Kayhan analyzed Iran’s creation of a new paradigm in the region. According to Kayhan, by proposing an exit from the military deadlock through imposing a “navigation cost,” Tehran is reshaping energy‑security equations in favor of its territorial sovereignty. Amid the United States’ final attempts to pressure Iran—and as peace negotiations reach 95% progress—a new paradigm has emerged in the region’s political discourse.

The introduction of environmental and service fees is not only a pressure tool but also a redefinition of Iran’s role as the guarantor of waterway security in exchange for logistical and protective payments. Although Western governments resist the term “fees,” economic realities and the costs of preserving the marine environment strengthen Iran’s right to collect navigation charges. Ultimately, a peace agreement that recognizes Iran’s sovereign and economic rights over the Strait of Hormuz is the only path for global markets to escape the current instability and achieve lasting stability in the energy sector.

Iran: Keeping the path of dialogue open; a positive development

The Iran newspaper reflected on recent regional developments. It wrote that the crisis has entered a complex but manageable phase, making diplomacy and negotiations more important than ever. The key point is that the ceasefire has held—indicating no current intention to expand the war. Recent developments, especially after Donald Trump’s trip to Beijing, seem to have shifted the dynamics into a new stage. Events following the Beijing visit showed that a new atmosphere is emerging. Pakistan’s activation as a mediator—immediately after the trip—signaled that the United States also approves of this channel, since Islamabad’s serious involvement would have been unlikely without Washington’s green light. Now, messages between Tehran and Washington are being exchanged indirectly through Pakistan. This, in itself, is a positive development because it shows that both sides are keeping the path of dialogue open.

Farhikhtegan: Strengthening economic cooperation with China

Farhikhtegan interviewed economist Ahmad Salehi about improving Iran’s economy. Salehi argues that two simultaneous shifts have occurred in Iran’s foreign‑trade structure: A decline in foreign‑currency resources due to wartime damage to parts of the steel and petrochemical industries. The removal of the UAE from its central role in Iran’s trade (both currency and logistics). Under these conditions, replacing trade and currency routes to compensate for the UAE’s role is essential. One proposed solution is strengthening economic and financial cooperation with China. China should be included in the economic benefits related to the Strait of Hormuz and reconstruction projects so that it becomes an active partner in Iran’s rebuilding and financing, rather than remaining passive. Developing alternative trade corridors is also crucial. Additionally, allocating rail capacity for oil exports could shift some cargo to land routes, reducing pressure on other transportation channels. Now is the time to fully activate Iran’s transit capacities to reduce dependence on limited routes and make foreign trade more flexible.

Ettelaat: Iran before and after the Ramadan War 

In an interview with Ettelaat, international‑affairs analyst Foad Izadi examined the uncertain atmosphere between Iran and the United States. Izadi argued that while agreements are important in the international system and help reduce problems, the events of the past year show that the United States is not a country Iran can trust in negotiations. When two countries sit at the negotiating table, both must inevitably make concessions. But Iran before the Ramadan War is not the same as Iran after it in terms of independence and credibility. Iran’s defensive capability disrupted America’s sense of dominance. This demonstrates the Islamic Republic’s stronger position in international relations. Therefore, negotiations must take place under conditions in which the other side accepts Iran’s positions. Now Iran must strengthen its relations with political and economic partners so that, with military power already established, economic problems can gradually decrease and people can be relieved of livelihood pressures.

Javan: The agreement will anger Netanyahu

Javan, in an article on Israel’s disruption of Iran–US negotiations, wrote that Netanyahu is trying to obstruct regional dialogue by escalating tensions and continuing the war in Lebanon. According to many observers, Tel Aviv seeks to maintain a state of conflict to eliminate any chance of de‑escalation or agreement, while simultaneously pushing forward its confrontational policies against Iran and the Axis of Resistance. Recent analyses in international media show that Tel Aviv is deeply worried about an agreement whose core, contrary to the initial promises of the war, has been reduced to a temporary ceasefire and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, with Iran’s nuclear issues postponed to later negotiations. In the two most recent regional crises, Trump also demonstrated that, in the Iran file, his decisions are influenced less by US national interests and more by the direct political considerations of Benjamin Netanyahu.