The Iran newspaper argued that Saudi Arabia misjudged Iran’s broader strategy and the Axis of Resistance regarding Yemen. Riyadh imagined that military action against Yemen would weaken Iran. Instead, the conflict evolved into a strategic advantage for Tehran. Through careful management and without assuming direct control, Iran benefited from developments in Yemen.

The Ansarallah’s ability to threaten the Bab al-Mandab Strait enabled Iran to exercise influence over two major global energy chokepoints: the Strait of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab. Iran also positioned itself as a responsible actor by offering mediation and linking the Yemen issue to wider diplomatic negotiations. According to the article, Saudi Arabia failed to recognize this strategic chain of events and found itself in a situation where Ansarallah’s actions ultimately benefited Iran. One of Riyadh’s key mistakes, it argues, was misunderstanding the nature of the relationship between Iran and the Ansarallah.

Ham-Mihan: Trump has already made his final decision

In an interview with international affairs analyst Hassan Hanizadeh, Ham-Mihan examined Donald Trump’s approach toward relations between Tehran and Washington. Hanizadeh said the possibility of conflict remains serious and that Trump could resort to military action in an attempt to reshape regional dynamics in favor of the United States and Israel. Such a course, he warned, could have far-reaching consequences if accompanied by miscalculations. Developments in the Strait of Hormuz and incidents involving large vessels have added further complexity to the situation. According to Hanizadeh, the US president appears to have already decided on Iran, and the possibility of military action has not disappeared. At the same time, Iran is prepared to defend its borders. Given the current sensitive environment, any military move or miscalculation by either side could widen the crisis and produce consequences extending beyond the two countries.

Sobh-e-No: Will a new war break out?
Sobh-e-No analyzed possible US scenarios regarding a renewed war with Iran. The paper outlined three possibilities. The first is a large-scale, comprehensive attack. The second is a limited, symbolic strike intended as a signal. The third is postponement until after the midterm congressional elections. It argues that Trump is currently managing tensions in order to get through the election period. However, this delay does not mean the danger of conflict has disappeared; it merely postpones a decision. As a result, the likelihood of a major war in the short term is considered low, though a limited attack or uncontrolled escalation remains possible. According to the article, Trump is reluctant to accept the economic costs, political risks, internal divisions, and strategic uncertainties associated with a new war. He views the conflict as a potential political vulnerability and would prefer to contain it before the election. Nevertheless, mounting pressures could still push him toward either a controlled or unintended escalation.

Javan: Control over Hormuz has significant psychological effects on foes 

In an analysis of Iran’s approach toward the Strait of Hormuz, Javan argued that understanding the deeper historical and geoeconomic context is essential. The paper argued that Iran’s decision to impose new management rules over the strait and abandon passivity should not be interpreted as a temporary defensive measure. Rather, it described the move as part of a broader and proactive strategy aimed at signaling the end of American hegemony in West Asia. According to the article, Iran’s determination to maintain sovereign control over the strait has significant psychological and strategic effects on enemies. It argues that this persistence creates frustration within Washington’s decision-making process and could eventually lead US leaders to conclude that efforts to force Iran’s submission through military pressure and war are futile.

Kayhan: US concerned about Iran’s impact on mid-term elections

In an explanation, Kayhan said that the United States is increasingly concerned about Iran’s influence on the American political climate. The paper noted that Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed concern in recent weeks about Iran’s impact on the US Congressional mid-term elections. According to the article, Trump views election results as a measure of success in the war that began against Iran on February 28. It argues that over the past seven months he has repeatedly made claims suggesting that Iran’s military, economic, and political capacities have been severely weakened. However, the paper says that opinion polls in the United States indicate these claims have failed to convince the public. Kayhan contends that Trump’s repeated statements are an attempt to conceal the difficulties that the confrontation with Iran has created for Washington. The article further argues that recent surveys show growing public pessimism regarding success against Iran and increasing concern over the economic pressures associated with the conflict.