Is it this Fars report? Because that states nothing about aircraft specifically - why are we discounting ballistic missiles here? The Tucker interview also doesn't say anything, it was just Pezeshkian repeating "it's God's will when I die" like 5 times for some reason.
The problem with this whole narrative is that we are assuming bombing in Tehran to imply complete penetration of Iranian air defense. That implication makes sense if we are assuming that Israeli planes flew from Israel, through Syria, Iraq, and then half of Iran - but with those drop tanks getting fished out of the the Caspian, and accusations that Azerbaijan allowed its airspace to be used by Israel, it might imply a different story. Interestingly, June 16th specifically had a report of drones being detected flying in from Azerbaijani airspace
But anyways, presented with amateurish Paint drawing - these two paths of attack are very different, and imply very different things about Iranian air defense. Keeping close to the Turkish border, using geographic features to avoid radar, and then going through Azerbaijan, the Caspian and finally attacking Tehran from the North only implies a penetration of that specific sector of Iran. This is still a problem for the Iranians, but nowhere near the complete collapse of their air-defense network that is implied by F-35s flying the "direct" route.
We're also still not clear on exactly what munitions were used - trying to guess vague bomb or missile shapes based on grainy footage doesn't exactly seem like sound analysis to me. Use of shorter-ranged bombs implies greater penetration of Iranian airspace - usage of longer-ranged standoff munitions and cruise missiles doesn't indicate it to the same degree.
But wouldn't such systems be incredibly vulnerable? The containers themselves obviously cannot move - you need to be on a vehicle, but ships are big and not very fast-moving. Ground-based launchers are really key to allow them to reposition and conceal themselves in order to avoid being taken out by counter-battery fire, or airstrikes, or drones, or ballistics. Ships seem like they'd be sitting ducks.
The Typhon system also includes a battery operations center - I assume this is pretty important, and just the containers without all the extra stuff related to programming and commanding the missiles won't be very effective.
Sending them might not be complicated - actually getting them to the country and using them is different. The Russians have struck numerous Ukrainian ammunition sites, including some alleged strikes on Western shipments. These containers are pretty big, and would likely attract attention. I guess the idea is to commit perfidy and disguise them as regular civilian cargo, but the Russians have already struck several vessels carrying grain (according to the Ukrainians of course), so they're not above just blowing up anything suspicious.
Bringing them by sea on the whole doesn't seem likely (in fact, isn't the Black Sea extensively mined at this point, at least around the Ukrainian shore?). I guess you could try bringing them via trucks over the Romanian border, straight to Odessa or something like that? But can regular civilian-seeming trucks carry such heavy containers? The US military itself is using one of its heavier models of truck for the Typhon.
Have they inflicted much actual damage? You're not at as much risk if you're not lobbing bombs at actually important targets, and the ability of Russian infantry to keep advancing doesn't seem to indicate they're being suppressed much by bombardment.