Fire in Bandar Abbas, a wound on Iran’s body.

In any case, I am waiting. Generally, I am waiting for bad news. Waiting to see what decision Flanxk will make about Iran in the world. Are we getting closer to war or moving further away? Suddenly, news pages become smoky: “Explosion in Bandar Abbas.” The news transfer is similar to the Plasco fire and the collapse of the Ahvaz Metro building. We are used to not telling the truth in the early hours. On one hand, we swear that nothing has happened, and on the other hand, we show pictures from years ago as evidence that thousands are burning. But you are worried about Iran. Worried about the disaster that has come upon us and sits alongside other disasters. This is the image shared by a significant portion of Iranians from the moment of the Bandar Rajaei explosion. Even if not in the loss of loved ones, physical injuries, and economic damages, we are united in our suffering. Therefore, repeated looks

According to information available on social media prior to the occurrence of this fire, Bandar-e Rajaei is considered the main hub of maritime trade in Iran and responsible for approximately 70-80% of the country’s maritime imports and exports. (1) The emphasis on the date of publication of these figures is due to the fact that in the official narrative of the Islamic Republic officials, immediately after the fire, the importance and credibility of the port suddenly decreased. It is as if when it is claimed that the disaster was insignificant and unimportant, the importance and magnitude of the disaster diminishes. (2).

In addition to the volume of exchanges, the location of Bandar-e Rajaei is also special. Bandar-e Rajaei is located in Hormozgan province, near the Strait of Hormuz. Therefore, in addition to its key role in the country’s logistics network, it also has special importance in terms of geopolitics. These strategic aspects create requirements in the field of industrial safety, which unfortunately were not observed in the recent fire incident.

What was the safety situation at the port?

There is no specific report regarding the safety situation in Bandar Rajaei or any of the country’s logistics and industrial areas. All reports are related to after the disaster. In this matter, the people are not allowed to speak until the disaster has not happened to them. Annual reports of similar institutions in bureaucratic structures such as the European Union are easily accessible with a simple search and click, but what is the benefit of such a system? The least benefit of this mechanism is to provide the possibility of collective supervision over public interests. As soon as people know that their lives are in danger, there will be grounds for pressuring the government to protect their lives. However, given the high density of industrial activities in Bandar Rajaei, including storage of chemical, fuel, and hazardous materials, safety in this port is one of the key components in analyzing the country’s vital infrastructure. Nevertheless, no official report has been published that provides accurate or documented statistics on the status of fire suppression systems,

After the disaster, among the scattered news and reports published, information about the safety weaknesses of the port can be found, but there is not enough technical and quantitative information for a comprehensive analysis. In the absence of official data, it is not possible to judge the extent of the infrastructural problems, but the same scattered evidence and the sensitive nature of the port’s operation indicate that even the possibility of a failure in the basic systems, due to the inherent danger of stored materials, can be a catalyst for a crisis. As an important example, based on the same scattered information and reports, there is no mention in any official reports of the performance of automatic fire suppression or thermal monitoring systems before the spread of the fire. This shows that either the preventive smart systems are not in place or they have not been effective. Furthermore, the published images of the site show that the lack of a safe distance between flammable material containers and the delay in accessing the fire center have contributed to the spread of the incident

Emphasis on the certainty of the analysis of scattered information, arises from sets of other scattered information. From the very early hours of the disaster, reports were published showing that the port employees were unaware of the contents of some of the containers. In more official reports, it was stated that the owners of the cargo had lied about the contents of the cargo in order to reduce storage and maintenance costs. (3) Therefore, although it is clear from the images that the flammable materials were being stored in a suitable condition for something like a “cloud dump”, it cannot be said with certainty that this failure to comply with minimum safety standards is a fault of the port, or a result of lies and corruption from the communication between the owners of the goods and their superiors.

What do the standards say?

Standards and technical documents related to port safety are very clear and precise. In leading ports of the world such as Singapore, Rotterdam, and Shanghai, safety management is based on international frameworks such as ISO 45001 (Occupational Health and Safety Management), ISO 22301 (Business Continuity Management), and the requirements of the International Code, ISPS (International Ship and Port Facility Security Code) of the International Maritime Organization (IMO). These standards require ports to implement the following processes:

Identification of systematic occupational and environmental hazards, ISO 45001.

Designing and implementing control programs to reduce risks, ISO 45001 (45001 ISO).

Developing operational plans in response to crises, including fire and hazardous material leakage scenarios, ISO 22301 (22301 ISO).

Annual audits for internal inspection and process improvement, ISO 45001 (45001 ISO) updates.

Physical security monitoring with precise access requirements, perimeter protection, and event database, ISPS Code.

New technologies, such as intelligent warning systems, fire-fighting robots, environmental sensor networks, thermal monitoring systems and surveillance, are also facilitators of today’s precise implementation of these standards.

At the forefront of all these details, there is a fundamental issue and that is safety, as the “organizational culture”. All levels of management and operations are responsible for responding to hazards according to the “safe” organizational culture. “Safety first, then work” is not just a slogan next to the “Bababarqi” banner in industrial workshops. Large logistics and industrial centers are truly warehouses of explosives. A safety-focused organizational culture can ignite this warehouse of matches. This unsafe organizational culture has been the initiator of several disasters in recent years. Remember Plasco. All those who were responsible did not prevent the Plasco disaster, and later they regretted knowing and warning. What is the use of a warning when a disaster occurs? The wound of Bandar Abbas is still fresh. Just when this wound starts to heal, others will suffer the same fate in Bandar Rajaei. The reality is that the signs do not inform us of the implementation of comprehensive standards. Not only is

The tragedy of Beirut, a shared trauma.

