Shargh, in an interview with Sadegh Maleki, a senior foreign policy analyst, examined Rafael Grossi’s latest remarks about Iran. The language recently used by the IAEA Director General, rather than appearing independent and impartial, aligns closely with the United States’ latest sanctions and pressure campaign.

His statements should therefore be interpreted more as a complement to U.S. pressure on Iran than as a genuine attempt to resolve nuclear issues through peaceful and technical means. According to this analysis, Iran’s nuclear program can only be resolved through dialogue and diplomacy. Without mediation and the use of regional capacities, the risk of escalation and its wide-ranging consequences for all parties increases. This situation shows that regional rationality and active diplomacy are essential for managing the nuclear file effectively and preventing its destructive repercussions. Two key issues —energy security and Israel’s security—shape the main lines of Iran’s relationship with regional dynamics. Based on this, the Islamic Republic must either consign certain sensitive and tension-filled dossiers to a dormant archive or undertake strategic adjustments to rebuild its capacity for effective crisis management so that national interests are preserved, and regional tensions do not intensify.

Farhikhtegan: Grossi’s alignment with Netanyahu’s policies

Farhikhtegan also assessed Grossi’s alignment with Benjamin Netanyahu’s policies. According to the paper, Grossi’s remarks in Davos cannot be separated from his alignment with the approaches of Netanyahu and Donald Trump. Trump has claimed that he “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear facilities, while Netanyahu seeks to reshape this narrative to legitimize increased pressure on Iran. This alignment, the paper argues, is not accidental. Before the 12-day war, Grossi had stated that Iran’s nuclear program was so extensive and deep that any attack on its facilities would require extremely destructive force. These remarks, made before the late spring attacks on Iran (in 2025), indicate Grossi’s role in facilitating U.S. and Israeli operations. A few months ago, Grossi also used threatening language, suggesting that Iran’s acceptance of negotiations was necessary to avoid another round of bombings. This approach, aligned with Netanyahu, places Iran not at the negotiating table but at a “table of coercion”. The paper adds that while Grossi reacts to even the smallest Russian action against Ukraine, he has taken no action regarding Iran, and his inspectors have even acted contrary to Iran’s interests.

Ettelaat: A tactic for managing tensions!

Ettelaat, in an article, examined the recent remarks by the U.S. president’s special envoy regarding Iran. The paper argues that Steve Witkoff’s comments about Washington’s contact with Tehran come at a time when Iran–U.S. relations, under the shadow of mutual threats, regional developments, and protests in Iran, have entered a more tense situation than before. Over the past month, the United States has repeatedly taken harsh positions against the Islamic Republic, from Donald Trump’s public support for Iranian protesters to direct and indirect (military) threats against Tehran. These moves have been met with strong and decisive reactions from Iranian officials, who have described any external pressure as interference in Iran’s internal affairs and warned of its security consequences. In such an atmosphere, acknowledging “contact” with Iran is interpreted less as a sign of flexibility and more as an attempt to manage tensions. These contacts are likely taking place behind closed doors, aimed at preventing miscalculation, containing crises, and exchanging warning messages—without rising to the level of formal negotiations.

Jam-e-Jam: Trump acting contrary to his election promises

Jam-e-Jam analyzed Donald Trump’s approach, writing that although Trump had promised not to enter military conflicts in his foreign policy, in practice, we witnessed attacks on Iran, the kidnapping of the Venezuelan president, and his embarrassing remarks to annex Greenland, a semi-autonomous large island owned by Denmark. A significant portion of Trump’s voters supported him with the hope that he would reform the foreign policies of previous administrations—a slogan he himself emphasized. Yet in practice, his behavior diverged sharply from his promises. Trump also claims to have ended several wars, while many of these assertions are fundamentally inaccurate. For example, in the list of eight wars he claims to have ended, he mentions the Iran–Israel conflict; in one instance, he says he ended the war, and in another, he refers to himself as the commander of the war. This contradiction is obvious. In reality, Iran delivered a blow, and the other side halted—this was not a sign of peacemaking but rather an indication of the other side’s setback. In some cases, in Africa or Asia, there was either no serious conflict to begin with or the process of ending it was already unfolding naturally, yet Trump still attributes these outcomes to himself.