TEHRAN - Javan, in an analysis, addressed the UAE’s ownership claim over the three Iranian islands and wrote: The (United) Arab Emirates, under the banner of the (Persian) Gulf Cooperation Council, has issued a final warning to Iran regarding the three Iranian islands, threatening to take the matter to the International Court of Justice if ignored.

The UAE’s claim rests on three main reasons. External pressure: This demand is essentially the demand of the United States and Europe from the Arabs, not the independent decision of the sheikhs. Their motive is to increase bargaining power in other matters. The islands, without a doubt, are intended to be offered to Trump and turned into an American base. Territorial concerns: The sheikhs appear worried about Iran’s territorial rights. If Iran were to formally or informally begin pressing for the return of Bahrain to Iranian sovereignty, the sheikhs might retreat from their current stance. Diversion strategy: The intention is to undermine focus on Iran’s foreign policy priorities and divert it from the central issues of the Islamic world. The rulers of the southern shores of the Persian Gulf, in practice and by spending oil revenues, have put maximum effort into serving the U.S. and Europe to distance the Islamic world from its core concerns.

Hamshahri: Shahed drone, a global military model

Hamshahri, in an interview with defense analyst Mehdi Bakhtiari, examined the American imitation of Iran’s drone industry. The expert stated: Iran’s military capability and technology have compelled the U.S. Army to reverse-engineer Iranian drones. The Shahed drone is now recognized as an important model in the global military industry, inspiring replication from Russia and the U.S. to Egypt. The drone sector, alongside missile power, constitutes a vital arm of Iran’s defense doctrine and has proven highly influential. Iran’s ability to produce low-cost drones is considered a significant achievement in the military industry, with positive implications both for exports and domestic costs. Over more than 40 years of sanctions, Iran was forced to buttress its defense and security, developing indigenous military tools. The fact that Iran has managed to achieve such advanced technology under the harshest sanctions is the most important message being conveyed to the world today. Every nation prioritizes its security, and Iran seeks to ensure this security through self-sufficiency.

Ham Mihan: To confront Israel, Iran must pursue friendlier global ties

Ham Mihan, in an interview with Middle East analyst Mehdi Borhani, examined the nature of Iran’s relations with the world. The analyst argued that after the 12‑day war, Israel effectively placed Iran in a state of “neither war nor peace,” which could at any moment escalate into open conflict. This situation imposes heavy pressure on Iran’s politics, economy, and military system. One of the goals of Israel and the United States is to maintain these pressures so that Iran will eventually yield to their nuclear, missile, and regional conditions. At the same time, Israeli leaders seek to reassure their own people by amplifying news of their military build‑up, claiming they are solving the regime’s security problems and will not suffer blows like those of the 12‑day war. If the Islamic Republic grows weaker internally, Israel will seize the opportunity to attack. Therefore, to confront the Zionist regime, Iran must make its relations with the world more friendly. A policy of maximum friendship with other countries is essential. If Iran is demonized and isolated, even a nuclear strike against it could become conceivable. Conversely, if Iran plays a positive role in the region and the world and builds friendly ties with other states, the grounds for an attack on Iran will disappear.

Ettelaat: Armed negotiation equals beginning of war

Ettelaat, quoting senior international affairs expert Rahman Ghahremanpour, addressed the ongoing deadlock in Iran‑U.S. talks. A significant section of Tehran’s official positions, he noted, shows that the policy of “armed negotiation” remains the dominant course of the foreign ministry. This policy means that Iran currently has no intention of initiating negotiations. At this stage, the Islamic Republic’s strategy is focused more on maintaining its positions and stabilizing the status quo. Under these conditions, the United States also appears to have adopted a similar approach, showing little interest in starting a new process. At present, neither side is willing to accept the risk of war—especially the U.S. and Israel, which currently consider the costs and dangers of confrontation to be very high. However, this situation will not last forever. Over time, Iran’s sensitivity to the current state of affairs may diminish, while the U.S. could become completely disillusioned with diplomacy. In such a scenario, the likelihood of renewed conflict would increase, turning this issue into one of the main challenges.