Iran president sacks deputy over high-price Antarctica trip
A senior Iranian official has been sacked by President Masoud Pezeshkian over a costly trip to Antarctica, Iran's news agency said on Saturday.
Shahram Dabiri, the president's deputy for parliamentary affairs, was seen in a photo shared on social media, alongside a woman identified as his wife, standing near the Plancius cruise ship, which caused outrage in Iran.
The Dutch-flagged vessel has offered luxury expeditions to Antarctica since 2009, with one agency pricing an eight-day trip at €3,885 ($4,528) per person.
Iran is in a state of economic crisis and hyperinflation.
"In a context where economic pressure on the population remains high … expensive leisure trips by officials, even if paid out of their own pocket, are neither defensible nor justifiable,' the Iranian President wrote in a letter published Saturday by the official IRNA news agency, which noted that Mr Dabiri was dismissed.
"In a decree on Saturday, President Masoud Pezeshkian said the leisure trip to Antarctica, while the Iranian people are grappling with intense economic pressures, contravenes the administration's campaign pledge of sincerity and justice,' said the news agency.
Mr Dabiri, a 64-year-old physician by profession and a close confidant of Mr Pezeshkian, had been appointed to the post in August.
The government faced strong criticism after the photo was published, and several of Mr Pezeshkian's supporters urged him to remove the official.
IRNA late last month cited a source in Mr Dabiri's office as saying that he had made the trip before he held a government position.
The controversy is another major blow for Mr Pezeshkian, who was elected last year on a promise to revive the economy and improve the daily lives of his fellow citizens.
In early March, his economy minister Abdolnasser Hemmati was dismissed by parliament amid a sharp depreciation of the national currency against the dollar and soaring inflation.
With reporting from agencies
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
3 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
These questions are often ignored in the Israel-Iran story. We asked a panel of experts
Israel's attacks on Iran on Friday and the killing of several high-level figures in its military and science sectors have roiled the region. Tensions between the two nations are well-documented and longstanding, and both the US and Israel have carried out attacks like this, albeit on a smaller scale, on other prominent Iranian figures in the past. But why does this keep happening, and how is the US trying to distance itself from it? Can Israel go this far without expecting its own officials to be targeted? And exactly how dangerous is it to strike nuclear facilities on either side? Middle East Eye put the lesser-asked questions to five experts on international relations, conflict, nuclear proliferation, and the region at large. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Here is what they said, edited for length and clarity. If the US was informed ahead of time and also supplied weapons to Israel, how can Secretary of State Marco Rubio say the US was not involved? Jamal Abdi, President, National Iranian American Council: "This is about creating a narrative of plausible deniability to potentially give Iran a face-saving way to continue talking to the United States [towards a new nuclear deal]. I don't think it's going to work, and I think Trump has already stepped all over that by now, basically taking credit, after seeming to distance the US." Anthony Wanis-St John, conflict resolution specialist, American University: "It's a verbal obfuscation. It means that operationally, we didn't support it." Miles Pomper, Senior Fellow, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation: "Because the Russians and the Chinese are affiliated with the Iranians, [the US will] try not to elevate the level to something beyond a regional conflict, to some global conflict." What is the difference between a 'preemptive strike' and a 'preventive strike'. Are they not both acts of war? Wanis-St. John: "These are certainly acts of war. There's no question about it, the Israelis like to call attention and use "preemptive" and "preventive" doctrines in their military strikes, since every country under international laws and norms is allowed to defend itself against aggression, but no country is supposed to lawfully commit aggressions against another country." Sam Ratner, policy director, Win Without War: "'Preemptive strike' does seem to be, from a definitional standpoint, a misnomer from Israel... this is a war of choice from [Israeli Prime Minister] Benjamin Netanyahu." Pomper: "It's not a preemptive strike, because that would be [like] the Six Day War, where the planes are on the tarmac and about to attack you, and then you hit them. 