TEHRAN - In an article, Jam-e-Jam highlighted the double-standard approach of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) toward Iran.

It wrote: While the West presents the FATF as a neutral instrument, it does not conceal its blatant double standards. Even if all Western sanctions were lifted, Iran would remain on the institute’s blacklist. The decision announced at the conclusion of the FATF’s meeting in Paris confirmed this reality: despite Iran’s ratification of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (Palermo) and Counter-Terrorist Financing (CFT), the country remains classified among high-risk jurisdictions. Meanwhile, the institute removed four African countries from its grey list; a flexibility that is never extended to Iran. These double standards, shaped by U.S. influence, have turned the FATF into a thoroughly ideological and political tool. A decade of experience shows that while it promises suspension of countermeasures in exchange for progress, it continues to keep Iran on the blacklist. This latest decision serves as a warning to domestic factions still hopeful about offering concessions to the West. Joining this body, the article argues, sacrifices Iran’s financial independence and undermines its legitimate foreign policy, such as support for the Axis of Resistance.

Shargh: Tehran needs to engage eastern neighbors swiftly and seriously

Sharq suggests it is urgent that Iran play an active role in preventing emergence of a crisis as the peace talks between its eastern neighbors - Afghanistan and Pakistan - have failed. It argued: In the wake of failed Istanbul negotiations between Afghanistan and Pakistan, the necessity of Iran’s involvement in a border crisis in the east has become more pressing than ever. With ongoing tensions between Iran’s eastern neighbors and the possibility of renewed conflict, the direct threat to Iran’s border security has intensified. Continued deadlock in talks between Afghanistan and Pakistan could swiftly endanger Iran’s national security and spill instability across its borders. Given its geopolitical position and balanced relations with both sides, Iran is well-positioned to act as a pragmatic and active mediator. In the short term, Iranian mediation could prevent the rekindling of war between the two countries; in the long term, it could enhance Tehran’s diplomatic standing in South Asia’s regional dynamics. Ultimately, Iran’s success as a mediator depends on full coordination among its security, diplomatic, and regional institutions. With a high likelihood of renewed clashes, Iran must act swiftly and decisively to safeguard its national security, eastern borders, and vital interests.

Vatan-e-Emrooz: Trump’s defeat in oil war

In a commentary, Vatan-e-Emrooz evaluates Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure” strategy against Iran. The paper said: Trump’s oil war against Iran not only failed to achieve its objectives, but it turned into a complete strategic defeat. This failure, the article contends, stems from factors beyond the mere ineffectiveness of sanctions. While Trump acted under the banner of classical economics and Iran’s dependence on oil revenues, he failed to account for the emergence of new global players and shifting dynamics. Iran’s strategy to neutralize sanctions, combined with China’s entry into the equation as a key actor, upended Trump’s calculations. China’s drive to diversify its energy sources and Iran’s strategic role in Beijing’s initiatives enabled Tehran to bypass sanctions and maintain its oil revenue streams. This outcome, the article suggests, demonstrates that in today’s multipolar world, no single power—such as the United States—can economically isolate a country on its own, especially when major players like China pursue interests that run counter to U.S. policy. Ultimately, Trump’s failure in the oil war against Iran is more than a political setback; it signals a shift in the global balance of power and the emergence of a new order in which unilateral strategies no longer carry the effectiveness they once did.

Arman-e-Melli: Tehran and Washington at a diplomatic impasse

Arman-e-Melli examines the state of Iran-U.S. relations following the 12-day war orchestrated by Donald Trump. It wrote: Relations have once again reached a critical juncture, one marked by stagnation and little hope for direct dialogue. The article highlights that Iran’s current economic reality cannot sustain the status quo. Sweeping financial and oil sanctions, a sharp decline in foreign investment, and banking restrictions have placed immense pressure on the Iranian economy and affected the livelihoods of people. In this context, reviving diplomatic channels and lifting part of the sanctions could play a vital role in improving economic conditions and stabilizing the country internally. However, deep mistrust between Tehran and Washington, conflicting demands, and the complexities of the nuclear dossier have prevented any meaningful progress in negotiations. Breaking the diplomatic deadlock, the article argues, is an unavoidable necessity, not only to restore Iran’s international engagement but also to ease economic pressures and bring stability back to its foreign policy.