Maritime Transport

Maritime transport is broader than the movement of ships. For Iran, the subject includes the institutions responsible for ports, the terminals handling cargo, and the inland connections that allow goods to reach their destinations. The International Association of Ports and Harbors lists Bandar Abbas, Imam Khomeini, Bushehr, Chabahar, Anzali, Noshahr, and Amirabad among ports associated with Iran’s Ports and Maritime Organization, usually abbreviated PMO. Its institutional description identifies maritime commerce, coastal communications, and port-related charges among PMO’s responsibilities. s1

This list establishes the breadth of the network, but it is not a ranking of port performance. Nor does inclusion under a national organization mean that every terminal has an identical operating arrangement. The documented Chabahar agreement illustrates why it is useful to distinguish a port authority from the company contracted to equip and operate a particular terminal. s1s2

Chabahar faces the Sea of Oman in southeastern Iran, outside the Strait of Hormuz. A field-based study by the Middle East Institute of Japan explains its significance as an alternative maritime gateway and as part of efforts to connect Iran with Afghanistan, Central Asia, and wider regional markets. The same study describes the International North-South Transport Corridor as a multimodal route linking India and Russia through Iran, the Caucasus, and the Caspian Sea. These are overlapping connectivity ambitions rather than proof of a single seamless transport service. s3

On 13 May 2024, India Ports Global Limited and Iran’s PMO signed a long-term contract concerning the Shahid Beheshti terminal at Chabahar. India’s official announcement identifies the parties and the terminal. A subsequent parliamentary statement describes a ten-year arrangement to equip and operate its general cargo and container terminal. These records support a specific contractual development; they do not establish completion of every proposed port or inland transport investment. s2s4

That distinction is important for rail connectivity. The Japanese institute’s study reported that the Chabahar–Zahedan railway remained incomplete in late February 2024. This is a dated observation, not a statement of its October 2026 condition. It demonstrates why a map of intended corridors needs to distinguish existing transport links from infrastructure still being developed at the time of observation. s3

An Indian parliamentary answer published in March 2025 reports cargo volumes for Shahid Beheshti at Chabahar. The four completed fiscal-year entries retained below show higher reported volume in FY 2023–24 than in FY 2020–21, with a small decline between FY 2021–22 and FY 2022–23. These figures concern the named facility in that answer. They are not Iran’s national maritime trade, a measure of all Chabahar terminals, or a container-only series. s5

The answer also lists FY 2024–25, but it was issued before that Indian financial year ended. The cargo table does not specify the final observation date. That entry is therefore excluded from the comparable completed-year series. The source does not explain its cargo-counting methodology sufficiently to determine whether categories such as transshipment or empty equipment are included. These limits matter before comparing its figures with other port publications. s5

Shahid Beheshti facility at Chabahar, Iran, as named in the Indian parliamentary answer · fiscal

A sound reading of Iran’s maritime development separates institutional responsibilities, terminal contracts, physical connections, and measured cargo movements. A contract records an agreed operating framework. A cargo observation records activity within a defined reporting period. A corridor study explains strategic possibilities and constraints. None alone establishes the cost, reliability, or present availability of a complete shipping route. s1s2s3s5

The evidence assembled here offers a historical introduction and a limited facility-level trend. A current national overview still requires comparable statistics for the other major ports, verified shipping services, and updated evidence about inland connections and operational disruptions. The individual port pages provide the appropriate structure for that further research, while container shipping requires separate measures from cargo tonnage.