Full Analysis Summary
Tehran's enrichment stance
Iran’s negotiating team has made clear that zero-percent uranium enrichment is unacceptable and that Tehran views enrichment as a legal right.
The team said it remained open to talks limited to the nuclear file.
Iranian officials described recent indirect discussions as a cautious step forward but insisted any technical measures must respect Iran’s enrichment rights.
PressTV reports Araghchi saying Iran 'rejected any demand for zero-percent enrichment' and that 'uranium enrichment is an inalienable legal right', while Hindustan Times quotes him as 'willing to reach a reassuring agreement on uranium enrichment'.
Yeni Safak likewise notes the talks were 'limited strictly to the nuclear issue', and the New York Post summarizes Tehran’s stance as 'refusing to compromise on nuclear enrichment'.
Coverage Differences
Tone/Narrative emphasis
Sources differ in framing: state-aligned and regional outlets (PressTV, Yeni Safak) emphasize Iran’s legal rights and cautious optimism about talks (“good beginning”/“good starting point”), while Western outlets (New York Post) highlight Tehran’s refusal to compromise and present the posture as a standoff. Hindustan Times mixes both tones by noting willingness to negotiate enrichment while underscoring non-negotiable elements (missiles) and broader grievances.
Iran's warning to U.S. bases
Tehran issued a calibrated security warning to Washington, saying Iran would not — and could not — strike U.S. soil but would retaliate against U.S. military installations in the region if attacked.
PressTV reports Araghchi warned that "if the United States carries out an open strike on Iran, Tehran would retaliate by targeting American military bases in West Asia."
Yeni Safak quotes him saying Iran "cannot strike the US homeland but warned that American bases within range would face consequences."
The New York Post framed the message similarly, saying Iran would strike U.S. military bases in the Middle East if President Trump ordered an attack.
Hindustan Times records Araghchi's blunt line that "if Iran is attacked again it would strike U.S. bases in the region."
Coverage Differences
Specificity and emphasis
Regional/state outlets (PressTV, Yeni Safak) present the threat as conditional and clarifying (cannot hit U.S. soil but will target bases), while the New York Post frames the comments more starkly as an explicit warning to the White House. Hindustan Times places the warning in a wider diplomatic and security context, linking it to prior hostilities and indicating Iran’s broader deterrence posture.
Scope of Iran negotiations
Iranian officials signalled they will only accept talks narrowly focused on the nuclear file and will reject demands that touch Iran's missile programme or regional policies.
PressTV quotes Araghchi as saying Iran's missile programme is non-negotiable and that any deal must provide tangible economic benefits.
Hindustan Times records his explicit rejection of negotiating limits on Iran's missile programme, calling it a non-negotiable defence matter.
Yeni Safak described the Muscat talks as a good starting point but cautioned that a long road remains to rebuild trust.
Hindustan Times and PressTV note that the United States and Israel have pushed to broaden talks to include missiles and support for regional militant groups.
Coverage Differences
Scope framing and omission
PressTV and Yeni Safak emphasize Iran’s insistence on limited, technical nuclear talks and domestic non-negotiables (missiles, enrichment), while Hindustan Times highlights external pressure from the U.S. and Israel to broaden the agenda—reporting the push to include ballistic missiles and support for militant groups. The New York Post focuses more narrowly on enrichment resistance and does not elaborate on the missile/region pressure angle.
Diplomatic talks amid tensions
The diplomatic exchange unfolded against a background of recent military strikes, protest repression and regional tension, details that different outlets emphasize in distinct ways.
Hindustan Times places the talks amid a U.S. military buildup and Iran’s violent crackdowns on protests, citing Iranian authorities’ figure of “3,117 people died (publishing 2,986 names)” and rights groups’ higher tolls (HRANA’s “6,872 verified deaths” and “more than 50,000 arrests”).
Hindustan Times also links the talks to the fallout from an unprecedented Israeli bombing campaign that sparked a 12‑day war and U.S. strikes on Iranian sites.
PressTV recalls that five prior rounds of talks had preceded mid‑June U.S.-Israeli airstrikes on Iranian targets and stresses Tehran’s demand that any agreement deliver economic benefits.
Yeni Safak highlights the mutual distrust and the prospect of further rounds in Oman.
Coverage Differences
Context and severity
Hindustan Times foregrounds human-rights and protest-related casualties and frames the talks within a narrative of regional violence and diplomatic fallout. PressTV emphasizes the chronology of prior negotiation rounds and military strikes and stresses Iran’s demands for economic relief and legal rights. Yeni Safak focuses on mutual distrust and the technical scope of talks. These differences reflect source types: an Asian outlet emphasizing domestic costs and wider context, a West Asian outlet emphasizing sovereignty and negotiation continuity, and a regional outlet stressing distrust and pragmatics.