Kayhan, in an article, addressed Iran’s power and America’s strategic miscalculation. It wrote that unlike many regions where the United States experimented with trial and error, Iran is a powerful state–nation with a millennium‑old civilization.

Iran is not merely a political unit; it is a civilizational state with deep religious beliefs and a strong national identity. For Iran, the Persian Gulf is not just a waterway or a commercial route; it is part of its national identity and strategic security. Iran has built its defensive capabilities not on imported equipment but entirely through indigenous systems, designed with precise knowledge of its environment and an active‑defense doctrine. The era of domination has ended. Any attempt to encircle or pressure Iran will not push it back; instead, it will accelerate the collapse of the very system that assumes the world must obey its commands. In this region, victory is achieved not with warships but with faith and determination — a truth the “terrorist US government,” has failed to understand since 1961.

Iran: Iranian delegation’s trip to the Shanghai summit

The Iran newspaper, in an interview with Mehdi Javaheri, head of the Interior Ministry’s International Affairs Center, discussed the importance of Iran’s participation in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit at this critical moment. According to Javaheri, the summit had a positive impact on the Islamic Republic’s standing. The purpose of Iran’s presence was to firmly and powerfully defend its positions, emphasize the preservation of territorial integrity, and pursue political objectives within the SCO framework. One of the main goals was to strengthen Iran’s political status inside the organization. The most significant achievement of the Iranian delegation was the inclusion of two important clauses in the summit’s final statement. These clauses, focused on Iran, national sovereignty, security, and territorial integrity, were of special importance to Tehran and demonstrated that Iran’s active and effective participation helped reinforce its position among SCO member states.

Etemad: The uncertain future of negotiations

Etemad interviewed Majid Mohammad‑Sharifi, an international relations expert, about the dimensions of Iran–Israel tensions and their impact on US policy. According to this analyst, based on recent remarks by J.D. Vance, one can infer that there are—however small—some differences between the US and Israel under current conditions. However, Washington, due to the start of the World Cup and considerations related to the US midterm congressional elections, has no desire to enter a new military conflict with Iran. For now, America’s main priority is keeping the Strait of Hormuz open so that normal energy exports and global economic flows continue. If Iran’s actions are interpreted by Washington as steps toward a comprehensive agreement covering nuclear, missile, regional, and Israel‑related issues, future dialogue may be possible — but this remains far from Washington’s acceptance of Tehran’s demands.

Javan: America on the path to a war of attrition

Javan argued that the United States has become a pawn in Israel’s game. It wrote that the conditions surrounding negotiations and repeated ceasefire violations — including the US naval blockade — have never been acceptable to Iran. Trump’s new adventurism could pave the way for strategic actions to break the maritime blockade against Iran and Hezbollah. A mistaken US attack on Iranian infrastructure, the article warns, would open new fronts and expand the war beyond the region. Responsibility for the consequences would fall on Trump, who has allowed a weak ally like Israel to make decisions for him. Everyone knows, the article continues, that Netanyahu’s political survival depends on prolonging the war and that he fears a US withdrawal from the conflict. That Trump has tied America’s fate to the desires of the Israeli government — dragging the US toward a costly, unwinnable war of attrition — is astonishing. Such alignment, it argues, is either a sign of subservience or a grave mistake that only a gambler with nothing left to lose would make.

Khorasan: Why Trump is angry

Khorasan examined the reasons behind Trump’s anger and contradictory statements. It wrote that the real question is not why Trump is angry, but why the US president must, within a few hours, shift from calling negotiations “very good” to calling Iran a “dead bully,” and from speaking of “progress” to threatening “destruction of infrastructure.” The answer, it argues, lies in the same place Trump has been stuck for months: the Strait of Hormuz. What was supposed to be America’s pressure lever has now become a symbol of Washington’s strategic deadlock. When military power cannot produce the desired political outcome, the language of threats grows louder — but a louder voice does not necessarily mean a stronger position. Sometimes it simply signals that the speaker is more worried than ever about not being heard.