Kayhan, in an analysis, discussed the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz and Iran’s vital control over it. It wrote: The Strait of Hormuz is under the control, management, and security of the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is not a place for America’s presence or play.

Any attack will receive a response beyond imagination. The Strait of Hormuz is the vital chokepoint of the global economy. America knows that if Iran closes the Strait, the West’s “economic breathing” will stop. When Trump says that if we had not reached an agreement with Iran, our oil reserves would have run out in four weeks, why should we commit to reopening the Strait of Hormuz in any agreement? The cost of America’s mistakes is extremely high. The U.S. and Israel cannot break Iran’s will. They face a power that fears neither threats nor war. We have absolute sovereignty over our soil and waters. The IRGC Navy has defined the boundaries. Any vessel that tries to use unauthorized routes will face Iran’s heavy response.

Siasat-e-Rooz: Delusions harm Persian Gulf Arab states 

Siasat-e-Rooz dedicated its editorial to the meetings of U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio with senior officials of Persian Gulf Arab states. The world is oriented toward a new order in West Asia based on the model of resistance, and even prominent political theorists stress that developments will not revert to the pre–U.S.-Israeli war on Iran (known as the Ramadan War). Yet, the leaders of the Arab states on the southern shores of the Persian Gulf still indulge in fantasies whenever they see American officials. The collective meeting of the (P)GCC foreign ministers with Rubio in Bahrain revealed a bitter truth: regional countries have still not learned lessons from the Ramadan War and America’s behavior. This conduct, if repeated during any renewed U.S.–Israeli aggression against Iran, will place them—due to their cooperation with the aggressors—among Iran’s legitimate targets. The consequences will fall on the leaders of these countries who remain deluded about staying in power through American support.

Javan: A new order in the Strait of Hormuz

Javan, in an article, referred to Friday night’s military encounter in the Strait of Hormuz. The incident was less a naval clash and more a test of a new navigation order in the waterway. After Iran warned an oil tanker that had deviated from Tehran’s approved route—and after America’s retaliatory strike on Iran’s southern coasts—maritime tracking data shows increased ship movement toward the northern corridor of Hormuz, the corridor Iran insists is the safe passage. It now appears that Tehran, through step-by-step “security surgery,” is turning its desired security geometry into operational reality. Alongside the traditional waterway, another route—said to have been shaped with US involvement—was proposed. But subsequent events aimed at challenging Iran in Hormuz revealed that Iran’s new geometry for managing navigation in the strait is gradually becoming established.

Khorasan: Neither imposition nor surrender

Khorasan, in an interpretation piece, defended the ongoing Pakistan-mediated negotiations between Iran and the United States. In recent days, as political debate over negotiations has heated up, some platforms and media have tried to portray the decision to enter talks either as a sign of retreat or as something imposed on the highest level of national decision-making body. This behavior is analytically flawed and politically harmful to public understanding. At the highest level of national security governance, a good decision results from balancing ideals, interests, realities on the ground, and national capacities. One reason for the Leader’s approval of negotiations was the quality of the draft understanding. When the text includes halting operations, managing conflict, safe passage through Hormuz, a technical path for removal of sanctions, partial release of assets, and a dispute-resolution mechanism, it cannot be said that negotiation equals retreat. A negotiation that forces the other side to register commitments, accept oversight, and pay political costs is simply the continuation of the battlefield through political tools.

Resalat: America’s commitments must be verified

Resalat, in a commentary, discussed Iran’s policy in the memorandum of understanding with the United States. Although the brief meeting made good progress toward fulfilling the conditions and advancing the process—and Iran could have framed each condition as a “victory narrative” in diplomatic combat—it chose not to. Two reasons explain this approach: First, Iran has no reason to trust the other side; the US may turn the tables and launch an attack at any moment. Second, Iran is not in a hurry. It will advance the understanding line by line, and if the other side breaks its promise, Iran can return to the starting point. Iran obtained everything it wanted at this stage and gave nothing in return. Iran’s strategy in the Swiss negotiations is to verify America’s commitments. This strategy has already shown its success in diplomacy. Meanwhile, on the military front, fingers remain on the trigger with full readiness.