Kayhan analyzed Donald Trump’s retreat from his threats against Iran. According to Kayhan, Trump’s withdrawal from a war on infrastructure and his failure to open the strategic arteries of Hormuz and Bab al‑Mandab once again demonstrated the ineffectiveness of coercive threats when faced with the Islamic Republic’s credible deterrence.

This development, the paper argues, reflects the consolidation of a new regional power structure that forces Washington and its allies to accept on‑the‑ground realities and adapt to new arrangements. What happened on the battlefield, Kayhan writes, was not a change in CENTCOM’s posture but the transmission of a decisive message from Tehran: any strategic miscalculation targeting Iran’s infrastructure would be met with the “return to the Stone Age” doctrine, extinguishing all US terrorist interests in the region. Trump, who believed military threats could force Iran to retreat, once again learned that in the face of Iran’s credible deterrence, he has no escape route other than backing down.

Iran: Neither endless war nor imposed peace

The Iran newspaper published an article describing what it sees as the country’s correct and rational approach under wartime conditions. The paper argues that Iran now needs a reconsideration of its strategic outlook and a shift toward a balanced approach—one that views war and its consequences through multiple lenses (political, economic, social, psychological) and bases strategic cooperation on independent, homegrown capabilities. This balanced approach rests on three pillars: crafting an exit strategy through strong defense paired with political foresight, diversifying partnerships while prioritizing strategic allies, and strengthening internal cohesion. In this framework, the armed forces serve as the arm of power, diplomacy as the instrument of strategic intelligence, the economy as the foundation of survival, and the people as the core of national resilience. Together, the paper argues, these elements can guide the country safely through this historic test.

Farhikhtegan: Trump’s strategic dead end

Farhikhtegan evaluated what it calls Trump’s strategic impasse. According to the paper, the United States is trying to craft a sophisticated image through special maneuvers, threats, retreats, and ambiguity. But understanding US intentions requires seeing the full picture. Beyond broad, undeniable indicators, the design of upcoming military moves reveals a dead end in US strategy. Because the air campaign in the 12‑day conflict failed to achieve US objectives, Washington launched a 40‑day campaign by adding naval forces. Now, after that too has failed, the US intends to bring ground forces into the next confrontation. Another sign of strategic deadlock, the paper argues, is the threat against Iran’s energy infrastructure. If the US targets Iranian energy facilities, Iran will respond in kind—and even if passage through Hormuz were rewarded with millions of dollars instead of costs and risks, there would be no cargo left to ship.

Jam-e-Jam: The enemy must abandon its illusions

Jam-e-Jam writes that the technical and military realities are clear: claims of large‑scale operations and the movement of assets such as refueling aircraft, airborne radars, and aircraft carriers are merely psychological operations aimed at creating fear and pushing Iran into new negotiations to alter the 14‑point agreement. According to the paper, the Trump administration is trapped in a deep quagmire. Iran, by continuously updating its database of strategic targets and infrastructure, is fully prepared for a crushing response—one that would force regional US allies to withdraw, destabilize the energy market, and inevitably shut down operations in the Strait of Hormuz. The paper concludes that the only way out for the enemy is to abandon illusions and fully adhere to the 14‑point understanding. Iran, it says, has repeatedly shown it will not be deceived by incomplete or manipulative agreements; only genuine commitment to precise implementation can resolve the crisis.

Ettelaat: Strategic cooperation or bargaining leverage?

In its analysis, Ettelaat examined Tehran–Beijing defense relations. The paper notes that recent remarks by Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson have once again brought the topic to the forefront. In recent years, ties between Tehran and Beijing have expanded beyond energy and trade, with political, security, and military cooperation becoming more prominent. However, analysts believe China still seeks to maintain a balance among its broad economic ties with Arab states, its relations with the West, and its developing partnership with Iran. For this reason, even if defense cooperation grows, Beijing is unlikely to quickly become a major supplier of weapons to Iran. For Tehran, meanwhile, highlighting the possibility of military cooperation with China can strengthen deterrence and serve as a political and diplomatic lever in negotiations and geopolitical competition. The paper expects this topic to attract increased media and analytical attention in the coming months as regional developments unfold.