Iran’s foreign minister accused the Pentagon of misrepresenting war costs, saying US spending has reached $100 billion, far above official figures.
“The Pentagon is lying. Netanyahu's gamble has directly cost America $100b so far, four times what is claimed,” Abbas Araghchi wrote on X, adding that US households face about $500 in monthly costs and warning that indirect expenses are significantly higher.
Several of those affected said they were told to leave by the end of the week after calls from Tehran’s crisis management body, even though official inspections had deemed their homes uninhabitable.
“I was told I had to leave the hotel by the end of the week, even though my home is unsafe and I have nowhere to go,” one resident said, describing a call from a municipal official who noted reconstruction had not begun due to lack of funds.
Unsafe homes, no rental support
A resident, who lived in a seventh-floor apartment damaged by a nearby missile strike in March, described shattered windows and debris that rendered both the unit and building access unusable. Emergency services later confirmed the structure was unsafe.
Despite this, the resident said no rental assistance or deposit support had been offered. “They told me I should find housing myself because there is no budget,” the resident added.
Other displaced residents reported receiving similar instructions. Many said they lacked the financial means to rebuild or secure new housing, leaving them at risk of homelessness.
Under earlier municipal pledges, affected households were to receive temporary accommodation, rental support, and reconstruction assistance.
Updated figures increased aid for household goods to 4 billion rials (about $2,200), rental deposits to 20 billion rials (about $11,000), and monthly rent support to 400 million rials (about $220).
However, residents said these commitments have not been consistently fulfilled.
Average income in Iran is around $150 to $200 per month, while the minimum wage is typically below $100.
Delays and conditions on compensation
Some families whose homes were destroyed said they were instructed to pay for basic household items upfront and submit receipts for reimbursement, which could take up to 10 months.
Others said even smaller grants had limited impact. One resident who received 2.5 billion rials (about $1,400) said it was insufficient to replace essential items such as a refrigerator, stove, and bedding.
“We lost everything in the strike and could not even recover clothes,” the resident said. “With that money, we could only buy a few basic items.”
In some cases, families forced to leave hotels reported moving into improvised spaces. One household said they had lived for months in a 30-square-meter storage room after being unable to afford rent.
Insurance payouts also stalled
Residents with damaged vehicles described similar difficulties in seeking compensation. Several said they were told by representatives of insurance that earlier claims from a previous conflict in June had not yet been settled.
“They told me there is no timeline for paying these damages,” one vehicle owner said after visiting an insurance office.
Official figures show that thousands of vehicles and tens of thousands of residential units were damaged in the 40-day conflict, adding to earlier destruction from a previous 12-day escalation in June.
City council response highlights gaps
A spokesperson for Tehran’s city council acknowledged reports of inconsistencies and said cases of forced eviction without support should be reviewed.
“This should not happen, and if such cases exist, they must be followed up,” Alireza Nadali said, adding that municipal policy ties the end of hotel stays to securing alternative housing.
The official also pointed to the scale of damage and budget constraints, adding that assistance programs were introduced voluntarily and may face delays.
At the same time, the council emphasized that reconstruction responsibilities differ depending on the level of damage and local planning rules, which has led to varied outcomes across districts.
Oversight concerns emerge
The accounts raise questions about the oversight role of the city council and the implementation of municipal commitments. Residents interviewed said many promises remained unfulfilled months after the initial damage.
Efforts to obtain direct comment from municipal crisis officials were unsuccessful, according to the report.
Speaking to reporters Thursday, Prime Minister Mark Carney declined to discuss Taj’s case, citing privacy laws, but defended the government’s position on the IRGC.
“Members of the [Iranian] Revolutionary Guard rightly have been prohibited from entering this country and they will not enter this country,” he said.
The comments followed reporting by Iran International on how Taj, president of Iran’s football federation and a former intelligence commander in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, received a Temporary Resident Permit, or TRP. The permit allows Canadian authorities to admit a person who would otherwise be barred under immigration law.
The issue moved quickly to Parliament. At Thursday’s meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in Ottawa, Conservative MP Frank Caputo pressed Immigration Minister Lena Diab to explain how a person deemed inadmissible had received permission to enter Canada.
Caputo said “the rule of law demands transparency” and asked “who gave him a visa,” saying it took Iran International’s reporting to bring the case to public attention.
Who is Mehdi Taj, and what happened?
Taj, the president of Iran’s football federation, has longstanding ties to the Islamic Republic’s security establishment. After the 1979 revolution, he served as an intelligence commander in the IRGC in Isfahan, where units were involved in monitoring internal dissent, including among Kurdish populations.
Canada listed the IRGC as a terrorist entity in 2024, a move that makes people linked to the force inadmissible. Even so, Taj was issued a TRP to attend the FIFA Congress in Vancouver.
Sources who spoke to Iran International said Taj arrived in Canada but was turned back within hours. He and two people accompanying him left at 10:05 p.m. Tuesday after being questioned by authorities.
The immigration ministry commented only after his departure. It declined to name him, citing privacy laws, and said broadly that people linked to the IRGC are not welcome in Canada.
Taj’s brief presence came just before the FIFA Congress at the Vancouver Convention Centre, where members of the Iranian diaspora had planned protests after Iran International’s report.
Political backlash in Ottawa
The case has put the government under pressure from opposition figures who say Taj’s short stay does not answer the central question of why he was issued a permit at all.
Opposition Leader Pierre Poilievre criticized the government publicly, raising concerns about how a person deemed inadmissible was granted entry in the first place.
Conservative Deputy Leader Melissa Lantsman also pointed to Iran International’s reporting as she pressed the government for answers.
“Good riddance. He didn’t just get on a plane and come here to be sent back. Did the Liberal government issue him a permit? Yes or no?” she said.
Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner rejected the argument that the system had worked because Taj was ultimately refused entry.
“Come on, this guy was issued a permit. They made a conscious decision,” she told reporters Thursday in Ottawa.
She has described the case as evidence of serious immigration screening failures and called for accountability.
In the Senate, opposition leader Leo Housakos pressed the government in sharper terms.
“Your government can't seem to show the IRGC the door, but it can find a way to roll out the welcome mat… What’s the point of listing the IRGC if you're not serious about throwing him out of our country?” he said.
Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand suggested the permit may have been granted and later revoked.
“It’s not my personal lead, but my understanding is that there is a revocation of the permission. It was unintentional,” she said, pointing to a possible breakdown in the process.
International coverage and fallout
The case, first reported by Iran International, has since moved into wider international coverage. The New York Times, USA Today, Agence France-Presse and The Canadian Press have all covered the incident, citing the reporting that brought Taj’s entry to light.
The episode has turned a single immigration decision into a broader test of Canada’s policy toward officials tied to the Islamic Republic.
Canada has formally listed the IRGC as a terrorist entity, barring people linked to it from entering the country, yet discretionary tools like Temporary Resident Permits allow authorities to override that inadmissibility.
For critics, Taj’s case has exposed the space between the government’s public position and the way exceptions can be made in practice.
The controversy also comes amid deep anger over the Islamic Republic’s human rights record, including what has been described as one of the deadliest crackdowns in modern history earlier this year, adding to concern among Iranian-Canadians over how Western governments handle officials tied to Tehran.
Questions still facing the government
Taj’s brief entry and rapid removal have left the government facing the same basic issue that first put the case in public view: who approved the permit, why it was granted despite Canada’s inadmissibility rules, and what safeguards are in place to prevent a similar decision.
What began with Iran International’s reporting has become a political fight in Ottawa, one that now sits at the crossing point of immigration law, national security and Canada’s approach to the Islamic Republic.
