TEHRAN - In an interview with Sobh-e-No, Middle East expert Mosadegh Mosadeghpour says Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is seeking support from Trump and some other Western countries to initiate another war with Iran.

The analyst argues that Trump and his team have provided maximum cooperation with the Zionist regime, and without this assistance, Israel would have faced major challenges. Netanyahu is making significant efforts to get a green light from the Americans again, to provoke conflict with Iran, and to draw Western powers into a potential war with Iran. It seems he cannot proceed without war; he is constantly seeking to establish or maintain a wartime state. If the war stops, the situation will become very difficult for him, and he may emerge defeated and without a favorable outcome. A few days ago, it was announced that all Israeli actions against Iran were under Trump’s supervision. Trump intended to signal that Israel is his tool, and he can attack again whenever he wishes. Such statements are both a threat and an invitation to negotiate. In any case, there is now a relationship among the players that may be quite complex.

Sazandegi: New actors in Syria

Sazandegi examined the visit of Ahmad Al-Sharaa, the new Syrian ruler, to the United States. This trip should be considered a turning point in the history of Damascus’s relations with the Western world. It could signal an acceptance of new realities and the beginning of a fresh round of Syrian-Western engagement. Syria has been a close ally of Iran for decades, but now there are clear signs that Damascus is distancing itself from Tehran. Observers believe that hidden tensions between Damascus and Tehran have gradually pushed Syria away from the “Axis of Resistance” and toward normalizing relations with the West. Iran may be the biggest loser in this geopolitical shift. During Syria’s civil war, Tehran spent over $50 billion supporting Damascus—from military and arms aid to infrastructure reconstruction and funding Assad’s government. But now, with Syria’s foreign policy pivot, the return on that investment seems unlikely. Countries like Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia are gradually replacing Iran; actors with influence in the Arab world and close ties to the West. As a result, Syria is once again returning to the Arab world and reestablishing relations with Western countries, a process that continues with the visit to Washington.

Arman-e-Melli: A good mediator! 

Arman-e-Melli analyzed Iran-U.S. negotiations and wrote: Iran has a particular view of negotiation and refuses to negotiate under the shadow of war, as some analysts believe a new conflict between Iran and Israel could erupt at any moment. The reality is that despite reduced tensions between Iran and the U.S. in recent weeks, neither side has backed down from its positions. According to recent remarks by Ali Larijani (secretary of the Supreme National Security Council), Iran has not responded to the U.S., but a solution must be found for this “neither war nor peace” atmosphere. This is where mediation becomes meaningful. To move beyond the current situation, both sides must enter a new phase and choose a trustworthy and reliable mediator to initiate talks. This mediator, who can shuttle quietly between the parties away from media attention, could create conditions under which Trump might soften his stance on zero-percent enrichment. Which country—or even which individual—could influence Trump is a matter that diplomacy must determine.

Iran: Strategic preemption by Iran

In a commentary, the Iran newspaper addressed the Islamic Republic’s deterrent power following the 12-day war initiated by Israel and later joined by the United States. It wrote: Washington is seeking to impose a framework for potential negotiations by presenting a set of unbalanced and unattainable demands, from curbing Iran’s missile program to limiting its regional role. In the shadow of the 12-day war and the developments that occurred in its final days, a noticeable shift in battlefield dynamics emerged in Tehran’s favor. Therefore, any military action against Iran would now incur significantly heavier and more unpredictable costs than before. The high level of readiness and reconstruction of Iran’s military infrastructure after the war reflects a profound transformation in the logic of deterrence, which has now evolved into a phase of strategic initiative and preemption. Tehran has turned deterrence into an active concept within its national security doctrine. This shift is evident in the restructuring of its military planning model and the expansion of its offensive capabilities. The display of power is now designed to shape the enemy’s perception of the costs of any military adventurism.