Kayhan, in an article, addressed the global crisis triggered after the US and Israeli attack on Iran. It argues that the joint strikes by the United States and the Israeli regime created a regional conflict that spread across the Persian Gulf and Lebanon, disrupted major shipping routes—including the Strait of Hormuz—forced vessels to reroute, and severely restricted global energy flows and supply chains.

Governments and international institutions may try to mitigate the consequences of such crises through financial, commercial, and political tools, but experience shows that the cost of instability and conflict eventually crosses geographic borders and entangles the global economy. From this perspective, safeguarding vital trade and energy routes is not merely a regional necessity but a fundamental precondition for market stability, national welfare, and sustained global economic growth—an undeniable reality that recent developments have once again placed clearly before the eyes of the world.

Siasat-e-Rooz: A misstep comes with double the cost

Siasat-e Rooz, in its editorial, discussed the IAEA Board of Governors meeting and the US objectives there. It writes that the United States appears to be placing a set of secondary pressure tools on the negotiating table—such as a naval blockade, daily low-intensity military aggression in southern Iran, a possible IAEA resolution, and new sanctions—in exchange for demanding the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. Under such circumstances, Iran should not only actively participate in the Board of Governors meeting to expose the dimensions of American–Israeli nuclear terrorism and their aggression against Iran’s nuclear facilities, but also take practical steps to increase the cost for the United States within the IAEA. Iran must adopt a pre‑emptive approach by issuing an operational warning to the IAEA and the international community that any resolution could lead to a complete halt in cooperation with the Agency, a possible withdrawal from it, or an increase in enrichment levels. The United States must understand that every move carries an added cost, forcing it—through cost–benefit calculations—to retreat.

Hamshahri: Hollow power

At a time when the US president is trying to portray the war against Iran as a sign of American strength and a strategic victory, a significant portion of the media, analysts, and even American politicians view the White House narrative with skepticism and ridicule. Some senators and political figures critical of the administration have accused Trump of improvisation and impulsive decision‑making; Chuck Schumer even called him “a military fool.” Meanwhile, several Western media outlets, pointing to Trump’s constantly shifting positions on the Iran war, have questioned Washington’s official narratives. Analysts argue that the gap between the White House’s claims and realities on the ground has grown so wide that even within the United States, the administration’s narrative is seen less as a coherent strategy and more as a subject of sarcasm, satire, and political criticism.

Resalat: The Strait of Hormuz is a leverage, not a concession

Resalat emphasized the importance of the Strait of Hormuz as a tool of leverage. It argues that now that Iran has come to the negotiating table from a position of strength, the equation must be reversed: this time, it is the United States that must prove it is ready to honor its commitments. According to the paper, Iran—not the other side—holds the leverage, and maintaining this leverage is not an act of warmongering but a matter of strategic rationality and national interest. If the management of the Strait of Hormuz is based on new legal frameworks in which Iran, as the coastal state and regional power, plays a regulatory role, several strategic outcomes follow: Economic leverage against countries that have targeted Iran’s economy is preserved, a stable source of revenue from navigation services emerges, helping fund reconstruction costs, and most importantly, real deterrence is created—forcing any power to think twice before embarking on new adventures.

Ettelaat: Israel’s goal is expansionism

Ettelaat evaluated the escalation of tensions in Lebanon. It argues that the renewed escalation—which has brought Lebanon back to the center of conflict—is not merely a pressure tactic against Lebanon and Hezbollah, but also an attempt to disrupt or reshape the negotiation process between the United States and Iran. This escalation operates along two main tracks: US-mediated negotiations between Lebanon and Israel and negotiations between the United States and Iran. According to the analysis, Netanyahu seeks to use “field‑pressure diplomacy” to increase his demands by intensifying attacks, occupying territory, threatening to strike Beirut, and imposing new realities on the ground to shift the balance in his favor. This means that the ceasefire agreement imposes no obligation on Israel to halt its fire; rather, it aims only to stop Hezbollah’s fire and serves as a tool for Israeli expansionism.