Kayhan, in an article, addressed Iran’s power and readiness to defeat American hegemony. The newspaper wrote: What the enemy had designed as a swift and decisive operation turned into a ‘disgraceful and historic defeat.’ The Islamic Republic of Iran is a world superpower, and its hand is on the trigger.

The third imposed war advanced accordingly, trampled Israel, and brought an end to America’s superpower status. The desperate enemy surrendered to the new equations and the conditions set by the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the war was halted for two weeks. These victories are the result of the bond between the ‘wise leadership of the Revolution, military steadfastness, and the intelligent presence of the people.’

Etemad: A temporary ceasefire through Iran’s initiative  

Etemad, in an interview with Hossein Rabiei, a university professor, examined the ceasefire between Iran and the United States and the negotiations. If the conditions specified by Iran, namely the same 10‑point package, become the basis of action and are accepted by the United States, we can hope that this ceasefire will turn into a lasting peace. In the negotiation process, we must observe how willing both sides are to consider and respect the red lines they have set and the limits they have defined for engagement. We hope that the United States will be able to accept Iran’s conditions. The conditions Iran is putting forward, if accepted by the United States and the international community, can lead to the realization of the peace that we have in mind.

Iran: A diplomatic battle in line with the war

War does not disappear; it merely shifts from one form to another. Therefore, the ceasefire and temporary halt of military operations in the ‘Ramadan War’ do not mean the end of the battle; rather, they mark the beginning of an ending and the start of a new type and phase of war in another arena — a diplomatic battle in the field of negotiation and bargaining. In this new phase, the main goal is to turn the ceasefire into lasting peace and to transform temporary and short‑term achievements into enduring and long‑term assets. With the establishment of a two‑week temporary ceasefire, Iran steps into an arena and battleground more complex and uncertain than the military phase, full of ambiguity and distrust. By formulating, pursuing, and implementing a multilayered and multidimensional military‑defensive strategy, Iran imposed its will on the enemy and forced it to retreat. The prerequisite of ‘armed diplomacy’ is discursive unity, integrated governance, unified command, a single structure and centralized decision‑making, national spirit and unity, and the alignment and synergy of the battlefield and diplomacy.

Hamshahri: Either an agreement acceptable to Iran and the resistance, or the return of the US and Israel under fire

Hamshahri, in an analysis regarding negotiations in the midst of the war, wrote: Iran has so far shown that, as always, it remains committed to its agreements and obligations, but it is closely monitoring all possible scenarios for the future and will act in accordance with the timing and the atmosphere of relations. One possible US scenario is to sabotage the negotiation process, preventing the achievement of an agreement that secures the rights of Iran and the Resistance, and keeping Israel on the battlefield against Iran and Lebanon. The United States cannot in any way escape the consequences of any end to the ceasefire that does not produce a result acceptable to Iran and the Resistance; therefore, if the temporary ceasefire ends due to the other side’s violations or the failure to reach an agreement acceptable to Iran and the Resistance within a timeframe, we consider reasonable, then, just as before the halt in fire, American interests across the region will once again be set ablaze.

Arman‑e-Emrooz: A ceasefire in the continuation of consolidating achievements

Arman‑e-Emrooz, in an analysis, assessed the current situation and wrote: From a strategic perspective, the difference between this situation and conventional ceasefires is that this time the acceptance of halting hostilities has occurred under conditions in which the balance has shifted in Iran’s favor. In other words, this ceasefire is not pursued from a position of weakness, but rather as a continuation of consolidating achievements and turning them into political outcomes. Observers believe that what occurred during this period was not merely a limited military confrontation, but a combination of field power, political management, and social cohesion. According to Mohammad Ghazvini, a social affairs analyst, the new conditions have created an opportunity to strengthen the path of constructive engagement using international capacities and to pursue national interests within a stable framework. In his view, the combination of domestic power and active diplomacy can elevate the country’s position in regional and global equations.