Iranian President’s Tour Highlights Damage from US Airstrikes
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian visited transportation and logistics sites impacted by recent US airstrikes, implicitly acknowledging that the destruction was more significant than previously reported by his administration.
The Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) shared a somber overview of Pezeshkian’s infrastructure tour on Sunday.
Officials briefed the President on the state of border terminals, ports, roads, railways, and essential goods distribution networks. Minister of Roads and Urban Development, Farzaneh Sadegh, provided a comprehensive report detailing damage to critical infrastructure, including ports and bridges, caused by the US attack.
Pezeshkian directed measures to expedite the reconstruction of damaged infrastructure, reactivate alternative routes, and bolster the resilience of transportation networks to maintain uninterrupted services.
While emphasizing the military’s role in sustaining transport services amid the chaos, Pezeshkian claimed that the people’s continued support and government efforts would thwart any plans aimed at dismantling the country’s infrastructure.
Notably, Pezeshkian and other officials dismissed Iran’s prior assertions, firmly stating it was the US that had violated the ceasefire agreement established in June, referring to what they deemed an unreasonable attack on a civilian vessel in the Strait of Hormuz.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio remarked that the agreement did not permit Iran to attack commercial ships, asserting that they chose to violate the terms.
In a Sunday interview, Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Esmail Bakaei criticized the claim that the US resumed airstrikes without cause, denying Tehran’s wish to negotiate a new ceasefire.
Bakaei stated that the world hoped the US would uphold its commitments, but its actions constituted a clear breach of various articles within the agreement—repeating that diplomacy had been undermined yet again.
He insisted that Iranians had never sought war, stating they were compelled to defend themselves and demonstrate their commitment to sovereignty and dignity.
Bakaei oddly denied Iranian attacks on shipping vessels, claiming that Tehran offered safe passage to those very ships which had allegedly been targeted.
According to Bakaei, a 30-day period was designated under Article 5 of the memorandum to restore normal commercial shipping traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, asserting that Iran had adhered to its obligations. Still, he claimed that the US launched a significant military campaign against Iran shortly after the agreement was signed, citing incidents involving merchant vessels as justification—though these incidents involved violence linked to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC).
Bakaei also revealed that Iranian representatives had reached out to the US via intermediaries, but emphasized that Iran would not engage in direct negotiations unless the US accepted its terms regarding the Hormuz crisis.
On Monday, the Iranian military commemorated the anniversary of Operation Mersad, reflecting a period of fervent loyalty to the Islamic Republic and a stark reminder of resistance against the US and Israel.
The military’s tribute portrayed the 1988 operation as one of the significant chapters in Iran’s history, reiterating their readiness to confront any perceived threats to their homeland.
In a somewhat unusual turn, Iranian rebels observed an air of despair surrounding the commemoration, criticizing the Revolutionary Guards for issuing a political warning about an event that occurred 38 years prior.
The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) commented on the statement as revealing fear rather than confidence, highlighting repeated warnings about vigilance, national unity, and the continued influence of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK).
NCRI noted that the Revolutionary Guards linked Operation Mersad not just to military confrontations with the US, but also to domestic repression against unarmed demonstrators, aiming to reframe the regime’s actions as a battle against foreign interference and a warning to those desiring freedom.
The NCRI deemed the Revolutionary Guards’ statement as a “declaration of terror disguised as a declaration of victory,” representing a political assessment of the regime’s current vulnerabilities.
The NCRI concluded that the messages from the Revolutionary Guards reveal an enduring anxiety about the potential for a nationwide uprising to challenge the clerical authority, much like fears that surfaced 38 years ago.
