Days after a huge explosion rocked Shahid Rajaee Port in the southern Iranian city of Bandar Abbas, some of the fires continue to rage. Authorities say it could take up to three weeks to put them all out, but the economic, social and political reverberations from the blast are likely to last much longer.
At the time of writing, at least 70 people have died and more than 1,200 injured. Damages have run into billions of dollars. More than 80 per cent of all the country’s maritime imports come through Shahid Rajaee, and it will take a while before it returns to full capacity.
Iran’s recent history has seen several calamities, but this is a unique disaster. The cause of the explosion remains unclear, and whether it was the outcome of carelessness or conspiracy has triggered a nationwide debate.
In a statement on Monday, the investigative committee said safety precautions had been lacking at the site, suggesting it could be no more than a highly unfortunate and avoidable incident. The Hormozgan province’s governor, who leads the committee, ruled out sabotage as a probable cause – at least for now. Yet the fact that it occurred amid the ongoing Iran-US nuclear negotiations certainly gives it an additional layer of intrigue.
Iran’s largest port by far, Shahid Rajaee is used by myriad financial interests – a fact that has led to a war of narratives around the blast. Who was really at fault?
Customs officials reportedly blamed an undeclared shipment, but the agency that carried this news deleted it shortly after. Later, the manager of the country’s largest port operator made a similar claim to another news agency. He said “dangerous shipments” had been stored at the port without proper declarations, which is a violation of the Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic.
There is speculation that these “dangerous shipments” might have been fuel for Iran’s missile programme which, according to earlier reporting, had been unloaded at Shahid Rajaee. In January, an article in the Financial Times said that China had sent missile fuel to help Iran replenish the stocks it had lost after its attacks on Israel last year.
The presence of missile fuel, were it to be the case, increases the probability of a foreign attack. Israeli officials have so far denied any connection to the blast, but one general has said that it could have been the work of his country.
Some influential Iranians believe this to be true. The academic Sadegh Zibakalam said Israel might have used its intelligence capabilities inside the country to cause the blast. Mohammad Mehdi Shahriari, an MP and a part of the Parliament’s national security committee, said it might have been an Israeli attempt to sabotage the Iran-US talks. Mr Shahriari did, however, add that he is open to the possibility of negligence, given the often-lax observance of safety rules in the country.
As with other cases, such as the Beirut Port blast in 2020, the search for the truth might go on for years. The head of Iran’s judiciary, Gholamhossein Mohseni Ezhei, has asked investigators to speed things up and directed the national prosecutor to quickly identify those responsible. But given the stakes involved, it would be naive to expect a swift or straightforward conclusion.
Meanwhile, as tragic as the blast was, it has revealed a positive side of Iranian society, which has shown incredible solidarity with the victims. Hundreds of people lined up in cities across the country to donate blood, with clinics operating round the clock to accommodate this drive. Within a day of the blast, Iran’s Blood Transfusion Organisation said more than enough blood had been collected.
The annual Koocheh music festival held in the south-western port city of Bushehr closed early, and many musicians engaged in traditional mourning processions. These processions were diverse and widespread in their reach. In Iranian Kurdistan, lorry drivers hung banners of condolences on their vehicles, highlighting the fact that the mourning was nationwide. Social media is still awash with expressions of sadness and solidarity.
In short, the blast has brought a newfound unity in an otherwise politically divided society.
The tragedy has also provided a sobering glimpse into just how disastrous potential military strikes – being discussed as a possibility if the Iran-US talks fail – could be for the country’s people and its critical infrastructure. Even though most of the government’s most ardent opponents in Iran are opposed to such strikes, there are those who favour them as a means of putting a swift end to the establishment. These critics often claim that strikes could be relatively harmless, but the suffering being endured by so many in Bandar Abbas has reminded ordinary Iranians that war is not a metaphor – and that a military conflict could be an unmitigated disaster.
As talks between Tehran and Washington advance, with a fourth round scheduled for Saturday, the stakes couldn’t be higher. It is clear to all sides that a collapse of the talks could be a prelude to Israeli strikes on Iranian soil with an aim to destroy its nuclear weapons programme. By showing how unpalatable such a scenario is, the blast could end up strengthening popular support for the talks and bolstering the resolve of the negotiators to secure a deal.
