TEHRAN - The Iraqi parliamentary elections, held under highly sensitive circumstances, have been described by the Javan newspaper as a strategic defeat for the United States and Israel.

The elections took place amid threats from the Israeli regime and intense pressure from Washington, yet the outcome revealed a decisive shift in Iraq’s political landscape. According to the paper, the project designed to contain Iran’s influence in Iraq has collapsed entirely. Netanyahu’s vision of a “New Middle East” and America’s attempt to reassert dominance in the region now face formidable obstacles. Israel had openly declared Iraq to be the “next front” after Gaza and Lebanon, with Netanyahu repeatedly insisting that “Iran’s influence in Iraq must be cut off.” Instead, Iraq now presents a reality in which resistance forces have achieved legal, parliamentary, and popular legitimacy. The widespread propaganda campaigns against Iran’s role in Iraq backfired, as parties aligned with Tehran won significant public support. When Israeli leaders consistently repeated that “after Gaza and Lebanon, Iraq will be next,” the Iraqi people understood that their destiny was intertwined with that of Gaza, Beirut, Sana’a, and Tehran. This collective awareness undermined pro-Western and pro-American currents, redirecting votes toward resistance-oriented groups. 

Kayhan: 22 years of talks and a clear outcome for Iran

In a note, Kayhan reflected on Iran’s approach to negotiations with the United States. The paper argued that for the Islamic Republic, decisions about dialogue with Washington are neither emotional nor temporary, but rather the product of a long and turbulent experience spanning more than two decades. Over the past twenty-two years, Iran has endured extensive American pressure: unprecedented sanctions, the assassination of nuclear scientists, repeated sabotage of nuclear facilities, military attacks, and even a twelve-day war. The article claimed that U.S. President Trump attempted to spread the false narrative that “Iran is eager for an agreement” to conceal his own failures. In reality, Iran today occupies a position of strength, stability, and deterrence, with no need for negotiations that would compromise its sovereignty. Kayhan emphasized that it was the United States that abandoned talks and resorted to aggression, while Iran stood firm with resilience and honesty. This steadfastness has become evident to the international community, which now recognizes that Iran has not been the party seeking concessions but rather the one defending its independence against external pressure.

Hamshahri: No reason for Iran to uphold the Cairo agreement 

Hamshahri examined the breaches of the Cairo agreement related to inspection of Iran’s nuclear sites by heavyweight western countries and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Following attacks on Iranian territory, Tehran had signed the Cairo agreement with the IAEA, reopening the path for dialogue. However, the European troika, the United States, and the IAEA demonstrated that they approached international issues with political motives rather than legal principles. The paper argued that political agendas have now overshadowed international law, with the IAEA functioning as an executive arm of the West. From this perspective, once an agreement loses its legal foundation and becomes politicized, there is no reason for Iran to remain committed to it. Hamshahri concluded that the credibility of the Cairo agreement has been eroded, and Iran cannot be expected to adhere to its provisions when the other parties have abandoned the legal and technical framework in favor of political maneuvering.

Ham Mihan: War is ruled out for now

Ham Mihan assessed the possibility of war between Iran and Israel backed by the United States. Citing international relations scholar Ali Bigdeli, the paper argued that current circumstances make renewed conflict unlikely. The United States is entangled in the consequences of wars in Gaza and Ukraine, as well as tensions with Venezuela, leaving little capacity for military confrontation with Iran. Moreover, Washington views instability in the Middle East as contrary to its economic interests. While some political and media circles raise concerns about war, these serve specific agendas. The upcoming UN Security Council meeting will be crucial for Iran, as any new punitive resolution could bring further threats and restrictions. Ham Mihan stressed that Iran must seek common ground with Europe to avoid undesirable outcomes. Observations suggest that Iran does not favor continued confrontation with the United States, but insists its rights should be acknowledged. This greater flexibility indicates that Iran and Washington are engaged in covert dialogue, since all parties know the current situation cannot last indefinitely. On one hand, Iran faces a serious economic crisis; on the other, the United States sees Middle East instability as conflicting with its strategic goals. Thus, both sides are compelled to explore ways of negotiation, even if unofficial. The paper concluded that while war is not imminent, the fragile balance requires careful diplomacy, as neither Iran nor the United States can afford prolonged escalation under current conditions.