Shargh published an article discussing Pope Leo XIV’s stance against the US war with Iran. Pope Leo XIV has taken a firm position opposing the war. He almost continuously condemns the war against Iran and tries to highlight its moral and humanitarian ugliness for the public.

The US and Israeli war against Iran has created a direct confrontation between the Pope and Donald Trump. This confrontation has continued for more than two and a half months, and the Vatican has become the main stronghold of opposition to Trump’s policies. It can be said that Pope Leo is the most prominent figure who, by moving beyond conservative traditions, has stood up to President Trump. The disagreement between Pope Leo and Trump raises many ethical questions about America’s involvement in wars in the Middle East—questions whose answers could shape the future of the world.

Iran: The green field inside the cage of politics

The Iran newspaper examined the United States’ misuse of its privilege as host of the FIFA World Cup. According to the article, Donald Trump’s recent behavior toward the football environment is less a matter of normal diplomatic action and more an intervention that violates accepted international norms. This approach tries to drag the political battlefield onto the football pitch, attempting to compensate for past failures in a different arena. The sensational claims about the safety of Iran’s national football team and speculation about its removal or replacement are not based on objective realities. Instead, they resemble tactics meant to disrupt competitors’ focus and seem more like a historical joke than a serious political or sports position. Someone who faces serious challenges to credibility and cohesion even within his own country is naturally not in a position to dictate terms to official international sports institutions such as FIFA.

Etemad: No reduction in Iran’s tactical power

Etemad wrote about Trump’s tactical motivations: The core of Trump’s political and strategic thinking is shaped by the idea of ‘tactical dominance’ and ‘structural victory’ over Iran. The main reason behind Trump’s tactical drive to revive the war with Iran can be seen as a reaction to rival groups and critics of US military policy toward Iran. American defense analysts believe Trump failed to achieve his tactical goals regarding a large-scale operation and a quick victory. Although the prolonged conflict has imposed high economic costs on Iran’s social and economic structure, it has not reduced Iran’s tactical ability to carry out counter-operations. The regional expansion of the war, despite creating significant political and strategic challenges for Iran’s future, ultimately prevented the United States from achieving its tactical objectives.

Sobh-e-No: Trump in a crisis

Sobh-e-No analyzed Trump’s crisis in the current war and wrote: Becoming trapped in the quagmire of aggression against Iran has not only imposed high military costs on the United States but has also triggered a political earthquake inside the White House. The Trump administration is now caught between two crushing pressures: Internal disputes and the dismissal of officials, such as the Navy commander, who have weakened Washington’s operational capacity. Legal deadlines and declining support in Congress have left the legitimacy of continuing the war hanging by a thread. In this situation, maintaining diplomatic vigilance and relying on the political deadlock inside the US could lead to the ultimate failure of Trump’s military strategy. The unstable situation in the House of Representatives also suggests that with the expiration of the 60‑day deadline, a significant drop in votes and a halt to America’s war machine are likely.

Farhikhtegan: Conditions favor Iran

Farhikhtegan, in a note, discussed Trump’s dual‑pressure situation and how these conditions ultimately work to Iran’s advantage. The newspaper said: Every political leader in international negotiations plays two simultaneous games: one on the international stage with the opposing side, and one domestically with public opinion, Congress, parties, and pressure groups. In this crisis, Trump is under pressure on both fronts. Internationally, he must force Iran to surrender. Domestically, he must deal with the war-powers deadline, public anger over rising gasoline prices, the upcoming fall midterm elections, and other pressures on him and the Republicans. In contrast, Iran has only one serious game to play — the international one. This asymmetry in the number of simultaneous games is one of Tehran’s key structural advantages in this confrontation, shifting conditions in its favor.