For the Middle East, the explosion in Bandar Abbas was a reminder of the explosion in Beirut. There, the unsafe storage of ammonium nitrate in 2020 created the potential for an explosion similar to that in Bandar Abbas, which served as a clear warning for all ports in the world. As reported in the news, unofficial evidence of storing hazardous materials in poorly ventilated warehouses, inactive monitoring equipment, and the lack of an effective firefighting system in Bandar Abbas are being reported.

However, the strategic location of the Bandar Rajaei port and the timing of the explosion during the negotiations between Iran and the United States does not allow us to completely ignore the possibility of malicious actions. The history of malicious actions against sensitive installations in the country, including by regional actors such as Israel, emphasizes the need to anticipate security scenarios in the design of port safety structures, meaning that even such assumptions cannot absolve those responsible for preventing disasters from their duties.

The reality is that in the puzzle of those who have been describing the country’s situation as “security”, the security of people’s lives and the threat of foreign forces is not a priority. For anyone familiar with this mechanism, it is predictable that the sensitivity of security institutions is hundreds of times more towards the possibility of strikes in the port than the possibility of sabotage and disaster in the port.

Consequences of an accident.

The explosion in the port has not yet come to an end. The reality is that when a fire engulfs the strategic port infrastructure, the consequences of the disaster will not be limited to the initial days. Assuming that this port plays an 80% role in the logistics of the country’s imports and exports, we must be prepared for the impact of the disaster on the supply chain above all else. We are talking about a port where burnt containers had contained daily consumer goods such as rice and beans, as well as raw materials needed for industry. As a result, the fire will have an impact on the daily lives of people as well as various sectors of the country’s industry and trade.

In addition, marine and urban pollution caused by fires is not something that can be easily resolved. Removing these pollutants from the environment, even if possible, is a difficult and costly process. Although according to available reports, the environment of the Persian Gulf is not a top priority for surrounding governments, it should not be forgotten that intensifying pollution in the Gulf means increasing pressure on the residents of surrounding cities. From this perspective, a review of safety policies is not only a technical necessity, but also a strategic necessity on a national scale. According to international experiences, industrial crises in ports have multi-level consequences: from public shock to the shutdown of production lines dependent on imports. The explosion in the Rajaee port is a matter of governance and national importance. Therefore, ensuring its safety should also be considered as a strategic and national matter.

Weakness in governance of security, the accused is the first in line.

The fuel warehouse, ammonium nitrate, Israel, and the mistake of a worker are the accused of the media in the port fire. But in technical dimensions, the inefficiency of the supervisory structure, conservatism, managerial concealment, and bureaucratic corruption are the main criminals. After the fire and with published interviews from port employees and then the process of investigating the causes of the explosion, it can be perceived that the lack of transparent decision-making mechanisms and conflicts of interest at some executive levels have led to safety requirements being regulated not based on real data, but under the influence of maintaining appearances or non-professional considerations. In such a structure, the main priority is to maintain the executive’s image, not to guarantee operational safety. A form of hypocrisy, which has now leaked from the stamp on the forehead to the safety structure.

This pain is not specific to burned ports, but a common pain in many strategic industries, related to oil and power plants, which can be found in the reports of overhauls of these industries and compared to the statements of the responsible engineers of overhaul projects. Safety enhancement projects have been delayed for years due to slow bureaucratic processes or lack of transparent allocation of resources. The lack of transparent reporting mechanisms, non-disclosure of incident data, and researchers’ inability to access safety information are serious obstacles to specialized analysis and prevention.

The loss of “transparency in governance” is a common feature of management in various sectors of the Islamic Republic, which has left its mark on safety as well. In infrastructure management literature, “transparent safety governance” refers to the existence of a data-based decision-making system, the publication of safety audit reports, official accountability for incidents, and the possibility of participation of specialized communities in risk assessment. This structure requires an independent oversight body, a digital platform for free access to data, and a commitment to documentation and continuous improvement. The absence of these elements in the port of Rajaei is not only a sign of weakness in port safety management, but also an indication of a structural crisis in infrastructure governance.

What does the explosion in Bandar Abbas say to us?

The total evidence, from the quality of equipment to the management structure and geopolitical factors, indicates that the port of Rajai was in a high-risk situation in terms of safety and security. Neither technical requirements were met, nor compliance with international standards, nor a transparent and accountable management environment. This port is considered the backbone of Iran’s maritime trade and recent experience has proven that it was also a weak point in the country’s logistics.

In the midst of all this, the lack of definite evidence about the existence of specific military materials should not be interpreted as insignificant in terms of dangerous scenarios, just as the absence of a document of sabotage does not necessarily mean absolute security. However, we still do not know exactly what happened and we may never know, unless someday, someone, somewhere, in a special situation, reveals the realities. But now we know that the lack of safety in a country’s strategic structure can endanger the lives of people who are miles away from that structure. Is it possible that at some point, understanding the demand for protest against the situation could also help with transparency and safety?

Notes:

1- Why is Bandar Shahid Rajaei important?

ISNA.

April 26th, 2025.

2- Bandar Rajaei does not have a significant share in the import of essential goods.

Fararu.

This is a name and does not have a direct translation in English. It could possibly be a person’s name or a brand/company name.

“7th of Ordibehesht month, 1404.”

3- “The tragedy of the “Doroghaghaari” that caused a national disaster/ The heavy silence of the owner of the burning containers/ How did the “extremely dangerous” cargo enter and get stored at Shahid Rajaee port?”

“Economyran website.”

“8th of Ordibehesht month, 1404.”

4- Safety culture in a maritime organization and its development in non-conventional vessels for increased safety in ports, conference paper, Babak Parnian Gate, Third National Conference on Port Safety, 1385.

Civilica Article Bank..