'Preventive' is a stop to a long-term threat to Israel. And you know the Iranians aren't shy about threatening." Negar Mortazavi, host of the Iran Podcast: "If it's not [couched as] preemptive, then it will be seen differently both from the public opinion and the global opinion... and we know that Israel cares a lot about its image, about its standing in the international community, and that has deteriorated very fast [since its war on Gaza]." The international community has long tolerated, and sometimes cheered on, Israel's string of extra-judicial assassinations. Why? Abdi: "Israel has a lot of political power and very important friends, most importantly, the United States." Mortazavi: "Powerful western countries have provided not just financial and armed support, but also diplomatic support and cover to Israel in the UN Security Council... the contradiction - or in a way, that oxymoron - that Israel is dealing with, is that they're a country that came out of the United Nations [in 1948]." Ratner: "In the post-9/11 era in particular, we've seen not just from the Israeli government, but from Iranian governments, including our own, in fact, and in particular our own, a real sort of generational change of attitude toward the use of assassination. We see it in our drone programme. The erosion of the norm against assassination is bad for diplomacy, bad for international relations, and bad for peace." Looking at the nature of Israel's attacks, can Iran retaliate in the same way? Wanis-St John: "I'm not sure that they can, operationally. I've never seen Iran do that against Israel.... you really need a lot of information about where [targets] are and where they're moving and how they're protected at night. That requires a lot of infrastructure. I'm not sure that the Iranians have that." Abdi: "If we're saying there are no laws, there is no accountability, you can conduct extra-judicial killings with impunity, then it would seem that would no longer restrain any actor from engaging in the same types of activities. But we know that that's not how the world works, and that certain countries have been given a carte blanche to do whatever they want." Mortazavi: "The condemnation would be so different... imagine if the same was done by Iran. Israeli officials also have homes and families." Why can't Iran have a nuclear bomb if Israel does? Mortazavi: "Iran is a signatory to the NPT, the Non-Proliferation Treaty. They have committed to not building nuclear weapons [and] they have a civilian programme. According to US intelligence, they don't have a weapons programme. At the same time, Israel has an undeclared weapons programme [and] many nuclear warheads. They're not a signatory to any international monitoring and safeguards." Ratner: "Our position on this is that we are opposed to nuclear proliferation and [in favour of] nuclear disarmament. Nuclear weapons are unimaginably destructive forces, and the more hands those weapons are in, the more likely that nuclear warfare becomes. If we add another country to the nuclear club, how many more countries will join?" Abdi: "Iran has threatened before that if something like [Friday's attacks] happened, they would abandon the NPT, and then there would be no international law saying they're not allowed to build nuclear weapons. They could do what Israel did, and develop a clandestine programme, and not be held accountable to any treaties or agreements or anything, and it's just the law of the jungle, and everybody gets a nuke." Israel has always said it wants to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. Isn't that dangerous? Pomper: "I think, as opposed to attacking a nuclear power plant that's got actual radioactive material, like Zaporizhzhia in Ukraine, it's different... You don't have that kind of concentration. And so you may have environmental and other damages, but you're not likely to get a widespread radiation danger from it." Wanis-St John: "They shouldn't really be targeted if they're not military programmes. No one has said that the Iranians are building a nuclear weapon at this time. They don't claim to be making one, and nobody on the outside claims that they are making one... The Israeli attack is really meant to send them a signal that any progress towards weapons-grade enrichment is not going to be tolerated by Israel." Ratner: "The bigger concern... is that Iran has made clear statements and threats that if the Israeli government strikes its nuclear facilities, that it will respond by striking US targets in the region. And what we see from Benjamin Netanyahu is a desire for exactly that to happen. His interest is in starting a chain of events that drags the US into war on his side, because the Israeli military would have a very difficult time pursuing regime change in Iran on its own."
