the financing of reconstruction costs, which can be obtained through collecting tolls and obligating the parties to pay compensation. Although Iran’s demands may seem surprising when judged by the previous balance of power, this plan aligns with reality. One of Iran’s important characteristics is its high geopolitical capacity in confronting technology, because Iran—relying on its geopolitical position—has succeeded in resisting the peak of global technology, which is in the hands of the United States.

Kayhan: Compromise and negotiation are a gift to the enemy  

Kayhan expressed its view on negotiations as follows: Expecting the United States to abandon its hostility and its efforts to destroy Iran after a ceasefire is irrational and unscientific. This is because the attack on Iran is carried out to force it into submission, and this is pursued by the United States and its allies as a strategic and long‑term objective that will not end. The only way to confront it is through resistance and making the enemy regret its attack. Therefore, the only result of compromise or a ceasefire will be allowing the enemy to regroup and secure the resources needed for another attack. Two military attacks at the height of negotiations are exemplary cases and experiences that cannot and should not be forgotten. In other words, a ceasefire, compromise, and negotiation are ‘a gift to the enemy’!

Ettelaat: The dead end of the US war scenario in Iran  

Contrary to the positions he announced before the start of the war, Trump has now explicitly threatened Iran with attacks on economic infrastructure and has even set a deadline for such action. This clear shift in approach reflects, above all, the failure to achieve the initial objectives of the war, concerns about it becoming prolonged, and the emergence of miscalculations in assessing the course and outcomes of the conflict. This failure has become especially evident regarding the continued closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the United States’ inability to reopen it, alongside the lack of effective cooperation from Western allies. However, such an approach may, instead of resolving the crisis, push it into a more dangerous phase—one in which the boundary between a limited war and a regional conflict quickly disappears, and its consequences engulf the entire region and even the international system.