The Iran newspaper, in an interview with former diplomat and central banker Seyyed Mohammad Hossein Adeli, reviewed the latest developments between Iran and the United States. Adeli said that a new round of Iran–US negotiations has begun at a moment when, after agreeing to end the war, both sides are now seeking to resolve Iran’s nuclear file as the second and final stage.

These talks cannot be compared with any previous experience, because this round of diplomacy is unfolding in the aftermath of a war that resulted in a strategic setback for Washington. The growing pressure of inflation and rising energy prices in the US, widespread disruption in the global economy, declining US strategic oil reserves, along with the drop in Donald Trump’s popularity and domestic political considerations, have together created a set of factors that make time the most important variable in the negotiations.

Kayhan: US seeks to drag out talks to undermine the agreement

Kayhan analyzed what it described as the US plan to drag out the negotiations. According to the newspaper, repeated violations of various clauses of the agreement by the US and its Israeli ally have pushed the deal to the brink of complete collapse. This has caused the 60-day time for negotiations to reach a final settlement of disputes to hit a dead end before even beginning, diverting the process into so-called “technical talks” aimed at forcing the American side to fulfill its commitments. Now, with the pillars of the agreement being violated one after another, entering the maze of “technical negotiations” is, in Kayhan’s view, a non-strategic move that could trap Iran’s negotiating team in a cycle of exhausting talks.

Khorasan: Priority is preserving power in Hormuz Strait 

Khorasan assessed Iran’s exercise of power in the Strait of Hormuz and the humiliation of the United States. It wrote: Because of the US attacks on southern Iran and the violation of Clause 1 of the agreement, negotiations are currently suspended. On the surface, we are the first to fire: Iran begins attacks on US-escorted ships, the US strikes parts of Iran’s coastline, Iran attacks US bases, and then the US gives no response. In this equation, the fundamental humiliation belongs to the US, which is struck and does not respond. For Iran’s decision-making structures, preserving power in the Strait is more important than implementing the agreement. This crucial equation—Iran launching military attacks on the US and the US not responding—has strategic value. For Iran, its authority and sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz must remain intact, even if another war becomes necessary.

Arman-e-Emrooz: Strait of Hormuz lever must be strong and sustainable

Arman-e-Emrooz discussed Iran’s policy in the Strait of Hormuz. The newspaper wrote that recent wars have shown that long-term stability in the Strait requires precise legal balance, regional cooperation, and respect for recognized international norms. Now is the time to use the opportunity created to design a stable and beneficial legal regime. Iran used the Strait of Hormuz as a deterrent during the US attacks, but given the global economic significance of the Strait, the country’s long-term interests require making this lever a lasting rule. As a first step, Iran could cooperate with Oman and other Persian Gulf states to transform exclusive control into a new legal and security regime for the Strait within a comprehensive regional cooperation and security framework for the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman. This approach would not only strengthen global energy security but also bring stable economic and political benefits for all parties, turning the Strait from a tool of tension into a symbol of regional cooperation.

Etemad: The Doha test

Etemad wrote about the Iran–US meeting in Doha, saying: Doha is hosting a new round of technical negotiations between Iran and the US regarding the implementation of the Islamabad agreement and the resolution of disputes related to the Strait of Hormuz. According to American sources, the meeting took place after both sides agreed to a temporary halt in reciprocal attacks. Some analysts believe recent developments show that although Tehran and Washington have kept the diplomatic path open, the depth of disagreements in the initial steps of implementing the memorandum remains significant. This is evident not only in scattered military clashes but also in differing interpretations and implementation of commitments in the Islamabad agreement—especially regarding management of the Strait of Hormuz. From this perspective, the meeting hosted by Qatar is more than a technical discussion; it is a test of the durability of an agreement whose future now depends more than ever on how the two sides manage their disputes.