ÉTATS-UNIS PERSPECTIVE

American media coverage on day 25 is dominated by the diplomatic cacophony surrounding the alleged negotiations with Iran. Trump claims Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio are leading discussions, expressing optimism about an imminent deal, while Tehran calls these claims 'fake news intended to manipulate financial and oil markets and escape the quagmire in which America and Israel are trapped.' CNN, NPR, and CBS offer divergent coverage of this contradiction — CNN maintains a factual live feed, NPR reveals confirmed diplomatic back channels, and CBS details Trump's reversal on his Strait of Hormuz ultimatum.

The security angle dominates coverage with particular attention to the Trump administration's 15-point plan for ending the conflict, transmitted to Israel before being submitted to Iran. American media reveal a growing tension between Washington and Tel Aviv: Israel fears Trump may favor a one-month ceasefire over complete destruction of Iranian nuclear capabilities. This fracture in the alliance is a distinctive angle of American coverage, largely absent from other countries' media.

The Washington Post published a major analysis on the 'cracks' between American and Israeli objectives, revealing that the initial shared rhetoric of 'regime change' has fragmented in the face of ground realities. American media now openly treat the conflict as a potential quagmire, with NPR headlining 'Iran war enters its fourth week with no clear end in sight.' The treatment of Russian intelligence provided to Iran to target American forces (revealed by the Washington Post) constitutes an explosive angle linking the Iran war to the rivalry with Moscow.

Blind spots in American coverage remain significant: the humanitarian toll in Iran is systematically relegated behind strategic considerations, the question of strikes' legality under international law is virtually absent, and the impact on Gulf civilian populations (hit by Iranian retaliatory strikes) receives minimal attention. American media frame the conflict almost exclusively as a crisis management problem rather than a fundamental reassessment of foreign policy.