Jam‑e-Jam, in an analysis of the presence of senior officials from various countries at the funeral of the martyred Leader of the Islamic Revolution, quoted Mohsen Pak‑Ayeen as saying that a significant portion of the world’s countries hold critical views toward the war‑driven policies of the United States and the Israeli regime.

Their attendance at the funeral, in this context, amounts to a declaration of opposition to hegemonic approaches that have overshadowed the international system in recent years. Furthermore, the presence of countries opposed to US unilateralism can be interpreted as a sign of strengthening tendencies toward multilateralism in global governance. From this perspective, such participation indicates that unilateralism is on a downward trajectory, while the number of states supporting a multilateral order is rising. In this view, Iran has also emerged as a model for these countries.

Khorasan: An end to the Haifa Bridge dream

Khorasan, in an article, examined the strategic dead‑end facing the IMEC project. According to Khorasan, while Washington and Tel Aviv introduced the “IMEC corridor” in an effort to remove Iran and Turkey from the global transit map, the consequences of the Gaza war and rising tensions with the Axis of Resistance have turned this ambition into a strategic impasse. Today, not only has Iran’s regional influence not been weakened, but regional rivals led by Ankara are drawing a new map that effectively eliminates Israel from the equation. Israel’s warmongering—designed to economically besiege Iran and sideline its competitors—has now become the greatest threat to the regime’s own economic survival. While Iran maintains firm control over the Strait of Hormuz and Bab al‑Mandab, regional rivals are exploiting the security vacuum created by Israel to construct a new order in which the “Haifa Bridge” will be nothing more than a historical mirage.

Farhikhtegan: Iran must secure its proper place in the new global order

In an interview with Farhikhtegan, Danyal Davoudi, a PhD in development economics, discussed the martyred Leader’s perspective on national economic strategy. According to him, the Leader emphasized positioning Iran correctly within the emerging global order and prioritizing economic engagement with the East over the West. Contrary to claims that his emphasis on the national economy implied shutting Iran’s doors to the world, his outlook was never isolationist. He consistently stressed that Iran must secure an appropriate place in the new global order. Given the decline of Western economies—especially that of the United States—and statistical evidence showing that the future of global economic power lies in Asia, he strongly advocated the strategic preference for the East. Without correctly defining its relationship to the global economy, no national economy can be strengthened.

Vatan‑e-Emrooz: Conditions do not favor Trump

Vatan‑e-Emrooz analyzed the possibility of Donald Trump choosing war with Iran again, arguing that war would be an extremely costly option for him. The Strait of Hormuz, due to US provocations, is currently completely closed. Washington’s failure to fulfill its commitments under the agreement has led Iran, in accordance with the text of the accord, to refuse to enter the second phase of negotiations. Thus, not only are current conditions entirely unfavorable for Trump, but their continuation also works against him. Experts believe that prolonging the situation will increase Trump’s need for a deal with Iran, giving Tehran the upper hand. Many analysts argue that even if the agreement remains in place and the US does not resume war against Iran, extending the duration of the accord would still carry significant consequences for Trump. The longer time passes, the greater Trump’s need for an agreement becomes—and Iran can leverage this to secure more concessions.

Javan: Trump’s turbulence produced no results

Javan, in an article on the US government’s reckless and provocative behavior, wrote that Washington’s disruptive actions after the end of the 40‑day war against the Islamic Republic of Iran are less a sign of strength than a reaction born of desperation in the face of new regional realities. These realities are reflected both in the massive, historic turnout of Iranians and Iraqis at the funeral of the martyred Leader and in the deterrent capabilities of Iran’s armed forces and Tehran’s consolidated role in Persian Gulf security arrangements. The White House, having failed to impose its will militarily, is now attempting through adventurism to influence post‑war dynamics—an effort that has been thwarted by Iran’s firm military response and insistence on Iranian management of the Strait of Hormuz.