Regional agreement and threat of a joint response

Donya-e-Eqtesad discussed the unexpected visit of Khalid bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s defense minister, to Tehran. As concerns grow over a possible renewal of war between Iran and the United States, Saudi Arabia is trying to influence Tehran’s calculations through a mix of economic incentives, political proposals, and security warnings. Riyadh’s message was that if Iran accepts certain concessions that could facilitate an agreement with Washington, Saudi Arabia and other regional states would be willing to discuss a broader regional security arrangement with Tehran.

At the same time, Saudi officials reportedly warned that if Iran rejects this path and attacks against Arab Persian Gulf countries resume, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan would be prepared to respond within the framework of the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement. The importance of the message lies less in any direct military threat and more in Riyadh’s attempt to combine incentives with deterrence. In this view, Tehran faces a choice between greater participation in regional security structures and the possibility of stronger pressure from neighboring countries.

Jam-e-Jam: Cost of the illusion of victory Jam-e-Jam analyzed what it described as Trump’s strategic deadlock and continued rhetoric. Trump still relies on telling fake stories to support his political position and divert attention from setbacks. However, evidence suggests that military and political leaders in the United States, Europe, and the region have concluded that any new conflict could have very different dimensions and unpredictable consequences.

The paper notes that Iranian officials have warned that a future response would not necessarily be limited to military targets and could extend to critical infrastructure, communication cables, and data networks. It also points to calls for diplomacy, including proposals for regional meetings and European interest in renewed negotiations with Iran. These developments indicate a growing recognition that threats and displays of power may reflect concern rather than strength.

The future political and security order of the region cannot be shaped without considering Iran’s role and influence. Arman-e-Melli: Oman’s warning to US and Israel Arman-e-Melli focused on energy concerns related to the Strait of Hormuz. The newspaper wrote that many recent efforts by Arab countries regarding negotiations between Iran and the United States are closely connected to energy security and regional stability. Iranian officials have repeatedly stated that tensions surrounding the strait emerged as a consequence of attacks against Iran.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi previously warned that any military escalation encouraged by Israel could have serious consequences for international energy markets and remain a major concern for both energy exporters and consumers. Some observers believe that Netanyahu could seek greater regional pressure following domestic political developments, possibly with support from Washington. Against this backdrop, Badr Al Busaidi, Oman’s foreign minister, publicly warned against any new military adventure in the region and urged the United States and Israel to avoid further escalation.

The article concludes by questioning whether such warnings and diplomatic efforts by regional states can help reduce tensions and prevent another crisis. Hamshahri: Iran damaged Trump’s popularity Hamshahri examined significant decline in Trump’s popularity both inside the United States and internationally. The conflict involving Iran has been one of the major factors contributing to a worsening perception of America over recent months.

Public confidence in both the United States and its president has weakened noticeably. Increasing criticism of Washington’s policies, dissatisfaction with unilateral decision-making, and continued interventionist approaches are presented as evidence of a widening gap between America’s claims of global leadership and the way its actions are perceived. According to the newspaper, this decline reflects a broader loss of credibility for the image the United States has long promoted, namely that of a defender of freedom, democracy, and international order.

Ettelaat: US elections and their impact on war with Iran Ettelaat discussed the possible impact of tensions with Iran on American politics and the midterm elections which will be held on Nov. 3. The newspaper argued that one major difference between these elections and many previous contests is the direct influence of the conflict on the domestic political environment. The first effect identified is increased economic pressure on voters.

The second is growing public debate about the necessity and objectives of military intervention. Many Americans remain skeptical about becoming involved in another prolonged conflict in the Middle East. A third consequence, according to the paper, is the more challenging political position facing Trump. If Democrats gain stronger representation in Congress, pressure on the administration to explain the costs, objectives, and long-term strategy of the conflict could increase.

Nevertheless, the article notes that the president retains significant authority in foreign affairs. Therefore, even changes in congressional control would not automatically lead to the end of tensions or an immediate shift in Washington’s policy toward Iran.