Khorasan, in an analysis of the enemy’s approach toward Iran, wrote: In the literature of Iran’s foreign policy, an old warning has always been repeated: “The West wants to turn Iran into Syria.” Critics and opposition groups put forward the narrative that if the United States attacks the Islamic Republic, the country will turn into a developed Japan. Today, field evidence and the implicit admissions of Western officials have seriously challenged this duality.

The focal point of this revelation is a message published by the President of the United States, in which Emmanuel Macron revealed to Donald Trump the West’s plan for Iran. In that message, the current situation in Syria is described as a successful model. Macron labels this path with a meaningful phrase: in the line—that is, in the same predetermined direction and trajectory. If this expression is correctly understood, it carries a strategic admission from European leaders. The admission of the success of the Syrian model is an alarm bell indicating that the main conflict is a multilayered battle over stability, social cohesion, and national decision?making capacity. Understanding this reality is the prerequisite for any realistic analysis of Iran’s future within the current turbulent global order.

Siasat-e-Rooz: The West’s new war to destabilize Iran

Siasat-e-Rooz, in a commentary, addressed Zelensky’s speech at the Davos summit. According to the newspaper, the West— which in recent months sought to fragment Iran through widespread killings and ISIS?like behavior while riding the wave of the people’s economic demands— suffered yet another defeat due to the vigilance of the Iranian people. Therefore, it has now adopted another dimension of cognitive warfare aimed at eroding Iranian resilience and ultimately destabilizing and forcing Iran into submission— a trend visible in the activities at the recent Davos meeting. In an illogical move, the West prevented the attendance of Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister, while at the same time some Western leaders made baseless accusations against Iran. Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, devoted a large portion of his remarks to human rights accusations against Iran, perhaps hoping to extract more money from Western governments. According to Khatibzadeh, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, these actions are a continuation of the enemy’s failures in the 12?day war and part of an effort to compensate for their strategic defeats in the military and security arenas.

Iran: The unwritten Tehran–Ankara alliance against a common enemy

The Iran newspaper wrote about the unwritten alliance between Tehran and Ankara: Behind the regional reactions to Iran’s domestic developments and the terrorist crimes targeting the security of the Iranian nation, in addition to the actions of Iraq and Saudi Arabia, Turkey was among the countries that adopted explicit positions regarding possible military threats against our country. These positions ranged from the highest political levels—namely, the stance of the Turkish president—to demonstrations by the people of Istanbul in support of Iran. Another one of the most explicit position was taken by Turkey’s foreign minister. Hakan Fidan, in the midst of the unrest and disturbances in Iran, emphasized the role of the Zionist regime in provoking tensions and believes that Iran’s external enemies exploited Iran’s domestic protests. Turkish leaders, especially over the past year as developments in Syria have unfolded, have come to clearly understand that Israel recognizes no red lines in shaping the region according to its desired order. Israel’s corridor war has been drawn in such a way that Turkey, along with Iran, is placed on the edge of fragmentation and isolation.

Arman-e-Melli: From claim to reality

“Distrust” is perhaps the best description of the Iran–U.S. relationship, especially at a time when the international environment, due to recent developments and events, is facing new conditions. Nevertheless, the window of diplomacy is still open, and both sides continue to speak of negotiation and dialogue. However, the point is that to reach a proper result and agreement, both sides must share views on certain essential issues so that an outcome can be achieved. Therefore, even if we witness multiple rounds of negotiations between Tehran and Washington, and at each stage, each side merely presents own demands, it is natural that no agreement will be made. It seems that the issue lies in the differing perspectives of the two sides regarding negotiation and agreement—perspectives that have prevented negotiations from taking place or, when they have taken place, have produced no results. Trump and his team equate negotiation with submission and consider a negotiation successful only when all their demands and conditions are accepted.