TEHRAN - In a commentary on recent street protests in Iran, Kayhan wrote: In the current situation, following the June 12‑day war and combined pressures, any street turmoil can serve as a pretext for activating external pressure scenarios.

Threats and visible anger of the U.S. and the Israeli regime stem from one undeniable reality: the cohesion and unity of the Iranian nation. Time and again, at critical junctures, the people have shown they can distinguish clearly between legitimate protest and enemy‑designed unrest, refusing to allow foreign interference. Recent events demonstrated that markets, citizens, and universities acted wisely, preventing this dangerous scenario from materializing—and they will continue to do so. Historical experience also testifies that whenever the Iranian nation has prioritized unity and awareness, the enemy has achieved nothing but defeat and retreat. Today, the same equation holds: by preserving cohesion, avoiding the traps of external designs, and separating responsible protest from orchestrated unrest, the Iranian people will once again show that the long‑standing dream of the U.S. and Israel to destabilize this land is nothing more than a recurring illusion.

Sobh-e-No: Two dangerous demands and a shared goal

Sobh-e-No assessed the meeting between Netanyahu and Trump at Mar-a-Lago. According to the paper, the most important item on Netanyahu’s agenda was the Iran file. By advancing two main demands—maximum economic pressure and the imposition of conditions beyond previous agreements—he seeks to push Washington onto a path that can only lead to heightened tensions. Requests such as “zero enrichment and unlimited inspections” are not proposals for negotiation but formulas for deadlock and confrontation. Netanyahu, by highlighting Iran’s missile program, also aims to amplify the sense of threat and keep pressure tactics, even military options, on the table. This scenario could intensify insecurity and expand conflicts across the region. The historical behavior of the Israeli regime shows that whenever it has enjoyed unconditional U.S. support, it has acted more boldly, while the peoples of the region have borne the costs. From this perspective, the meeting is not the beginning of peace but a test of Washington’s readiness either to restrain or to align with Tel Aviv’s ominous intentions—intentions that, if left unchecked, could push the Middle East into a costlier phase of instability.

Javan: The need for precise understanding of enemy plans

Javan commented on the recent release of classified U.S. documents concerning past conversations between Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush about Iran. It described the move as part of a deliberate cognitive offensive aimed at weakening public perception, creating distrust toward current partners, and disrupting relationships that have become costly for the West under present circumstances. The core issue is not the content of the documents but the timing of their release, the framing of the narrative, the intensity of media maneuvering, and the intent behind publication. Today, Iran stands at one of the most sensitive junctures in its history in terms of security, economic, and regional pressures. The enemy is targeting the nation’s core strengths in its effort to withstand this major confrontation. Under such conditions, one should expect these maneuvers not to stop but to evolve into more complex and destructive forms. In the coming days and months, multiple efforts to obstruct Iran’s relations with countries such as Russia and China are not unlikely. Strategic vigilance, adherence to political rationality, and precise recognition of enemy plans are essential to successfully navigate this historic stage.

Khorasan: Israel’s game of redefining threat

In recent days, the Israeli regime has focused on a single keyword: the danger of Iran’s missiles. At a joint meeting with the leaders of Greece and Cyprus, Netanyahu highlighted Iran’s recent missile drills. With this framing, Israel seeks to advance several goals simultaneously. First, timing: When Netanyahu claims that a missile drill might serve as cover for an attack, he effectively recreates the experience of rushing to shelters for Israeli residents. This design also carries a hidden message to Washington that the time to take decision is short, and hesitation is costly. Second, deflecting focus from the Palestinian struggle: By bringing up Iran and its missiles, Netanyahu shifts the frame of discussion—from answers about the Gaza war to debates about existential threats. Third, justifying preemptive action: By maneuvering around the missile issue, Israel opens the path to rationalize action against Iran under the pretext of a “preemptive response.” The way to neutralize Netanyahu’s policy, the article argues, is for Iran to manage the game itself with a smart strategy—exercising power without emotional escalation, something Israel fears. This comes at a time when Netanyahu desperately needs to portray victimhood, hoping to obscure parts of his bloody record in Gaza.