No stable security can emerge without Iran 

Vatan-e-Emrooz argued that Iran’s regional influence remains a decisive factor in shaping security developments across West Asia. According to the analysis, any attempt to establish a lasting security framework without including major regional powers would face substantial limitations. In this context, the Islamic Republic of Iran seeks to move beyond being simply an influential participant in regional affairs and become one of the principal actors involved in designing future security mechanisms.

Supporters of this approach argue that Iran’s strategic location, political influence, and regional presence make it an unavoidable component of any effective security arrangement. However, turning this vision into a sustainable framework requires more than political ambition. Practical agreements between regional governments, effective management of bilateral disputes, confidence-building measures, and clearly defined mechanisms for cooperation would all be necessary.

Ham-Mihan: Negotiations have reached a deadlock Ham-Mihan analyzed the current impasse in negotiations between Iran and the United States. The core dispute is no longer centered on the final content of a potential agreement. Instead, disagreements focus on the first steps of the process, the structure of nuclear negotiations, and the timing of concessions before, during, or after any formal agreement. The analysis argued that both sides increasingly appear to be seeking political advantage rather than compromise.

Such an approach creates significant risks and reduces the possibility of diplomatic progress. At the same time, domestic political considerations have restricted the flexibility of officials in both countries. Despite these challenges, the newspaper pointed to ongoing diplomatic efforts and mediation initiatives, particularly those associated with Qatar, as possible avenues for reducing tensions. If both parties show greater flexibility and adjust their positions, opportunities for progress may still exist.

Nevertheless, failure to reach common ground could increase the likelihood of confrontation. It also said that while diplomatic discussions continue, military planning remains part of broader strategic calculations. Shargh: Iran should benefit from relations with neighbors In an interview with senior international affairs analyst Abbas Maleki, Shargh examined how Iran could manage economic pressure if military conflict is avoided. The newspaper described the current stage of relations between Tehran and Washington as one of the most sensitive and complex periods in recent years, with uncertainty continuing to influence economic and political calculations.

Iran possesses several important advantages that could help reduce the effects of external pressure. The country shares borders with numerous neighbors and maintains multiple routes for regional connectivity. Access to the Caspian Sea provides economic opportunities and a valuable transportation corridor. In addition, railway links and other transportation networks connect Iran to surrounding countries and facilitate trade and economic cooperation.

The analyst also referred to Afghanistan, emphasizing the importance of maintaining constructive regional relationships. Neighboring countries should be viewed not only through a security lens but also as economic partners capable of contributing to stability and growth. Strengthening regional cooperation and taking full advantage of geographic connectivity could improve economic resilience and provide alternatives during periods of external pressure.

Sazandegi: A crisis beyond Middle East Sazandegi discussed the broader consequences of a conflict involving Iran and the United States, arguing that its impact would extend far beyond the Middle East. While such a confrontation would originate in the region, its economic, political, and security effects would be felt across the world. The report highlighted concerns regarding rising energy prices, disruptions in global markets, and increasing uncertainty within national economies.

European countries, in particular, have expressed concerns about the consequences of instability affecting energy supplies and economic activity. Fears of social unrest, market volatility, and emergency preparedness measures demonstrate the international character of the crisis. Even the end of direct hostilities would not necessarily mean the end of their consequences. Economies, energy markets, and security policies could continue to experience the effects of instability long after military operations had concluded.

As a result, the implications of such a conflict would likely remain a concern for governments and societies well beyond the region itself. Javan: Immediate, effective and borderless response Javan examined what it described as the evolving framework of Iran’s defense doctrine. The principle of an “immediate, effective, and geographically unrestricted response” is intended to ensure that threats cannot avoid consequences by relying on distance or perceived security beyond Iran’s borders.

This doctrine reflects a shift from passive deterrence toward a more active and controlling approach. Within this framework, Iran seeks to influence both the course and the conclusion of potential confrontations. The report also referred to efforts to expand a comprehensive “target bank,” broadening deterrence beyond traditional military objectives. This includes strategic interests, political influence, and other assets considered important to adversaries.

The overall objective is to increase deterrence by raising the potential costs associated with hostile actions and strengthening Iran’s ability to respond to a wide range of threats.