Iran says two of its airlines cleared to resume Dubai flights

On the ground in Hormozgan province, the damage has fallen heavily on the civilian road network, and the tally has grown by the day.

On Friday the provincial governor's office said six bridges had been struck in Khamir county alone, cutting the Bandar Abbas to Lar highway; its list ran from the Gariveh bridge to spans near the villages of Latidan and Maru, with residents told to keep off the routes and leave them clear for rescue teams.

Within a day, officials were adding to it. The Shahid Mirzaei road tunnel was reported damaged in both directions, the Roudkhaneh Shour bridge was hit on the Bandar Abbas to Sirjan route, and two more bridges were damaged on the road from the Minab junction toward Roudan. With attacks continuing nightly, no official list has stayed final for long.

• 

  Why US strikes are moving deeper into southern Iran

The attacks have also reached utilities. Iranian media reported missile strikes on power facilities and desalination pumps in the coastal city of Jask, leaving some 10,000 people in 20 villages without water, according to the Tasnim news agency. The maritime control tower at Chabahar, which the Tehran daily Etemad described as civilian infrastructure that guides shipping and coordinates sea rescues, was hit for the third time in a week.

A port city going quiet

The cumulative effect is visible in Bandar Abbas, the provincial capital and Iran's main commercial gateway on the strait. Iran International has learned that the city has gone semi-dormant under the naval blockade and the severing of its road links, with activity at Shahid Rajaee, the country's largest container port, reduced to a minimum.

• 

  Iran hardliners blamed as cost of US strikes mounts

Half of the port's workforce has been laid off in recent weeks, according to the information received, and those still employed are working for minimum pay. More than 4,000 containers are stranded in the port's yards. The blockade closed the sea route weeks ago; the strikes on bridges are now closing the roads.

The Strait of Hormuz, which normally carries a fifth of the world's oil, has been shut to Iranian exports and contested for a week, with US Marines boarding a tanker, the Revolutionary Guards saying they stopped four vessels with missile and drone fire, and Washington enforcing what it calls a naval blockade. The Guards say that until US attacks end, not a drop of oil or gas will leave the region.

Talk of a ground campaign

Trump has made no secret of the targeting. He told Fox News this week that the United States would knock out Iran's power plants and bridges unless Tehran returned to negotiations, and said the strikes would continue "until I say it's enough."

Asked in the same interview about sending ground troops, the president declined to rule it out. "Sometimes you need a ground campaign," he said, adding, "we have other people who will do the ground campaign for us." He said American forces had already struck Kharg Island, the hub of Iran's oil exports, two or three times, with instructions to spare the oil terminals themselves.

• 

  Vance, Ghalibaf back diplomacy as US, Iran strikes continue

Vice President JD Vance has said the United States does not intend to send ground troops to Iran, leaving the administration's position less than settled. US officials, for their part, have said the attacks on southern Iran are designed in part to give Trump options.

In Tehran, some of the loudest voices in the Islamic Republic's establishment are reading the map the same way. Amir-Hossein Sabeti, a hardline lawmaker from Tehran, wrote on social media that the destruction of the south's transport links was most likely the prelude to a ground attack, arguing that damaged roads and bridges would hamper the movement of Iranian forces ahead of any attempt to seize islands or key points on the coast.

Sabeti reserved part of his message for his own government, demanding that President Masoud Pezeshkian and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf either deliver on their promise that the agreement with Washington would end the war or admit their judgment had failed.

The swipe pointed to a widening argument inside the establishment over who bears responsibility for the ceasefire's collapse.

Mohsen Rezaei, an adviser to Iran's supreme leader and a former Revolutionary Guards commander, warned that if US strikes continue for several more days, Iran will move into what he called full-scale offensive operations.

Analysts note that a week of air strikes has not reopened the strait, and that controlling it durably may ultimately require forces on the coast or islands that command it, a step no amount of bombing substitutes for.

The targeting of bridges, power stations and water plants, on both sides, has drawn warnings beyond the region.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said he was concerned by attacks on civilian infrastructure in Iran and across the Persian Gulf, where Kuwait's desalination plants have been hit twice in two days by Iranian strikes.

The 1949 Geneva Conventions prohibit attacks on sites essential to civilian survival, and American legal scholars warned earlier this year, after Trump first threatened Iran's infrastructure, that such strikes could amount to war crimes.

Oil prices climbed more than 4 percent on Friday to their highest level in over a month, a third straight weekly gain that adds pressure on Trump ahead of November's congressional elections.

American forces have been striking targets along Iran’s Persian Gulf coast for almost a week.

Iranian media reported that eight people were killed as bridges, communications infrastructure and a maritime surveillance tower were hit across Hormozgan and Sistan-Baluchistan provinces.

