Today, what remains in our minds are the narratives that penetrate into the human soul. Narration is not storytelling, it is public diplomacy, media, cinema, and literature, they are fortresses for survival in the unarmed battle but influential in the 21st century. Now, in the recent explosion in the port of Rajai and in the absence of the element of “trust” between the government and the people, we witnessed various, diverse, and even conflicting narratives. Without a doubt, one of the first questions that arises for every viewer after seeing images and videos of the explosion in the port of Rajai is who is responsible for this tragedy and which person or institution is supposed to be accountable for the uncertainties that have occurred? In Iran, however, sometimes the opposite happens, in a way that the viewer, without hesitation, immediately judges and announces a final verdict about the responsible person, the cause, and the root of the incident and its consequences. Part of the story is related to

One of the important topics in the recent explosion was the form and shape of accountability, which includes identifying individual, organizational, and systemic responsibilities, investigating the causes of the incident, and determining mechanisms for compensation and prevention of recurrence. From the very moment of the explosion, however, what was seen was a lack of proper communication between public expectations and the speed of information transfer and response from official sources. This lack can be seen in the structure of the national media for creating proper communication with the defined frameworks of information dissemination. From the beginning, this media easily lost the game to its competitors – both in the virtual space and in other non-official and official media. The interesting point here is that other media did not have the extensive resources and access that this media had.

One of the most important issues in the recent incident is the topic of accountability, which means accepting responsibility for decisions and their consequences. This is the foundation for transparency, trust, and justice, and has results such as preventing corruption and abuse of power, increasing public trust in organizations and the government, and improving performance through feedback and error correction. However, in Bandar Rajaei, Bandar Abbas, during the critical and initial hours after the explosion, there was no sign of these vital elements of trust-building in various forms, including individual responsibility (responsibility for one’s own actions), organizational responsibility (responsibility of institutions towards stakeholders), and social responsibility (government responsibility towards the people). Part of this absence can be attributed to the inefficiency of the national media as the only responsible media in this matter. Instead of providing tangible evidence, such as accurate images of the incident site and independent expert analysis, this media only published official statements and was not convincing for the public who were thirsty for transparency

Unfulfilled waiting.

In the explosion at the Rajaee port customs, it seems that the first person who was needed to be present in front of the media and to answer questions was the head of customs or the port manager. However, this person was not present neither at the beginning of the explosion nor in the following hours. Neither he nor his name was mentioned by the deputy and other officials, nor even by the deputy and other officials themselves. In all parts of the world, especially in developed and developing countries, if the performance of an official is not in accordance with the standards, there should be consequences for them. But until today, there has been no news of any consequences for the officials involved in the explosion. The long time it takes to investigate the formed cases and announce the results by them and to announce the names of the relevant officials undoubtedly has a great impact on undermining public trust in news and information. And of course, for the audience, this has always been a precedent and based on this,

On the other hand, the information related to decision-making regarding the recent incident was not transparent from the beginning. The multiple decision-making authorities confused the audience thirsty for information and led them towards unofficial media. The lack of accurate information, especially in the decision-making process, was one of the reasons for initial confusion in the incident. The role of responsible institutions such as the Ministry of Defense, Ports and Maritime Organization, law enforcement forces, and intelligence agencies in prevention, management, or investigation of the incident was not clear, and the monitoring systems in Iranian ports – especially Bandar Abbas, which is a strategic base – did not function properly.

What came to hand.

As mentioned at the beginning of the note, among the weaknesses related to the subject, there was a weakness in informing and conveying first-hand and reliable news. The only thing that the media presenter and reporter could do was to be present at the scene from a distance and repeatedly report without any knowledge of the root cause of the explosion. Meanwhile, various news with and without facts and evidence were being published on social media and foreign news agencies. This delay in response led to widespread rumors, especially since the explosion coincided with the start of a new round of negotiations between Iran and America, exactly on the other side of the Persian Gulf, in Muscat, and at a distance of a few hundred kilometers. Even in the following days, many contradictory news were published, ranging from an industrial accident to a cyber attack and terrorist attack. In the midst of all this, relevant officials and the official media were in disarray and unable to issue a clear and unified statement, which only added to the public’s

Of course, this issue did not only happen in this incident. By looking at the historical background in the Islamic Republic, we see that this type of misinformation and lack of accountability is a recurring pattern. Despite various slogans in different historical periods, such as election campaigns and statements from political candidates and officials that we have heard many times, it has become a constant practice in all governments. Concealment and incomplete information have become so deeply ingrained in the fabric of power that it cannot be easily abandoned and requires a complex and difficult process, facing resistance from both hidden and visible institutions, including security institutions. We can also see this in the recent explosion. Whether at the beginning or after, and even today, almost a month after the incident, the hidden dimensions of it have not been revealed. This includes the names of responsible officials who, under the guise of irresponsibility or any other name, have caused this tragedy. Even in the latest statistics presented, there is no mention of any person,

In the latest statements of the two responsible authorities – as you have read – there is no mention of any names. What is mentioned in this news is the severe damages caused by the incident and there are no signs of the main responsible and probable culprit. This same trend can be seen in incomplete responses and other news that have been officially released. It seems that efforts are being made to delay the issue in order to reduce public sensitivity. This is happening while many direct victims of the explosion have still not been able to receive compensation for their damages due to various reasons.

Buttocks.

Accountability in such incidents requires a combination of transparency, legal prosecution, compensation, and ultimately, reform of monitoring systems. Without these mechanisms, the likelihood of similar incidents recurring increases. In the case of Bandar Abbas, the level of true accountability depends on factors such as public pressure, the possibility of independent investigations, and the political will of governing institutions. As long as these factors are absent and there is no tangible and influential identity, it is not possible to expect the desired level of accountability. All hidden and apparent factors involved after the incident have been efforts to distance the main responsible parties from being accountable to the public.

Finally, the explosion in Bandar Abbas could have been an opportunity to rebuild the shattered trust of the public towards the government’s information, but as always, this opportunity was also missed and the explosion only further diminished the remaining trust. Accepting responsibility for any action and the resulting consequences in governments built on democracy and the people’s vote, with established and lawful mechanisms and under the complete supervision of public institutions, as well as independent media and rival parties, is an inseparable part of their strength and stability. As long as such mechanisms do not exist in Iran and their effectiveness is not possible, we should not expect transparency in information dissemination and the acceptance of responsibility and consequences by the rulers.

Notes:

1- Describing the environmental consequences of the Shahid Rajaei Port incident.

Mehr.

Love.

May 15th, 2025.

2- Press conference of the spokesperson of the Judiciary Power, stating the charges against two detained managers in the case of the explosion in Bandar Shahid Rajaei.

Scale.

April 27th, 2025.