Mixed world media reaction to nuclear deal
Commentators in Iran, Israel and the US are divided in their reaction to the framework agreement on the future shape of Iran's nuclear programme.
Iranian TV is reflecting the jubilation of ordinary people, but some conservative media feel Iran compromised too much.
Two major US dailies give conflicting viewpoints, with one calling the deal "promising" and another saying it falls far short of President Obama's original goals.
In a rare, perhaps unprecedented move, Iranian state TV broadcast President Obama's speech on the deal live.
The flagship news bulletin of Iran's state Channel One showed scenes of jubilation as crowds gathered to welcome Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif back in Tehran, chanting "Viva Javad Zarif. Long live Rouhani."
"Iran's nuclear programme will continue and none of our nuclear facilities will shut down," the bulletin quoted Zarif as saying.
At a speech at the Tehran's Friday prayers, broadcast on Iranian TV, the mood was equally upbeat.
"Nobody uses a language of threat against the Iranian people any more," President Hassan Rouhani's chief of staff Mohammad Nahavandian said before the main sermon.
Rouhani is due to address the nation this evening on the framework nuclear agreement.
Conservative media outlets, however, see the framework deal as a mistake.
Hoseyn Shariatmadari, the editor-in-chief of the influential hard-line daily Keyhan, expressed his dejection over Iran agreeing to the framework agreement.
Keyhan is seen by many as the mouthpiece of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
"To sum up the deal framework in one sentence - we gave a saddled horse and in lieu received a torn bridle," Mr Shariatmadari told the Fars news agency.
Iranian newspapers are closed for the Persian New Year holiday.
In Israel, most papers say the agreement is against the country's interests.
"The key word is trust and there is no trust in the Iranians. Also after the achievement of a framework agreement yesterday with Tehran, even President Barack Obama admitted in his speech in Washington that he does not believe the Iranians," says a commentary in Yisrael Hayom (in Hebrew).
An article in Yediot Aharonot says: "The agreement provides international legitimacy to Iran's status as nuclear threshold state and this is bad for Israel".
But independent broadsheet Haaretz sees the deal as "not a bad one at all".
"When the details are examined in depth we see many positive points in the agreement that serve Israel's security interest and answer the concerns in Jerusalem," it says.
A New York Times' editorial welcomes the "promising" nuclear deal with Iran.
"By opening a dialogue between Iran and America, the negotiations have begun to ease more than 30 years of enmity. Over the long run, an agreement could make the Middle East safer and offer a path for Iran, the leading Shiite country, to rejoin the international community," says the paper.
But a sceptical Washington Post suggests that the "key parameters" for a deal "fall well short of the goals originally set by the Obama administration".
"None of Iran's nuclear facilities- including the Fordow centre buried under a mountain - will be closed. Not one of the country's 19,000 centrifuges will be dismantled. Tehran's existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be "reduced" but not necessarily shipped out of the country. In effect, Iran's nuclear infrastructure will remain intact, though some of it will be mothballed for 10 years.
When the accord lapses, the Islamic republic will instantly become a threshold nuclear state," the paper says in its editorial.
It also raises concerns that the economic boost resulting from the proposed deal will allow Iran to "wage more aggressively the wars it is already fighting or sponsoring across the region".