In an interview with Hassan Hanizadeh, an international affairs expert, Shargh referred to the anti‑Iran resolution passed by the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Hanizadeh said that this resolution was adopted under pressure from the United States and certain European countries to increase pressure on Iran and isolate it, and that its political dimension outweighs its technical aspects.

He stated that the resolution contains no new technical ambiguities that had not already been addressed, which indicates that Iran has taken the necessary steps toward transparency. Nevertheless, the Board of Governors and the IAEA Director General, in their reports on Iran’s nuclear activities, have focused primarily on political considerations and have ignored technical aspects. Referring this resolution to the UN Security Council could push Iran toward withdrawing from the Nuclear Non‑Proliferation Treaty (NPT)—although Russia and China may veto any resolution against Iran in the Security Council.

Iran: Let us not destroy our opportunities

The Iran newspaper spoke with Bahador Zarei, a professor of geopolitics, about Iran’s geographic and geopolitical capacities. Zarei said that although Iran is relatively small in geoeconomic terms, it is the 17th largest country in the world in terms of national power, national security, and territorial size. However, Iran is not strong in trade, with a trade volume of less than 50 billion dollars. Therefore, Iran must enter the global geoeconomic cycle and expand its commercial relations with various countries. In such a scenario, both the Caspian Sea in the north and the Persian Gulf in the south would gain strategic and geostrategic importance, enabling Iran to connect to Central Asia, the Caucasus, South Asia, West Asia, and Southwest Asia. Iran has land and maritime borders with 13 countries, which is one of the factors that makes Iran difficult to sanction effectively. If the issues surrounding the Strait of Hormuz are resolved, even if the United States seeks to impose sanctions on Iran, implementing such sanctions would not be easily feasible.

Siasat-e-Rooz: The US and Israel started the war, but Iran will end it

In its editorial, Siasat-e-Rooz focused on Iran’s regional power and its control over the Strait of Hormuz. The paper wrote that recent developments in the Persian Gulf and the US–Iran conflict show that the United States still imagines it can use its military and economic capacity to force Iran into submission and manage financial markets, hoping to reduce Trump’s economic challenges. In contrast, Iran—through new initiatives and by expanding the scope of its operations from the military domain into the technological, geopolitical, and economic spheres—is sending a clear message that control of the Strait of Hormuz remains in Iran’s hands. Ultimately, it is Tehran that determines the outcome of the war of endurance. The paper argues that no country can pass through the Strait of Hormuz or the Persian Gulf without Iran’s coordination and consent. This means that the United States and Israel may have initiated the conflict, but Iran will be the one to conclude it.

Jam-e-Jam: America’s attritional deadlock in the Strait of Hormuz

Jam-e Jam analyzed Iran’s powerful attacks on US positions in the region. According to the paper, the unprecedented damage suffered by the Pentagon and the CIA is the result of entirely flawed strategic decisions made by US policymakers in the war with Iran. The United States, by adopting an attritional strategy, has begun a new phase of continuous attacks on military infrastructure in the Strait of Hormuz. But these temporary successes have never been sustainable, as they are always met with immediate Iranian counter‑strikes, including drone attacks, while Iran’s industrial base remains intact. Applying this doctrine against a state actor exposes Washington to severe risks of miscalculation. While the US needs secure passage through the Strait, Iran can impose high costs simply by creating a sense of insecurity. This asymmetry, combined with the US inability to contain ballistic missile responses, has turned the conflict into a low‑intensity but persistent battle.

Hamshahri: The deterrence equation is on Iran’s table

Hamshahri analyzed Iran’s approach to the war with the United States, describing it as a war of equations—breaking existing equations and creating new ones. The paper argued that sustainable security has three pillars: deterrence, diplomacy aimed at reducing isolation, and national power and social cohesion. From this perspective, the Islamic Republic must maintain and strengthen deterrence, because weakening it would undermine the other two pillars and create serious risks and potential crises for the country. Deterrence has minimum and maximum levels. Iran has reached a certain level, but still has a long path ahead to reinforce it so that the very idea of attacking Iran becomes minimal.