Kayhan wrote a note about Trump’s lies and his defeat: More than three months after the start of the US war against Iran, assessments published in American and Western media and think tanks show that many of Trump’s declared objectives in the war were not only unmet, but—according to media and experts—Trump has been labeled the major loser of the conflict.

Trump repeatedly spoke of victory and complete success in this war. According to CNN, he claimed 39 times that Iran had surrendered or accepted US demands, but each time his claims turned out to be false. Trump’s repeated lies about a deal with Iran and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz led American media to openly state: “Don’t take Trump’s words seriously.” According to prominent American analysts, the war with Iran made it clear to everyone that the United States is no longer a superpower, and the limits of US power and influence across the world were exposed. The world’s great superpower, with its trillion‑dollar military, could not even reopen the Strait of Hormuz and resorted to false claims of an agreement to cover its failure.

Shargh: Negotiation is not a sign of weakness or surrender

In an interview with political activist Mohammad‑Javad Mozaffar, Shargh examined the importance of negotiation. Mozaffar believes that over the past four decades, Iran has repeatedly faced situations that could have been turned into opportunities but did not use. Today, the issue of the Strait of Hormuz can likewise become either an opportunity or a new crisis. Iran has the ability to defend its interests in this region, but at the same time, it must prevent conditions from reaching a point where the country faces broader economic and political pressure. The concern, he says, is that instead of using existing capacities to reduce tensions and gain political and economic advantages, Iran might once again move in a direction that results in a global consensus against it. Negotiation, in principle, is neither a sign of weakness nor a form of surrender. It is one of the tools of statecraft in the modern world. Iran can pursue a form of engagement and balance within the framework of its national interests without losing its independence or identity. What matters, he says, is using the tools of power at the right time.

Iran: The theory of “peace through strength” has failed

In an analysis, the Iran newspaper highlighted the importance of national cohesion in any potential future agreement. It wrote that if an agreement between Iran and the United States is finalized in the coming days, it will be the result of developments on the ground and the historic resistance of the Iranian people and armed forces. What takes shape at the negotiating table has already been determined by national power and will. From this perspective, the potential agreement is less a symbol of American power and more a sign of its limitations, which became evident during the recent war and crisis. The US and Israel entered this confrontation with different assumptions. Their calculations were based on the belief that Iran, under maximum pressure, heavy military strikes, and broad threats, would either surrender to Washington’s demands or fall into instability and collapse. But Iran neither collapsed nor surrendered; instead, it once again displayed one of its most important historical characteristics. What is now seen as an understanding or possible agreement is, in fact, the failure of one of the most important US foreign‑policy doctrines in recent years: the doctrine of “peace through strength.”

Etemad: Iran’s new geopolitical shield

In an interview with strategic analyst Saeed Laylaz, Etemad discussed Iran’s new geopolitical shield. Laylaz argues that the imminent understanding between Iran and the US, contrary to some critical narratives, is not a retreat but the result of a balance of power and a significant achievement for Iran. Recent military and diplomatic developments show that Iran has managed to stabilize its position vis‑à‑vis the United States and even tilt the balance of power somewhat in its favor. If this understanding is accompanied by reforms in governance and the strengthening of the domestic economy, Iran could enter a new era of development and stability. According to Laylaz, Iran must certainly preserve its geopolitical shield, which consists of three main elements: The Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important geopolitical chokepoints, where Iran plays a decisive role, a strong domestic popular base, and continued strengthening of Iran’s missile capabilities. If Iran maintains the first two and reinforces the third, it will possess a powerful geopolitical shield.