Rebeccah Heinrichs, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, says the concentration of attacks along Iran’s southern coastline—and increasingly farther inland—suggests the United States is moving beyond retaliation against individual strikes and targeting the infrastructure that allows Tehran to sustain and eventually rebuild the military capabilities underpinning its operations around the Strait of Hormuz.

“Up until very recently, the United States was primarily focused on doing retaliatory strikes exclusively along the coastline of Iran,” Heinrichs told Eye for Iran. . “

‘Protecting maritime traffic’

The attacks came after President Donald Trump warned that bridges and power infrastructure could become targets if Tehran refused to return to negotiations.

Iranian military officials, meanwhile, said the conflict would “spread to new areas” if US operations continued.

“I suspect that the United States has had these targets on their list,” she said. “President Trump has gone back to Admiral Cooper and said, ‘What else do we need to hit?’”

The likely focus, she added, was Iran’s ability to replenish the military capabilities it uses around the Strait of Hormuz.

Among the sites struck was a maritime surveillance tower in Chabahar. Iran described it as a facility monitoring commercial shipping, while US Central Command said it formed part of an IRGC network used to track vessels transiting the strait and coordinate attacks against them.

CENTCOM said destroying the tower would directly reduce the Revolutionary Guards’ ability to threaten maritime traffic.

The targeting of bridges in Hormozgan province also points to an expanding set of military objectives.

Heinrichs said Washington had sought to limit civilian harm, but argued that some dual-use infrastructure could become a legitimate military target if it substantially enabled IRGC operations.

“There are some targets that the United States could legitimately hit,” she said. “They may create some harm, of course, to the civilian population, but they also primarily enable and facilitate the IRGC to repress their people and to continue their war effort.”

A limited ground role?

The widening campaign has also fuelled speculation about whether Washington could eventually deploy ground forces inside Iran.

Heinrichs dismissed the prospect of a large-scale invasion, saying any deployment would more likely involve special operations forces tasked with securing or removing nuclear material rather than occupying territory.

“If President Trump were to go with any contingency that would entail some element of US ground forces, it would almost certainly be because the United States wants to remove any nuclear material that is still inside Iran,” she said.

For now, however, Heinrichs believes the campaign remains centred on the Strait of Hormuz.

The initial phase significantly weakened Iran’s military leadership and its capacity to project power beyond its borders, she said. Washington has now moved into what she described as “the battle over the Strait of Hormuz.”

Taken together, the latest strikes point to a campaign that is evolving beyond retaliation. Rather than simply responding to Iranian attacks, Washington appears increasingly focused on preventing Tehran from regenerating the military infrastructure underpinning its operations around the Strait of Hormuz.

The directive came a week after the collapse of a ceasefire with the United States and the resumption of fighting in southern Iran and the Strait of Hormuz.

It told media outlets covering attacks on civilian facilities and infrastructure to “refrain from publishing vital information,” avoid creating “fear and alarm among the public,” and withhold details about the extent of destruction or its impact on the delivery of public services.

The council said such information could be used “by the enemy to assess the effectiveness of its attacks.” It instructed media outlets to obtain information through the most senior provincial official responsible for any institution or facility that had been hit.

The directive also ordered media outlets to describe disruptions to public services using phrases such as “the issue is under review and being resolved,” rather than report the extent of the damage or provide specific details about its effect on services.

It said the Health Ministry and emergency services remained the only official and authoritative sources for civilian casualty figures.

The order followed a sixth consecutive night of US strikes on Iran. US Central Command said fighter jets, drones and warships had used precision weapons against dozens of military targets, including coastal surveillance and air-defense sites, military logistics infrastructure and maritime capabilities on Qeshm Island and near Bandar Abbas.

The strikes could expand further. Axios reported on Friday that the Trump administration plans to send dozens more aerial refueling planes to Israel as the US president considers a broader offensive against Iran, potentially targeting power plants, other infrastructure and additional nuclear facilities.

Iranian media reported that five bridges in Hormozgan province were hit, along with the railway station in the coastal city of Bandar Khamir and Iranshahr airport in southeastern Iran.

Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency said seven people were killed in strikes on bridges in Bandar Khamir.

The attacks also damaged power lines in Bandar Abbas and surrounding areas, causing outages, while a tower at the port of Chabahar was brought down. Iran said the tower monitored commercial traffic, while the United States described it as part of an IRGC surveillance network used to target vessels in the Strait of Hormuz.

With major international news organizations lacking permanent bureaus inside Iran, the directive further concentrates wartime reporting in the hands of state-controlled institutions and makes independent verification of attacks, casualties and infrastructure damage more difficult.

