Arman-e-Emrooz analyzed Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming visit to Tehran on Monday. Reports suggest that the trip is part of Russia’s ongoing mediation efforts between Iran and the United States. In recent months, Moscow has sought to position itself as a facilitator in reducing tensions between Tehran and Washington.

The timing of the visit coincides with US review of sanctions and measures related to the so-called shadow fleet, highlighting the complexity of the current situation. On one hand, the United States faces domestic pressure to lower energy prices ahead of elections. On the other, Iran is seeking meaningful economic relief. These circumstances have created an environment in which both sides may be inclined toward tactical flexibility. The meeting between Lavrov and Araghchi could represent an important step in that direction, provided both parties enter discussions with a shared understanding of existing realities and align their expectations with practical possibilities. The outcome of the visit could influence developments in the coming weeks.

Khorasan: Trump, the mother of all lies

Khorasan addressed Trump’s recent claim about using the “Mother of All Bombs” in a future strike against Iran. Trump is making such threats at a time when the economic consequences of tensions in the region have significantly increased costs related to energy and essential goods for American families and other countries, putting additional pressure on his administration. The paper described Trump as a gambler seeking a face-saving exit from the Iran war quagmire. After previous efforts, including military deployments to the region and severe economic pressure campaigns that were expected to quickly force Iran into submission, failed to achieve their goals, Trump has now turned to the rhetoric of the “Mother of All Bombs.” The article contends that the purpose of such statements is to create psychological pressure inside Iran and gain leverage in ongoing exchanges of messages between the two sides.

Shargh: An open-ended American policy or an open-ended Iranian one?

Shargh devoted its editorial to decision-making regarding the current conflict. The newspaper argued that decisions made today are linked not only to the future of 90 million Iranians but, in some respects, to global developments as well. The editorial proposed moving beyond the simple pro-war versus pro-peace divide and distinguishing among three separate positions: first, ending the war at any cost; second, negotiating an end to the conflict while preserving core national red lines; and third, continuing resistance until specific political and security conditions are achieved. This conceptual distinction is important for policymaking. A person who favors negotiations does not necessarily support surrender or territorial fragmentation, just as someone who considers resistance necessary is not necessarily indifferent to its human and economic costs. The paper argues that recognizing this distinction prevents an “open-ended American policy” from automatically being interpreted as an “open-ended Iranian policy,” which it describes as the key issue.

Ettelaat: Possibility of a longer conflict process

Ettelaat examined possible future scenarios for the conflict. US demands have shifted from redefining Iran’s regional role to focusing on the nuclear issue and the Strait of Hormuz. Meanwhile, Iran’s demands have reportedly evolved from direct compensation by Washington to a conditional investment fund financed by other parties. Nevertheless, the newspaper argued that two major ambiguities remain unresolved and may even have deepened as a result of the conflict. Continued American pressure is said to intensify divisions among Iranian elites and increase their reluctance to take the first step. Washington, however, may interpret this hesitation as evidence that pressure is working and therefore warrants further action. According to the analysis, diplomacy has reached a deadlock. As US midterm elections draw closer, there remains a possibility that the conflict will add another chapter to the historical memories each side holds of the other, extending a process that has already lasted for more than four decades.

Hamshahri: The impact of war and economic tensions on US elections

Hamshahri focused on concerns influencing American voters. The newspaper argued that economic conditions and the conflict involving Iran have become major public concerns. Rising prices for gasoline, diesel fuel, and essential goods, along with inflation and growing concerns about living costs, have increased pressure on the Trump administration. The paper noted that these concerns are reflected in public opinion polls and political analyses. At the same time, the Iran conflict remains among voters’ principal worries. Hamshahri also linked these concerns to allegations regarding corruption and the financial interests of individuals close to Trump in connection with the conflict. As a result, the newspaper concluded that the economic pressures associated with the conflict cannot be ignored in assessing the US political climate. According to its analysis, these pressures have fueled public dissatisfaction and could present a significant challenge for Republicans in upcoming elections.