Arman-e-Melli examined the current situation between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in an analysis by former diplomat Hassan Beheshtipour. According to Beheshtipour, in such circumstances where there is a difference of opinion between Iran and the Agency, we must think of a new way. We must set up a new framework for cooperation between Iran and the Agency.

The Europeans must understand that by issuing a resolution. However, they are making the issue more difficult. They must think about how the Agency can find solutions that, given the new conditions that have arisen following the U.S. attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities supervised by the Agency. They also must define a new modality of cooperation between Iran and the Agency in light of this aggressive action by the United States. Iran must act intelligently and find solutions to cooperate with the Agency. Discrediting the Agency will not solve Iran's problem. We can reach new solutions with the Agency. There must be will. We must accept that if we want to have peaceful nuclear activities, we must engage in interaction and dialogue with the Agency and seek new solutions and reach a new modality. This is possible and can be achieved.

Etemad: Diplomacy pushed to the brink

Etemad observes that relations between Iran and the United States are becoming increasingly strained by mounting ambiguities and conflicts. While Tehran seeks diplomatic avenues to navigate these high-stakes threats, the actions of the U.S. and several European nations suggest that diplomacy has devolved into mere power politics and aggressive posturing. In this climate, strategic ambiguity is likely to persist. With diplomacy pushed to the brink and Iran facing hybrid threats, the nation must prioritize repairing its social fabric while adopting a survival strategy rooted in power generation, deterrence, and strategic flexibility.

Sobh-e-No: The war and peace game

In recent weeks, the world's media have generally started their working day with the new positions of U.S. President Donald Trump. Trump's most important characteristic is his resort to vulgar language and comments that are worthless in terms of credibility and accuracy. Trump's approach and his daily statements about Iran are primarily based on attracting global attention. However, Trump's second goal in making strange and sometimes contradictory statements is to continue the war and peace game. In fact, he is trying to pressure and practically threaten Iran on the path to negotiations by maintaining the shadow of war. What is certain is that the U.S. government has so far received a response from the Iranian diplomatic apparatus commensurate with the U.S. war and peace game; we are neither afraid of the threat of war, nor do we accept an unreasonable imposed negotiation in the shadow of war. The path to peace will be paved when Trump understands the differences between Iran and the subjugated countries and realizes that resorting to threats and bullying will not be an effective approach.

Iran: A resolution in the interests of actors

In a commentary, the Iran newspaper addressed the special session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva following the protests in Iran. It wrote: This session was once again a familiar scene of conflicting approaches; an approach that began on the surface with the banner of "human rights,” but inside it had clear signs of an attempt to exploit it for the interests of certain actors. Also, a day before the Human Rights Council session, the European Parliament once again issued a resolution against Iran, citing human rights statements in a showy manner, which was considered a continuation of the process of politicizing human rights in a clear alignment with U.S. and Israeli pressures. Our country's Foreign Ministry assessed this resolution as part of a targeted and interventionist attack that is in line with policies coordinated with the U.S. and the Israeli regime. The Iranian Foreign Ministry statement described the European Parliament resolution as "interventionist, irresponsible, and based on false claims," ??emphasizing that the European legislative body lacks the moral authority to speak about human rights due to the direct or indirect role of many of its members in supporting illegal sanctions and accompanying the Zionist regime's military aggression.