The US State Department on Wednesday welcomed Iraq's and Syria's decision to prioritize reconstruction of the Iraq-Syria crude oil pipeline, describing it as a strategically important regional infrastructure project and backing a US-led international consortium to carry out the technical and financial work.

The department said the rehabilitated pipeline would initially be capable of transporting 2 million barrels of crude per day from Iraq to Mediterranean export markets, calling the announcement "an important milestone" for the region and for relations between Baghdad and Damascus.

The renewed push comes during the US-Iran war, which has sharply reduced traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway that carried about one-fifth of global oil supplies before the conflict.

US ambassador to Turkey and special envoy for Syria and Iraq Tom Barrack said Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi's plans to develop alternative export corridors were aligned with broader regional efforts involving Syria, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt.

He said the projects could make Hormuz "an afterthought" for Iraq within two years.

Chevron is in advanced discussions with Los Angeles-based TI Capital and Qatar's UCC Holding to form a consortium for a pipeline network linking southern Iraqi oilfields to the Mediterranean through Syria, the Financial Times reported.

The proposed system would include one line running north from southern Iraq toward Kirkuk and another extending west to the Syrian port of Baniyas.

In parallel, Iraq's cabinet has approved preliminary studies of routes from Basra through Haditha to either Baniyas or Turkey's Mediterranean export terminal at Ceyhan. The approvals do not create binding financial or contractual obligations for Iraq's Oil Ministry.

US Representative Joe Wilson, a Republican from South Carolina, praised Barrack's efforts, saying pipelines through Syria and Turkey could help replace export capacity threatened by Iran's actions around Hormuz.

He estimated the broader network could eventually transport 2.5 million barrels per day to the Mediterranean or Turkey and reduce Baghdad's dependence on Tehran.

Oil prices have climbed during the renewed fighting, with Brent crude settling at $88 a barrel on Friday, its highest level in a month.

The proposed routes remain subject to feasibility studies and would face significant financing, construction and security challenges before becoming operational.

The debate has intensified since Iran targeted a vessel near the Strait of Hormuz last week, prompting a renewed US military campaign that has included days of strikes on ports, bridges, airports and military facilities across Iran’s southern provinces.

Even as US Vice President JD Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker and chief negotiator Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf have continued to defend diplomacy backed by military preparedness, the fighting has persisted and the prospect of a wider conflict has grown.

The criticism has been directed in part at ultrahardline figures such as Qom Seminary Chancellor Alireza Arafi, who has called for further war against the United States and an end to negotiations.

Two recent commentaries—one by former lawmaker and former National Security Committee chairman Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh, the other by political analyst Abdolrahman Fathollahi—reflect the growing push to hold hardliners accountable for the costs of confrontation.

While one focuses on political responsibility for failed diplomacy, the other highlights the burden borne by communities on Iran’s southern frontier.

‘Defeating diplomacy’

Writing in the moderate daily Toseh Irani, Falahatpisheh accused hardline factions of using what he called a distorted interpretation of religion to obstruct diplomatic opportunities.

“I believe part of these two major wars against Iran was the result of this very definition of religious beliefs by extremists, who are now turning to distorting religion to defeat diplomacy,” he wrote.

He argued that the same factions had repeatedly promised better outcomes while blocking agreements that could have reduced tensions.

“They are the exact same people who blocked two good agreements during the major periods of 2021 and 2022, claiming they would forge a better deal,” he wrote. “But in practice, not only was no agreement achieved, but two major wars were imposed on Iran.”

Falahatpisheh called for the prosecution of those he said had turned diplomatic opportunities into military conflict.

‘Patriotism from a safe distance’

A second commentary, published Thursday in Shargh, shifted the focus from political responsibility to the human cost of confrontation.

Under the title The Country’s Future and the Triangle of Extremism, Costs, and Responsibility, Fathollahi warned about the toll of intensifying US airstrikes on Iran’s southern coastal provinces.

He pointed to public campaigns calling for outspoken opponents of negotiations to be sent to the front lines, accusing them of practising what he described as “patriotism from a safe distance.”

“One certainly cannot beat the drums of war from the safe margins of the capital behind podiums, while dumping the costs of those decisions onto the people living in the front lines,” Fathollahi wrote, highlighting the plight of communities bearing the brunt of the fighting over the Strait of Hormuz.

The comments come after a week of US strikes on infrastructure across Iran’s Persian Gulf provinces, where dozens have been killed or injured and many more affected by transport disruption, electricity blackouts and water shortages during the height of summer.

For Fathollahi, the question is no longer simply one of military strategy but whether Iran’s leaders are willing to change course before the costs grow even higher.

“Rethinking certain political approaches and utilizing all expert and diplomatic capacities is not a choice,” he concluded, “but a necessity to safeguard national interests and reduce the costs imposed on society.”