Siasat-e-Rooz dedicated its editorial to Iran’s power and the United States’ repeated failures. According to the editorial, the United States, in an unsuccessful attempt to break Iran’s strategic control over the Strait of Hormuz, imposed a naval blockade on Iranian ports in the Persian Gulf.

However, this effort failed, and the US launched the so‑called “Freedom Project” to assist ships in passing through the Strait of Hormuz. This plan also failed, and now, after receiving Iran’s response, Trump has said that other plans are on the table—plans he will not disclose. Any plan the United States attempts to implement against Iran will meet the same fate as previous ones. The enemy must come to understand that as long as Iran can manage navigation in the Persian Gulf, Trump’s plans have no chance of success. Continuing the conflict is not a solution to the crisis created by the United States, and an agreement between Iran and the US could be the only viable path—an agreement that would be possible only if Iran’s conditions are accepted.

Iran: Arab states between confrontation, caution, and mediation

The Iran newspaper, in an analysis, examined the differing approaches of Arab countries toward Iran. It wrote that regional relations in the near future will be shaped by a relatively stable three‑part pattern rooted in security rivalries, historical developments, and geopolitical balances. Some Arab states remain in open confrontation with Iran. Others adopt a cautious, tension‑management approach, seeking to avoid direct conflict and maintain internal stability through balancing strategies. Alongside these two groups, some countries continue to emphasize maintaining and expanding relations with Iran, strengthening regional dialogue, and playing a mediating role in reducing tensions. This behavioral triad shows that the regional order is transitioning from a traditional state to a more complex phase in which competition, caution, and cooperation coexist and collectively shape the future of regional dynamics.

Kayhan: Victory in war depends on endurance

Kayhan, in its editorial, argued that victory in war depends on endurance. It was written that nearly everyone now agrees that in matters of war, time is a decisive factor. Experts believe that from now on, the side with greater endurance will prevail. Iran, with its control over the Strait of Hormuz and missiles locked onto regional energy infrastructure, has placed the global economy under its influence. The United States, through sanctions, naval blockades, psychological operations, and the use of its agents inside Iran, is trying to force Iran into submission. Given that the economic pressure the US and the world suffer from the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is far greater, it can be concluded that if Iran can maintain these conditions for another three months and manage economic pressures with public cooperation, it will undoubtedly hold the upper hand in the war of endurance and economic pressure.

Ettelaat: The UAE wants to disrupt the current situation

Ettelaat analyzed the UAE’s approach to the current conflict, quoting Hassan Goli, a senior expert in international relations. According to him, the UAE—having lost significant resources due to the ongoing situation—is eager to disrupt the current conditions. Because Iran changed its approach to defining the legal status of the Strait of Hormuz, and the UAE’s plan to build a pipeline and create an alternative route—so that at least some ships could bypass the strait—did not succeed, the UAE no longer expects a positive situation for itself, especially when it comes to investment. Although the UAE engages in propaganda activities, economic logic dictates that where security concerns exist, significant long‑term investment does not occur. Therefore, the UAE seeks to disrupt the situation, hoping that if the current unfavorable conditions change, a better environment may emerge for its interests.

Etemad: Ending hostility is too optimistic

Etemad, in an interview with Iranian sociologist Mohammad Fazeli, assessed the level of hostility between Iran and the United States. Fazeli believes that under current circumstances, Iran and the US can at best focus on managing tensions and gradually reducing the roots of hostility, though even this faces serious obstacles. Mutual distrust among leaders, the vested interests of those who benefit from anti‑Americanism and anti‑Iran sentiment, Israel’s actions, the likely post‑war approach of Arab states toward Iran, and the psychology of leaders all play major roles. Although some positive conditions have emerged that could reduce the impact of these factors, leaders of both countries—and influential groups around them—have not yet concluded that the cost of ending hostility is lower than the cost of continuing it, or that the benefits of avoiding conflict outweigh those of ongoing confrontation. Under these circumstances, speaking of ending hostility is highly optimistic.