In his article, Kayhan discussed the full-scale war between Iran and Israel, writing: It doesn’t end in a ceasefire, but only with the complete collapse of the ominous, false structure of the Zionist regime.
Now, Islamic Iran must use this historic opportunity with all its forces to clean up the Zionist region. The Zionists began a war that they thought would first surprise Iran at the height of their stupidity. Night attacks on Iran’s military, nuclear and defense centres were supposed to be the beginning of a “big blow.” The Israelis thought that some blind air could make Tehran kneel on strike. Today, powerful Iran has not only imposed a terrible situation on Tel Aviv and Haifa, but also shows some of its strategic strength. His simple imagination has led his enemies to finish his work, and now awaits deep wounds for the final blow. There is only one condition for ending the war. The destruction of Israel. that’s it.
Shargh: Results of withdrawal from NPT
Shargh dedicated his headline to the outcome of his withdrawal from the NPT, writing: Although countries can withdraw from the NPT through Article 10 of the Convention, this lawsuit has broad consequences and implications that cannot be easily ignored. Countries withdrawing from the treaty will face serious international pressures that may include widespread economic and political sanctions. Furthermore, the suspension of cooperation and technology transfer in the field of nuclear energy will be stopped completely, which could seriously undermine the country’s nuclear projects and programmes. On the other side, withdrawal from the NPT usually leads to international accusations of attempting to acquire nuclear weapons, and a global consensus could form for leaving countries, which could pose serious challenges in the fields of diplomacy and security. Therefore, withdrawing from this treaty is the right of every state, and in fact it is a very sensitive and costly step, taken with care and must take all security, political and economic aspects into consideration.
Etemad: The balance that supports Iran
Etemad analyzed Iran’s missile attacks on Israel and said: On Friday night and Saturday afternoon, important developments took place between Iran and the United States as stages 2 and 3 were carried out against Israel against Israel. These developments have no meaning other than to change the balance in favor of Iran and create confusion among Israeli officials from the perspective of experts and analysts. On the battlefield, the more balance changed in favour of Iran, the louder the voices of the US and European countries about the need to return to the negotiation table. Trump, who had previously spoken about Israel’s need for Israel’s attacks on Iran, made a major change yesterday (Monday) and yesterday (Monday), with the announcement that “Iran and Israel must reach an agreement.” Furthermore, the illusions by Netanyahu and Trump under attack by Iran have come to Israel that will lead to mass protests in the Islamic Republic. Given the current situation, the wise people of the world must prevent such criminal activity as soon as possible and pave the way for Iran and the United States to return to the negotiation table.
Sobh-e-no: Everything went well with Iran’s favor
In his commentary, Sobh-e-no discusses the formation of a new political movement coalition against Israel, writing: These responses show deep international concern over the increased segregation of Israeli regimes and a clear violation of Iran’s national sovereignty. Analysis of the response shows that Israel’s invasion of Iran led to a kind of new regional and international consensus on Tel Aviv’s military adventures. Contrary to calculations by some Israeli authorities, the attack not only undermined support for Iran, but many countries defended the principles of sovereignty, international law and Islamic solidarity. These reactions show that Iran, under severe propaganda pressure and sanctions from the West, has maintained and further promoted regional and international credibility through resistance to Israel. At the same time, regional countries were aware of the risk of spreading the crisis and redefine their foreign policy.