Shargh has examined the new round of nuclear negotiations, arguing that Europe is once again set to become the intersection of diplomacy and hard power. These discussions are unfolding at a moment when the atmosphere is more infused than ever with military threats, amassing of U.S. military forces in the region, and increasingly sharp rhetoric from the White House.
In such a situation, the central question is not merely whether an agreement is achievable, but how diplomacy and deterrence are being balanced in the calculations of both sides. That balance will determine whether Europe becomes a platform for containing the crisis or a station along the path of its escalation. The next round of talks will be held in Geneva on Tuesday, February 17. Meanwhile, Oman’s mediation remains the main pillar of the communication channel between the two sides. These developments suggest that despite the tense public rhetoric, back-channel contacts remain active, and the talks have entered a stage where exchanging written texts and proposals has become meaningful.
Ettelaat: Netanyahu’s push for war
Ettelaat, in an article, addressed the new round of Iran–U.S. negotiations. Two main predictions are circulating in the media. On one hand, some believe that in the talks between Trump’s representatives and Iran, a minimal agreement will likely be reached, because Trump does not want to rush and does not want to push the United States toward an unpredictable military path. On the other hand, Netanyahu is in a hurry for Trump to pull the trigger on a military confrontation with the Islamic Republic of Iran on his behalf. So far, Netanyahu has not only failed but has become significantly isolated in public opinion and among regional governments. Regarding the Islamic Republic, Tehran appears more prepared for a reciprocal agreement. Many European and American diplomats share this assessment, as the current regional and global environment has made governments increasingly wary of a war whose future would be impossible to predict. This is especially true given that Trump, after orchestrating a coup attempt against Venezuela’s legitimate government under Maduro, is now facing intense scrutiny within U.S. public opinion.
Resalat: Regime change scenario has failed
Resalat addressed what it describes as the failed U.S. regime change scenario. According to the paper, the main plan of the enemy — especially the United States and the Israeli regime — was built on the assumption that by exploiting domestic conditions such as recent unrest and economic pressure, they could force Iran to retreat from its core principles and pave the way for fragmentation and regime change. However, Washington’s calculations quickly shifted under the influence of a key factor: Iran’s doctrine of active deterrence, rooted in strategic depth and readiness for entering a regional war. The attempt to launch a ‘comprehensive soft and hard war’ aimed at overthrowing the system not only failed, but placed the Axis of Resistance in a more offensive posture. The goal of this campaign was to create fractures within Iran’s national and military power structures. One of the clearest signs of its failure, the paper argues, is the shift in foreign officials’ tone — from talk of war to talk of negotiation — which it sees as clear evidence of a changed balance of power. This retreat from aggressive rhetoric suggests that regional and international actors are increasingly calculating the high costs of any military action against Iran.
Khorasan: Tactical differences, strategic consensus
Khorasan, in an analysis, examined the underlying alignment between Trump and Netanyahu in their efforts to contain and weaken Iran. It argued that the idea of a rift or disagreement between Trump and Netanyahu over Iran is less a reflection of actual policy and more the product of media framing and perception-shaping operations. According to the paper, any differences that may exist are limited to tactics, timing, and methods of applying pressure — not the ultimate objective. The shared goal of both actors is maximum containment of Iran and weakening of its national power foundations. Expecting a sudden shift by Trump in Iran’s favor is described as an overly optimistic and weakly supported interpretation. The article says Netanyahu is satisfied with the ongoing discussions and coordination with Trump. If a genuine strategic disagreement existed, signs of it would appear in official statements, press conferences, or in the deterrent behavior of either side. Instead, the evidence points to aligned objectives and mutually reinforcing tools. The narrative of a ‘Trump–Netanyahu disagreement over Iran,’ the paper concludes, is more a part of the battle of narratives than a reflection of political reality. The strategic mistake, it warns, is to interpret tactical differences as strategic conflict and thereby lose sight of the broader picture of coordinated pressure.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: tehrantimes.com
