TEHRAN - The Iran newspaper highlighted the strategic importance of Chabahar Port for India.

The paper argued that with the U.S. extending its sanctions waiver for Indian activities at Chabahar until April 2026, New Delhi has once again secured its foothold in one of the region’s most critical maritime and land connectivity hubs. This decision carries broad geopolitical implications, positioning Chabahar as a pivotal node in the balance of power and transit corridors linking South Asia to Central Asia. For India, Chabahar is not merely a port development project; it is a vital link in its dual strategy to establish both maritime and overland access to Central Asia. According to India affairs expert Omid Babolian, Iran’s significance in New Delhi’s strategic calculus goes beyond economic cooperation. With its maritime location, civilizational depth, and ability to bridge diverse geopolitical spheres, Iran is an indispensable element in India’s connectivity policy. Removing Iran from this equation would create a structural gap in India’s strategic outreach. In this context, the renewed sanctions exemption is not just a bilateral gesture between India and the United States; it reflects Tehran’s central role in New Delhi’s broader strategic vision known as the “Maritime India” doctrine.

Ettelaat: The enemy seeks psychological warfare

Ettelaat analyzed recent claims that Iran received a message from Donald Trump via Oman regarding a resumption of nuclear negotiations. The report noted that speculation surged following news of diplomat Takht-Ravanchi’s visit to Oman. However, a well-informed source emphasized that no such message had been received and dismissed the reports as baseless. Given Oman's history of mediation, such claims were predictable. But the official denial shows that Iran is unwilling to accept narratives that talk about a negotiation offer without mentioning America's unacceptable conditions. Negotiations with unacceptable conditions would be meaningless, and would only serve to accuse Iran of being opposed to negotiations. The American side, through such media tactics, appears intent on reviving the defunct negotiation track and tying public sentiment to the psychological impact of any news related to talks. The outcome of this approach is that any pause in negotiations triggers economic shock, allowing sanctions to retain their leverage over Iran’s economy.

Shargh: Hope for surrender, diplomacy amid doubt and distrust

Shargh reflects on the stalemated nuclear talks, suggesting it has reached a juncture best described as the “Station of Hope for Surrender.” Each side in this high-stakes game believes its pressure tactics will ultimately force the other to retreat. As the current impasse persists, diplomacy has increasingly become a waiting game. Iran continues to assert its right to nuclear technology and its stance of resistance, while the United States and its allies insist on maintaining pressure until Tehran fully returns to previous restrictions. The lack of inspector access has made it difficult to accurately assess the status of Iran’s centrifuges and uranium stockpiles. This oversight vacuum raises the risk of miscalculations. Two decades of negotiations between Iran and the West have shown that no deadlock in international politics is permanent. Just as past pressures eventually led to talks, there remains a possibility of a gradual softening of positions. However, this time, the cost of returning to the negotiating table will be significantly higher for all parties involved. Until then, nuclear diplomacy remains trapped in a cycle of mistrust and speculative hope for surrender.

Kayhan: Post-JCPOA Iran and imperative of power-building

Kayhan argued for a paradigm shift in Iran’s foreign policy, asserting that continuing pre-JCPOA strategies would be a big mistake. It said in a world transitioning from a unipolar order to a multipolar structure, actors capable of intelligently managing their power will exercise decisive influence. In this context, Iran must adopt a strategy rooted in “power-building” to secure its role as an independent and impactful regional force. Shifting from an engagement-centric approach to one focused on strategic empowerment could steer Iran toward a policy of active and intelligent resistance. Real diplomacy succeeds only when backed by genuine power. In a global arena where negotiation tables are set to favor the powerful and where military aggression can occur mid-negotiation, Iran must possess tangible instruments of strength to safeguard its interests. Only then can it engage major powers from a position of parity, rather than weakness.