Kayhan addressed Israel’s repeated attacks on Lebanon and Iran’s support for the Resistance Front. According to the paper, the Israeli regime’s strikes deep inside Lebanese territory and against Hezbollah forces were carried out in full coordination with Trump, so that the United States would gain a new pressure lever in its stalled negotiations with Iran.

It appears that Trump and Netanyahu intend to use the tactic of “two steps forward, one step back” regarding violations of the ceasefire and claims of returning to it. Certainly, without Iran’s power, Hezbollah’s steadfastness, and Ansarullah’s threats in the Bab al‑Mandeb region, the enemy would never have accepted a ceasefire and would have completely disregarded it. Iran’s support for the oppressed resistance in Lebanon demonstrated that Iran stands firmly by its allies—unlike the United States, which sacrificed the Persian Gulf states in the recent war and is now sacrificing the Lebanese state and its very existence. Iran’s model of support, if embraced by neighboring countries, could be extended to the Persian Gulf and bring lasting security and sustainable development to the region.

Iran: The strategic defeat of a superpower

The Iran newspaper examined Trump’s approach toward Iran, especially on nuclear issues. It wrote that the positions Trump has taken in recent years paved the way for the US withdrawal from the JCPOA and intensified regional tensions, yet the goals he defined for himself ultimately were not achieved. From a strategic perspective, the failure to achieve these goals can be considered a strategic defeat for a superpower—one that affects America’s international standing and the future of the global order. Given recent developments, a return to the JCPOA framework is practically impossible for Trump and his team, because such a return would mean accepting the two core pillars of the agreement: continued enrichment in Iran alongside the reduction or lifting of sanctions. From Trump’s viewpoint, this would be an obvious defeat. The Iran file has become a matter of prestige and a defining element of his political legacy, and its outcome may become the main benchmark for judging the success or failure of his second term.

Siasat‑e-Rooz: Violators of international law possess nuclear weapons

Nuclear weapons are currently in the hands of regimes that do not adhere to international law. The United States and the Israeli regime possess nuclear weapons and have repeatedly threatened to use them in a war against Iran, despite knowing the consequences. Israel, which has not even accepted the NPT, possesses nuclear weapons, though it denies it. But if it truly has no nuclear weapons, why does it refuse to join the NPT? John Mearsheimer, the American political scientist, recently stated: “If Israel loses the war, it may launch a nuclear attack on Iran!” This statement has multiple implications: it highlights the danger of Israel using nuclear weapons, and it also reflects the possibility of Israel’s defeat in a war with Iran. Meanwhile, Iran is a member of the IAEA, has signed and joined the NPT, and abides by it. Iran must adjust its nuclear policy to eliminate the threat of a nuclear strike from Israel.

Khorasan: Iran has a freer hand than the other side

Khorasan described Lebanon as a strong and high‑pressure lever within the Resistance Front against Israel and the United States. In the current situation, with Iran’s active role and Hezbollah’s strategic success in imposing insecurity on the northern occupied territories, Lebanon has gradually become a card that strengthens the Resistance’s ability to impose further equations on Israel. Iran’s strongly worded reaction became a unified fist on the table of the US president, forcing him to restrain Israel. Iran’s threat to end the process of message exchanges with the American side trapped Trump and revealed which side is more desperate to avoid war and reach an agreement. This will place the American side in an even weaker position in the coming days. Once again, events showed that Iran still has a freer hand than its counterpart to escalate tensions and impose its desired equation.

Etemad: Netanyahu’s dark objective in attacking Lebanon

Hassan Hanizadeh, an international affairs analyst, told Etemad that recent developments in southern Lebanon and the shift in the US government’s approach to Israeli actions reveal deeper dimensions of Israel’s retreat. Netanyahu’s main goal in provoking recent tensions is to occupy parts of Beirut’s outskirts and southern Lebanon, using them as bargaining chips in negotiations between Lebanon and Israel. Netanyahu sought to disrupt the regional political landscape and overshadow the Iran–US dialogue, obstructing any potential agreement between Tehran and Washington. However, Iran’s warning and threat became the turning point in these developments. Iran has proven that any political or strategic movement in the region must place the issue of southern Lebanon at the top of its priorities.