US President Donald Trump has demanded that Iran pay compensation for everyone he says Tehran has “killed or severely harmed”, introducing a new demand as efforts continue to reach an agreement to end the war.
What Stands Out?
The demand carries a clear irony. Since the first day of the war, Iran has itself been demanding compensation for the US-Israeli aggression against it. Trump has now responded by raising a compensation claim of his own.
Writing on Truth Social, Trump said: “It is an interesting idea because I am now, in turn, demanding compensation from Iran for all the people they killed and severely injured through their roadside bombs and in many conflicts.”
Compensation for What?
Trump pointed to the bombing of the guided-missile destroyer USS Cole at a Yemeni port in 2000 and demanded that Iran pay compensation over the attack, despite the US Federal Bureau of Investigation attributing the bombing to al-Qaeda.
Trump also said Tehran should compensate the families of thousands of people killed during anti-government protests last January.
He is also demanding compensation from Iran for damage in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and Gaza.
The Wider Picture
Since the beginning of the war, Iran has insisted that the United States and the Israeli occupation state compensate it for the damage caused by the conflict. That position was reiterated in the first statement issued by Iran’s new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei.
Claims for wartime compensation are generally tied to unlawful acts of aggression by one state against another, which is the principle Tehran seeks to emphasise through its repeated demands for reparations.
In a statement read by a presenter on state television, Khamenei said: “We will demand compensation from the enemy, and if it refuses, we will take from its assets an amount we deem appropriate. If that is not possible, we will destroy an equivalent amount of its property.”
Qatar Also Demands Compensation
Qatar, for its part, has intensified its diplomatic activity at the United Nations, calling on Tehran to bear its legal responsibilities and pay full compensation for damage caused by recent attacks.
What Are War Reparations?
At the international level, there is no single law governing compensation for wars. However, there is a United Nations document codifying the rules concerning state responsibility for internationally wrongful acts, drafted by the UN International Law Commission.
What Does It Provide?
Under the 2001 Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, a responsible state is required to make “full reparation” for the injury caused.
That reparation may take three legal forms.
Restitution
Restitution is the obligation to restore the situation that existed before the invasion, unless doing so is materially impossible.
This may include evacuating occupied territory, returning looted cultural property or financial assets, and releasing detainees.
Compensation
Where restitution does not fully repair the damage, the responsible state is required to provide financial compensation for economically assessable losses.
This can include damage to infrastructure and public or private property, deaths and injuries, and losses caused by the disruption of economic activity during the war.
Satisfaction
Satisfaction applies to non-material harm that cannot be adequately measured in financial terms.
It may include formal acknowledgement of a violation, expressions of regret or an official apology, as well as the prosecution of those responsible for violations.
Are These Rules Binding?
Not in themselves. The rules are not an international treaty signed by states, but they are widely used as a legal reference, including before international courts such as the International Court of Justice.
Once such principles are incorporated into a court ruling against a state, however, the judgment becomes binding on the parties concerned.
The United States, nevertheless, does not recognise decisions affecting itself or “Israel” when it considers them politically motivated.
In 2018, Washington withdrew from two international agreements after Iran and the Palestinians brought cases before the International Court of Justice challenging US policies.
Then-US national security adviser John Bolton denounced the court as “politicised and ineffective” and announced that Washington would review international agreements that could expose it to binding decisions by the court.
Has Washington Ever Paid Such Compensation?
No. Historically, the United States has not paid compensation on the basis that it committed an “unlawful” act of aggression or invaded another country.
It has, however, paid money as part of settlements and treaties ending wars on two notable historical occasions, although those payments were not explicitly classified as reparations.
Mexican-American War, 1848
Article 14 of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo stated that, “in consideration of the extension acquired by the boundaries of the United States, as defined in Article V of the present treaty, the Government of the United States engages to pay to that of the Mexican Republic the sum of fifteen millions of dollars.”
In effect, the United States paid money in connection with territory it had occupied and did not return to Mexico, rather than providing direct compensation or restoring the land.
Spanish-American War, 1898
Under the 1898 Treaty of Paris, which ended the war between the United States and Spain, Washington agreed to pay Spain $20 million in exchange for Spain ceding to the United States the archipelago known as the Philippine Islands.
Under the treaty, Spain also relinquished its claim to sovereignty and ownership over Cuba and ceded Puerto Rico and other islands then under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies, as well as Guam in the Mariana or Ladrones Islands, to the United States.
Again, Washington’s payment was made in exchange for the transfer of territory, areas of influence and control rather than as formal war reparations.
Major Examples of International Reparations
The Treaty of Versailles in 1919 imposed extensive reparations on Germany after the First World War, with the Reparations Commission eventually setting the total at about 132 billion gold marks.
Following the Holocaust, the 1952 Luxembourg Agreement between West Germany, “Israel” and the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany led to cumulative German compensation payments exceeding €80 billion to date.
After the Second Gulf War of 1990-1991, the UN Security Council established a compensation commission through which Iraq paid $52.4 billion to Kuwait.
Iran has also demanded compensation from Iraq over the eight-year war between the two countries from 1980 to 1988. The amount sought is estimated at around $1.1 trillion, none of which Iraq has paid.
What Happens Next?
Trump does not appear to be pursuing compensation from Iran as a genuine standalone objective. Rather, the demand appears intended to pressure Tehran into abandoning its own insistence on reparations as part of any agreement to end the war.
Nor does it appear likely that the United States will pay Iran now or in the future for damage caused to the country during the aggression against it.
If Tehran turns to international courts, there is also little indication that it would be able to compel Washington to comply with any demand for compensation.
