SAEDNEWS: Tehran’s Ham Mihan network has dismissed an Axios report suggesting President Putin sought a suspension of uranium enrichment as a “dirty campaign,” even as domestic outlets spar over retaliation, hybrid warfare and European pressure tactics.
According to Saed News, Ham Mihan issued a formal rejoinder on July 20 to an Axios scoop—attributed to unnamed Western diplomats—asserting that President Vladimir Putin privately urged Iran to accept a halt to uranium enrichment during negotiations. The statement branded the allegation a “dirty campaign with political goals” aimed at sowing discord between two “countries that have established good and constructive relations.” Emphasizing Moscow’s consistent defence of Iran’s enrichment rights since the U.S. exit from the JCPOA, the note affirmed that “the Islamic Republic of Iran makes independent decisions on all matters related to foreign policy, including the nuclear issue,” and underscored Kremlin respect for Tehran’s sovereignty.
In parallel commentary, Vatan‑e‑Emrooz framed Iran’s recent strike on the Weizmann Institute of Science as both punitive retaliation for Israel’s June offensive and a demonstration of enhanced missile reach. From Tehran’s perspective, the attack signalled formidable deterrence; from Jerusalem’s, the damage was “so much” that Zionist officials vowed “Israel will return to world leadership” by rebuilding the strategic research hub.
Khorasan’s analysis warned of a “hybrid war” waged by the U.S. and Israel through fomenting instability in Syria and Iraq, coupled with European attempts to trigger the JCPOA snapback. It called for a multifaceted response—combining robust military readiness with legal and diplomatic measures—and stressed that national unity remains Iran’s chief bulwark.
Finally, in Iran newspaper, international‑relations professor Heidar Ali Masoudi argued that Europe’s end‑August snapback deadline is less about reinstating U.N. sanctions than exercising political leverage to extract fresh concessions and re‑enter talks. He characterized Brussels’ approach as an uneasy blend of mediation and coercion, aimed at “redefining their position in nuclear diplomacy” rather than purely punitive objectives.
