Shargh devoted its editorial to the looming third round of talks between Iran and the United States in Geneva. According to the editorial, the Geneva talks between Iran and the United States can be considered historic in some ways.

If this round of talks succeeds and leads to the formation of a framework agreement, it could be the beginning of subsequent rounds of talks with the participation of technical and legal experts from both sides. It is likely that the acceptance of the "suspension of enrichment" will be contingent on the United States recognizing Iran's right to uranium enrichment. The acceptance of any proposal other than zero enrichment seems to depend on two factors: first, how the agreement will be verified, and second, Trump's ability to present an agreement other than zero enrichment. In the first case, IAEA chief Rafael Grossi's active and continuous participation in the talks has increased the likelihood of a serious discussion about partial or symbolic enrichment. What could strengthen this possibility is the agreement by the negotiating parties to a special verification formula, in which the role of the IAEA will naturally be very important.

Iran: A fateful meeting

Diplomats from Iran and the United States will meet again in Geneva on Thursday, a Thursday that is already being described as "fateful" because the negotiations have entered a stage where the sides have exchanged views on the general outlines of an agreement and have now reached the stage to present draft texts. The previous round laid the bedrock for determining the task to write drafts, which showed that the parties have accepted, at least at a minimal level, the necessity of moving from abstract frameworks to written and measurable formulations. If Tehran can reach a sustainable and reliable understanding on an IAEA monitoring mechanism, this potential achievement could act as a lever to facilitate political compromise. However, the negotiating framework remains subject to Iran’s defined red lines, including the continuation of enrichment on Iranian soil and the non-export of existing stocks. In contrast, Washington claims to be concerned that Iran’s nuclear program will not be diverted to military purposes, and has made this the focus of its demands.

Vatan-e-Emrooz: The military importance of an island

In an analysis, Vatan-e-Emrooz discussed the dispute between Washington and London over the use of Diego Garcia Island for a possible attack on Iran. The paper wrote: In recent days, reports have been published in Western media that reveal a ‘serious disagreement between the U.S. and British governments’ over the use of a strategic military base for military action against Iran. England, as America’s official partner in the governance of this base, has not only opposed any military action against Iran but has also warned that using it for an attack could have serious legal and political consequences for London. London is concerned that entering directly into a conflict with Iran will not only threaten the security of its forces and interests in the Middle East, but also expose the country to legal consequences arising from the use of disputed territory. The key point is that this disagreement once again shows that even America's closest allies are not ready to unconditionally support Trump's personalized and risky foreign policy, especially when Iran and the world's interests in the West Asia region are at stake.

Hamshahri: America's internal problems and diversion of attention to Iran

Trump's recent positions have once again shown that, contrary to propaganda and media hype, the Tel Aviv-Washington axis does not fundamentally distinguish between "the people" and "the Islamic Republic." First, it should be noted that Trump was expected to intensify his threatening behavior before Thursday's talks in Geneva because they believe that threats and increased pressure will intimidate the Iranian people and force them to surrender. Historical experience, however, shows the opposite: from his first term to today, America has always put the option of "war" on the table and made threats; now the hidden reality behind the threats has become more apparent, but this remains a continuous miscalculation. One thing that should not be overlooked is that America and the Zionist regime are in a difficult situation today. This situation has forced them to try to divert global attention to the Iranian issue. Therefore, by directly threatening the Iranian people, they are trying to reduce the pressure resulting from their successive mistakes.