TEHRAN - Sobh-e-No, in an interview with Jafar Ghanadbashi, a Middle East expert, examined Netanyahu’s recent remarks and positions.

The analyst argued that, given Netanyahu’s long record of hostility toward Iran, it was natural for those following his speech to expect once again a barrage of repetitive accusations, fabricated claims, or exaggerated portrayals of Iran’s capabilities—or perhaps an attempt to incite the West and certain Arab states against Iran. Yet his latest stance was, to a considerable extent, more realistic. He has come to realize that years of rhetoric and efforts regarding Iran’s nuclear program, its support for resistance groups, and attempts to weaken the Islamic Republic have not enhanced Israel’s security. On the contrary, they have left the regime in a highly vulnerable position. The reality is that Israel now finds itself extremely fragile in the face of Iran’s missile power. For years, Netanyahu concentrated exclusively on the nuclear file, neglecting the growth and consolidation of Iran’s missile capabilities—a force that has now expanded significantly and become a decisive factor not only in regional equations but also in Israel’s own security calculations.

Javan: Iran’s struggle against domination

In a commentary, Javan addressed the West’s malign objectives toward Iran. It wrote: Iran is not accused of a mere technical issue; Iran is accused of standing against an unjust global order. The West seeks to reduce the conflict to a technical matter confined to the nuclear sphere, but the truth is that the Islamic Republic has raised the banner of justice against the system of domination, a reality that has unsettled corrupt and hegemonic powers. Iran’s central conflict is a strategic one over the world’s future. Today, Iran, as an independent actor, refuses to move within the orbit of U.S. hegemony and its allies. This political independence, especially after the failure of U.S. military projects in the region, has demonstrated that Iran’s resistance is not a slogan but a tangible, practical reality. Iran has managed to neutralize much of the impact of sanctions. This economic resilience shows that Iran’s confrontation with the West is about the right of nations to economic independence and liberation from the financial and commercial domination of major powers.

Farhikhtegan: A statement can’t make islands ‘non‑Iranian’ 

Farhikhtegan examined the issue of the three Iranian islands in the Persian Gulf in the joint statement of the UAE and China. The paper noted: The reference to the three Iranian islands in the final statement of the UAE and China comes at a time when Tehran and Beijing have, in recent years, spoken of “strategic cooperation” in relations. The Chinese consider the "One China" principle and their territorial claims in the South China Sea to be red lines. Therefore, for Iran, the issue of territorial integrity, and especially sovereignty over the three Iranian islands, is also an unavoidable red line. Despite these sensitivities, Iran does not expect its strategic partners, including China, to openly support it in regional disputes; however, it does expect them at least to uphold neutrality and refrain from entering issues that directly concern Iran’s national security and territorial integrity. For Iran, the continuation and deepening of relations with China remain highly important, but such engagement will only be sustainable if the principle of mutual respect for fundamental sensitivities is observed. Just as Iran seeks to respect Beijing’s vital interests, it expects this approach to be reciprocated by China.

Resalat: The path to survival

In an analysis, Resalat addressed Iran’s confrontation with Western bullying. The paper wrote: The world cannot find peace with politicians of the likes of Trump and Netanyahu. The issue is not limited to two individuals, but stems from a dangerous logic—a power‑driven, lawless, and unaccountable mindset that treats war, crisis, and insecurity as tools of survival and hegemony. In this logic, peace is the exception and crisis the rule. West Asia has been more victimized by this approach than any other region. From Palestine to Lebanon, from Syria to Yemen, and even from Saudi Arabia to Iraq, the footprints of U.S. interventionist policies and the security projects of the Zionist regime are clearly visible. Nor is this pattern confined to West Asia. In Latin America, countries such as Venezuela have for years been suffocated under sanctions, psychological operations, soft coups, and economic pressures. In such a world, it is naive to imagine that goodwill, one‑sided negotiations, or retreat could purchase security and calm. Historical experience has shown that wherever weakness is perceived, pressure intensifies; wherever retreat has occurred, new demands have been placed on the table. Therefore, Iran’s way of confronting this bullying is neither isolation nor pleading for acceptance, but becoming strong—strong in every dimension. Above all, Iran’s strength requires internal cohesion.