TEHRAN - Sobh-e-No analyzed the simultaneous activation of regional mediators to broker dialogue between Iran and the U.S. again.

According to the paper, Qatar, Oman, and Egypt have each engaged in mediation efforts for distinct reasons. Qatar, following the Gaza war and the blow dealt by Israel to its mediation role, is eager to reaffirm its relevance as a key regional actor. By linking the Gaza file to the Iran-U.S. dossier, Doha seeks to revive its diplomatic influence. Oman continues to serve as the traditional channel for discreet message exchanges, maintaining its longstanding role in sensitive communications. Egypt’s involvement carries a distinct political message: Cairo is unwilling to let Qatar and Oman monopolize the diplomatic credit for mediating between Iran and the West. Each mediator plays a unique role: Qatar aims to preserve the political track, Oman facilitates the transmission of sensitive messages and helps reduce security misunderstandings, and Egypt focuses on managing the technical and legal dimensions of the negotiations. If these three channels remain active in parallel, the risk of strategic miscalculation in the region could diminish, potentially paving the way for Tehran and Washington to reach a limited but functional understanding. Until then, regional diplomacy remains in a state of “active suspension,” a phase in which all parties try to prevent a major conflict.

Vatan-e-Emrooz: Rising barriers to a renewed Israeli war on Iran

One factor distinguishing a potential new conflict from the June 12-day war is the evolving stance of key regional and global players—particularly West Asian countries, China, and Russia—toward any Israeli military action against Iran. Following the Israeli strikes on Syria and Doha (to assassinate Hamas leaders), the regime’s broader plan for regional dominance, along with the U.S. strategy to reshape the order in West Asia, has been exposed. As a result, regional states increasingly view Israel as the primary threat to regional stability. Experts believe that if Israel were to launch another attack on Iran, regional reactions would differ significantly from those during the 12-day conflict. While it remains uncertain whether war is imminent or on Israel’s agenda, available evidence suggests that the conditions for a renewed military assault on Iran have become more challenging for Tel Aviv. In summary, although the possibility of another Israeli strike on Iran persists, it is clear that the obstacles facing such an operation have grown considerably. Should a new war erupt, the damage inflicted on Israel would likely far exceed the losses it suffered during the previous conflict.

Etemad: Chabahar is a strategic asset for Tehran and Delhi

In an interview with Etemad, senior South and Central Asia analyst Mostafa Zandieh explored the implications of Washington’s recent decision to extend sanctions waivers for India. Zandieh emphasized that Chabahar is a strategic oceanic port for Iran, offering significant economic and geostrategic potential. For India, Chabahar serves as a vital gateway to Afghanistan and Central Asia, forming a key component of its regional connectivity strategy and complementing the North-South transit corridor. However, realizing the full potential of this route requires sustained investment and a reduction in political and sanctions-related risks. U.S. sanctions have influenced India’s decision-making, yet New Delhi’s approach to Chabahar has consistently followed a strategy of “balanced and phased engagement.” The recent six-month waiver, Zandieh argues, reflects Washington’s calculations in countering China’s growing influence. Looking ahead, India’s involvement in Chabahar is expected to remain cautiously pragmatic—continuing operations under the waiver, staging investments incrementally, managing sanctions risk, and maintaining its role in regional transit networks.

Donya-e-Eqtesad: The strategic imperative of engaging Tehran

In an interview with Donya-e-Eqtesad, senior Middle East analyst Ariabarzan Mohammadi discussed the emergence of a coalition among several southern Persian Gulf states advocating for the resumption of Tehran-Washington talks. He argued that calls for renewed negotiations—particularly from the foreign ministers of Bahrain and Oman—reflect a broader effort to foster regional balance amid a shifting global order toward multipolarity. Given recent developments in global and regional dynamics, a return to talks mediated by Oman could yield several key outcomes, like a reduction in military risk, lowering the chances of confrontation between Iran and the U.S. or Israel. Also, it could enhance security for maritime routes and greater stability in energy markets, and Iran’s integration into regional security frameworks, which could ease unproductive rivalries and promote cooperation. Conversely, if negotiations stop or fail, regional trust may erode, and extra-regional actors with divergent interests could disrupt the process. In essence, these talks may signal a transition from a unipolar to a regionally anchored multipolar order—though full realization will require time, institutional development, and concrete guarantees.