Middle East Eye
3 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Exclusive: US quietly sent hundreds of Hellfire missiles to Israel before Iran attack
The US quietly delivered hundreds of Hellfire missiles to Israel before its unprecedented attack on Iran on Friday, Middle East Eye can reveal. The US sent around 300 Hellfire missiles to Israel on Tuesday in a large-scale stock-up of supplies before its attack, and as the Trump administration was saying it was ready to continue engaging Iran in nuclear talks. The transfer of such a large quantity of Hellfires suggests that the Trump administration was well-informed of Israel's plans to attack the Islamic Republic of Iran, two US officials told MEE on the condition of anonymity. The US's delivery of Hellfires or other large quantities of weapons in the lead up to Friday's attack has not been previously reported. The US military helped shoot down Iranian missiles that were headed towards Israel, two US officials told Reuters on Friday. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Hellfires are laser-guided air-to-ground missiles. They would not be useful for Israel to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, but for precision strikes. Israel's military used more than 100 aircraft in its attack on Friday, which used precision tracking to target senior military officials, nuclear scientists, and command centres. 'There is a time and place for Hellfires. They were useful to Israel,' one senior US defence official told MEE. Israel killed scores of senior Iranian officials and nuclear scientists on Friday. Whether with a green light or grudging acceptance, Trump enters war with Iran Read More » The dead include: the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Major General Hossein Salami; Major General Mohammad Bagheri, the chief of staff of Iran's armed forces; and Ali Shamkhani, a close aide to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Trump administration knew about Israel's attack plans for months. MEE revealed earlier this month that the CIA was briefed in April and May on Israeli plans to unilaterally attack Iran's nuclear sites. Israel's Target Systems Analysis and battle plan for cyberattacks combined with precision strikes without any direct US involvement 'impressed' the administration. But Trump's behaviour in recent months gave observers, and potentially the Iranians, the impression that he would continue to resist Netanyahu's very public lobbying to go along with strikes. Axios reported on Friday, citing two Israeli officials, that the Trump administration was only 'pretending' to resist Israel's attack plans, but privately did not resist them. Trump has since framed his approach as saying that he gave Iran a 60-day window to agree to a new nuclear agreement with his administration before launching strikes. Israeli media reported the 60-day deadline in March 2025. The Trump administration began talks with Iran on 12 April 2025, and the Israeli attack took place exactly 61 days later. The talks in recent weeks hit a wall over the US's insistence that Iran agree not to enrich any uranium, while Tehran said that preserving its right to a low level of enrichment was a red line. Throughout the negotiations, the Trump administration continued a steady supply of arms and weapons to Israel in recent months, two US officials told MEE. The US did not have to provide public notification of the transfer because it was already approved as part of a $7.4bn arms deal that included bombs, missiles, and related equipment that Congress was notified of in February 2025.
Al Etihad
3 hours ago
- Al Etihad
Baghdad urges Tehran to continue dialogue with Washington
14 June 2025 01:13 BAGHDAD (WAM)Baghdad today called on Tehran to continue its dialogue with Washington following the Israeli attack on a statement, the Iraqi Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein held a phone call today with Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, during which he expressed "Iraq's strong condemnation of the Israeli military attack that targeted the Islamic Republic of Iran," affirming "Iraq's solidarity with Iran—its government and people—in the face of this dangerous escalation."The ministry added that "both sides discussed the details of the attack and assessed its impact," with the Iranian minister stressing that Tehran has the right to respond and defend its sovereignty in proportion to the scale of the also pointed out that "Israeli aircraft violated Iraqi airspace."The statement quoted Fuad Hussein as confirming that "Iraq has submitted an official complaint to the United Nations Security Council regarding this violation," and called on the international community "to take a firm stance against these repeated breaches, which pose a direct threat to Iraq's and the region's security and stability."Hussein urged the Iranian side on "the importance of continuing the path of dialogue with the United States, through Omani mediation, in order to reach solutions that contribute to de-escalation and enhancing security." Baghdad had earlier declared its complete rejection of the Israeli attack on Iran and of the use of Iraqi airspace and territory against any neighbouring country.
