The Iran newspaper, in an analysis, discussed the country’s current approach, and quoted former representative Mansour Haghighatpour as saying: The battlefield and the negotiating table are two sides of the same coin. On one side lies power and steadfastness in the arena of conflict; on the other, diplomacy and dialogue.

What links the two is their shared objective: securing the maximum possible national interest. In the realm of foreign policy and national strategy, Iran selects the appropriate tool according to circumstances. At times, conditions require a presence on the battlefield to demonstrate strength and defend national interests. At other times, circumstances call for sitting at the negotiating table. Negotiation does not mean retreating from principles. Thus, the battlefield and diplomacy are two different forms of engagement serving a single purpose — two strategic behaviors aimed at fulfilling one shared demand. This realistic, situational approach is the key to preserving Iran’s dignity and standing on the international stage.

Farhikhtegan: Europe’s shift after Iran’s surprises

Farhikhtegan, in an editorial, examined Europe’s stance toward Donald Trump following the war against Iran. According to the paper, after the US and Israeli war on Iran, Europe gradually began contemplating independence from Washington. Initially, European leaders not only refrained from serious opposition to the war but even sought to place part of their military capacity at the disposal of the US and Israeli forces. However, once Iran’s ‘surprises’ emerged — including 360‑degree blows to Washington’s interests and those of its allies — Europeans took a major step back and left their old partner standing alone. Trump, who had been pressuring Europe through various levers such as Ukraine, Greenland, tariffs, and NATO membership, did not expect his requests for assistance to be rejected. Nevertheless, Iran’s diplomatic and operational conduct in the Persian Gulf led Europeans to value chemical fertilizers and oil more than Trump’s promises, prompting them to withdraw from a conflict that had begun to take on a global character.

Ettelaat: The naval blockade still obstructs negotiations

Ettelaat, in an article, examined Iran’s presence in the negotiations. It wrote: The issue of the naval blockade remains a major and fundamental obstacle in the talks. In addition to the blockade, the Americans have made further excessive demands in the exchanged messages, leaving little hope for a clear path forward. Accordingly, the Iranian delegation believes that as long as the United States does not adopt a realistic view of the situation — and continues to approach the negotiating table with the same flawed calculations that led to its heavy defeat on the battlefield — the talks will be nothing but a waste of time. Iran will not accompany the US in this time‑wasting process. Iran also considers the possibility that the media reports about negotiations may be deceptive, and it remains prepared for military confrontation and renewed punitive action against the United States.

Hamshahri: More prepared than before for war with the enemy

Repairing inflicted damage, strengthening defensive and security infrastructures, improving economic capacities, and even enhancing urban and medical preparedness are among the measures pursued during the ceasefire period — steps that have significantly increased the country’s readiness. In assessing the balance of power in the Third Imposed War, both field and political indicators point to the superiority of the Islamic Republic of Iran over the opposing front. This superiority is most evident in the behavior and positions of the hostile parties. The demand for a ceasefire by the United States and Israel is itself clear evidence of their inability to achieve their declared objectives. Naturally, a party that considers itself in a dominant position feels no need for a temporary halt in hostilities or a return to negotiations.