In an analysis, Kayhan discussed the US's repeated breach of commitment to the ceasefire and the necessity of suspending negotiations. Since the declaration of the ceasefire on all fronts, neither the US has stopped the aggression against Iranian ships in the waters, nor has the Zionist regime reduced its aggression against Lebanon.

The least Iran can do in these circumstances is to suspend negotiations until the enemy adheres to the ceasefire provisions. Weren't negotiations with the US supposed to take place within the framework of the ceasefire?! That is why many analysts believe that the negotiations should be postponed until these acts of aggressions are over, whether in the waters, on land, or in Lebanon. Perhaps the enemy will use it as a trump card in negotiations with Iran after advancing in Lebanon!

Shargh: A healthy and dynamic economy and powerful armed forces in one direction

Shargh devoted its editorial to designing a new approach for Iran. Now, after the US invasion and attack, there is a need for a new approach in the economic and social fields more than ever. Designing a new approach for Iranian society is necessary. One of the most dangerous thoughts is that one must choose between a dynamic economy and a powerful armed force, or prioritize between the two. Both are necessary to achieve a stronger Iran. Considering the situation in the Middle East, the frequent military threats at the global level, and the need for continuous attention to the issue of deterrence, the question of the precedence and the delay of these two is wrong. A strong and law-abiding state, along with a dynamic and healthy economy, along with powerful armed forces, with the expansion of social freedoms, provides the basis for an efficient foreign policy.

Siasat-e-Rooz: Iran has won this battle so far

In its editorial, Siasat-e-Rooz referred to Iran's victory in the unequal battle with the United States and Israel so far and wrote: Ramadan War is still ongoing and the current situation cannot be called the end of the war, but Iran has so far been the winner of this unequal battle. The United States and Israel are very strong militarily, but Islamic Iran has so far been the winner of the battlefield against two military superpowers. It is a war, and in the war, both sides suffer casualties and injuries. The important point is that Trump, due to the heavy defeat he suffered from Iran, repeats the victory and in every conversation or speech and publication of text in cyberspace, repeats the victory in the war against Iran. Trump is a losing gambler who lost to Netanyahu's trickery.

Etemad: The fragility of the negotiations space

Etemad examined the fragility of the diplomatic space between Iran and the United States. While the diplomatic space between Iran and the United States is on the verge of a decisive decision, a series of simultaneous movements in Washington, Tehran and the capitals of the region have revealed contradictory signs of the approach or collapse of a possible agreement. Meanwhile, there are different views among analysts about the extent to which these movements can lead to an agreement or even an escalation of tension. Some believe that the current space can be a prelude to an agreement and move towards managing the tension. On the other hand, another group believes that these contradictory movements and messages could be a sign of a sudden turn; a turn that would not even rule out the possibility of returning to more difficult and costly options, including military scenarios. However, what is common in both views is the fragility of the current situation and the high sensitivity of the decisions ahead; a situation in which any small change could completely change the course.

Iran: A calculation that failed

In a note, the Iran newspaper discussed the approach of the Persian Gulf countries during the Ramadan War. A realistic look at the performance of the countries in this region shows that their approach was based on a “multi-layered utilitarian calculation.” However, the fear of the terrible economic consequences resulting from the complete blockage of the Strait of Hormuz and the concern about the continuation and expansion of Iran’s crushing responses forced them to adopt a covert and active diplomacy to prevent their territory from becoming an official base for US offensive attacks against Iran. In fact, they reached the strategic understanding during the Ramadan War that the change in the political system in Iran and the destruction of Iran’s military-defense power and even its nuclear program through foreign intervention were nothing more than an illusion, and the first loser of a comprehensive war in the region would be their long-term economic development plans.