Kayhan, in an editorial, analyzed what it called more than 70 days of America’s humiliation behind the Strait of Hormuz. According to the paper, every war creates a new political‑security and economic order, and the larger the parties involved, the greater and more global the transformation of equations.

With this war, Iran disrupted many of the traditional war arrangements favored by major powers and replaced them with new ones. The war is asymmetric in many ways: from the honor or dishonor of the warring sides, to the level of public support or lack thereof; from the disruption of conventional calculations to the unveiling of lesser‑known capabilities; and from intelligence power to operational courage. It is not without reason, the paper claims, that the world’s biggest superpower has been humiliated behind the Strait of Hormuz for more than 70 days — even though Trump had come with the intention of finishing Iran within three days.

Siasat-e-Rooz: Honorable war or honorable peace

Siasat-e-Rooz dedicated its editorial to analyzing Donald Trump’s current stance toward Iran. The editorial stated that Iran has sent its response to the latest US proposal for ending the war to the American side through Pakistan. According to the article, it does not appear that the United States will accept Iran’s demands. On one hand, Washington views agreeing to Iran’s conditions as a humiliation; on the other hand, it does not want a full‑scale confrontation with Iran either. The U.S. economic blockade against Iran has also failed to achieve its intended results, and the Strait remains under Iran’s supervision and control. Both negotiation and war, the editorial argues, are tools for achieving objectives for which Iran has already paid a price, while the enemy seeks to destroy everything Iran has gained. Whichever of these two paths — negotiation or war — leads to Iran’s desired outcome is considered positive. The editorial concludes that Iran is not supposed to back down before the United States, whether on the military battlefield or in diplomacy. According to the article, there are only two options: an honorable war or an honorable peace.

Hamshahri: Instability in Trump’s statements

Hamshahri addressed Trump’s new claims about the course of the war. The paper wrote that Trump, who has repeatedly claimed victory since the beginning of the attack on Iran, responded to a question about whether military operations in Iran have ended by saying he never claimed combat operations were over — only that ‘they have been defeated.’ Trump’s claim that the war has not ended comes at a time when he is under pressure due to rising oil and petroleum product prices in the US and worldwide, facing criticism from both the American public and US allies. Moreover, Trump’s decision to attack Iran without any planning or assessment of the consequences has harmed European and Asian countries heavily dependent on Persian Gulf energy. The paper adds that Trump also avoids mentioning that, because of his trip to Beijing, he is forced to keep the security and military atmosphere in the Persian Gulf calm.

Iran: Redefining the diplomatic landscape after the war

The Iran newspaper, in an analysis, examined the country’s diplomatic objectives under current conditions. It wrote: Iran’s recent diplomatic activities show that Tehran is simultaneously pursuing two goals: preventing negotiations from becoming prolonged and redefining the region’s political and security balance through active diplomacy and coordination with its international partners. Alongside ongoing regional consultations, Tehran has tried to frame the negotiation process beyond temporary talks with Washington. In this context, Iran’s diplomatic movements in recent weeks have focused primarily on strengthening coordination with Russia and China. The visits of Seyyed Abbas Araghchi to Moscow and Beijing were seen as signs of Tehran’s efforts to shape political and strategic alignment during the ceasefire environment and the period of readiness afterward. Under current circumstances, Iran seeks to manage the path of any potential agreement by relying on active relations with the two major Eastern powers.

Etemad: Engagement with neighbors is Iran’s fundamental policy

Etemad, in an interview with Mohsen Pak‑Aeen, Iran’s former ambassador to Baku, discussed Iran’s core regional policy. According to the diplomat, the United Arab Emirates in recent years has adopted a stance closer to US and Israeli policies, while simultaneously taking a more hostile approach toward Iran. Iran believes that any hostile action—whether political, security‑related, or economic—cannot go unanswered, and naturally, appropriate responses have been taken and will continue to be taken in the future. Pak‑Aeen stated that Iran has always emphasized that its fundamental regional policy is based on engagement with neighbors and maintaining stability. However, this does not mean overlooking hostile actions or accepting external pressure. From this perspective, any security or military cooperation that is defined against Iran’s interests falls within Tehran’s defensive calculations.