Hamshahri analyzed why US strategic calculations failed in the Ramadan War. According to the article, more than two months after the conflict began, international analysts believe Washington has not achieved its initial goals.

It has not brought about a change of government in Tehran and now faces heavy military, economic, and political costs that may force a retreat. The article states that the US expected internal collapse in Iran, followed by the rise of a pro‑Western government. It assumed sanctions had severely weakened Iran, while in reality, the pressure contributed to strengthening domestic capabilities. According to the article, the war was not based on genuine security needs but on the illusion of preserving US hegemony and Israeli regional dominance. Now, Iran is expected to gain greater control over vital global energy routes. Its military capability and deterrence credibility have increased, and regional countries are likely to take Iran’s power more seriously.

Jam-e-Jam: Saudi Arabia and Kuwait did not support the US in “Project Freedom”

Jam-e-Jam wrote that Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, fearing Iranian missiles and drones, restricted US access to their bases along the southern shores of the Persian Gulf. This decision stemmed from serious security concerns and doubts about whether the US would fully protect them from Iranian retaliation. Operationally and strategically, the article argues, “Project Freedom” lacked concentration of forces and security. Attempting a major operation without full consent from key allies led to dispersed forces and weakened combat capability across multiple fronts. This increased the risk of escalation without achieving decisive operational advantage, allowing Iran to raise the cost for the US through asymmetric tactics — ballistic missiles, drones, and naval mines. Ultimately, the failure to anticipate political‑military reactions from allies and the absence of a backup plan turned the project into a high‑risk, unstable operation that was doomed to suspension or limited failure from the start.

Farhikhtegan: The era of American secrecy has ended

Farhikhtegan pointed to what it described as the collapse of the US military’s powerful image. According to the article, two months after the start of the regional war, American media such as The Washington Post now say the United States is no longer in an offensive position but is instead focused on defending its bases. After sustaining high costs and losing parts of its missile stockpile in battles with Iran, some US bases have reportedly become unusable or inaccessible. The article argues that this series of setbacks, as narrated by an American outlet, shows that the US has not only failed to overcome its political and economic challenges through military power but is now facing an even greater problem. The once‑dominant image of the US military has, in their view, collapsed, and this defeat did not occur in a confrontation with major global powers like Russia or China, but with a country that the US president had claimed could be defeated in just three days.

Arman‑e-Melli: Military tension or diplomacy

Arman‑e-Melli wrote that developments between Iran and the United States continue under intense pressure, with each side periodically taking actions or making statements that influence the situation. Iran and the US remain in a fragile ceasefire, and some military activity is still visible in the Persian Gulf, yet discussions about possible negotiations and agreements continue. Because of this dual dynamic, the article argues, it is impossible to say with certainty which direction events will ultimately take. Diplomatic efforts are still underway between the two countries through mediators. Despite the recent exchange of fire on Thursday night, attempts to reduce tensions continue. The article concludes that Iranians never bow to pressure, but diplomacy is often the first casualty in such confrontations.