Wu Dahui: Phased Analysis of the U.S.-Iran Negotiations (III)

On April 8, the latest update from Clash Report indicated that the Qatari Foreign Ministry explicitly stated Iran must fully compensate for all losses caused by its own attacks on Qatar. This statement undoubtedly adds another layer of diplomatic complexity to the Middle East situation, which is currently in a temporary ceasefire.

First, Gulf states may open a "reparations front"

From the logic of regional developments, after Qatar has fired the first shot in demanding reparations, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain, and other Gulf states are highly likely to follow suit, successively submitting formal claims for compensation to Iran. This is not merely a case of following the trend—it is grounded in clear and firm practical logic: during the escalation of U.S.-Iran tensions, Iran had forcefully demanded full compensation from the United States for all economic damages caused by American strikes, bringing the issue of "war damage compensation" onto the negotiation table.

In contrast, all Gulf countries suffered severe damage from Iran’s long-range attacks, with critical sectors such as energy infrastructure, oil and gas exports, civilian public facilities, and maritime shipping severely impacted. The resulting economic losses are staggering, and national sovereignty and public interests have been seriously violated. Under the principle of reciprocity, these nations have every legitimate reason to seek compensation from Iran.

Second, the compensation dispute may be embedded within U.S.-Iran negotiations

More crucially, this compensation dispute could become deeply intertwined with the U.S.-Iran negotiation process, placing Iran in a difficult dilemma. The United States can fully exploit this opportunity, directly linking Iran’s fulfillment of reparations to Gulf states with key demands such as compensation from the U.S., release of overseas assets, and lifting of sanctions.

Since Iran has already brought forward the international legal principle of “who causes damage must pay” onto the negotiating table, the U.S. and its Gulf allies can easily apply the same standard to hold Iran accountable. This serves both practical needs—addressing domestic fiscal and infrastructure deficits—and strategic objectives—redefining defense red lines in the Gulf region and countering Iran’s influence.

Third, Iran may face a double bind

If Iran refuses to pay reparations to Gulf states, the U.S. will have ample grounds to delay or even reject Iran’s core demands. If Iran agrees to pay, the massive financial burden would place enormous pressure on an economy already crippled by sanctions, while also amounting to an admission of responsibility in the diplomatic arena—placing Iran in a dual disadvantage politically and economically.

This diplomatic struggle over compensation is essentially a microcosm of how regional powers are redefining responsibilities and competing for interests after the U.S.-Iran ceasefire. The collective claim for reparations by Gulf states not only helps recover their war-related losses but also leverages international rules to check Iran’s power. Meanwhile, the U.S. seizes the chance to control the negotiation agenda, while Iran finds itself caught between demanding compensation from the U.S. and facing mounting claims from neighboring countries—caught in the contradictory roles of both claimant and defendant.

Short-term truces have not fully resolved underlying tensions. The issue of compensation may become the central point of contention in future negotiations involving the U.S., Iran, and various Gulf parties. The uncertainty surrounding the Middle East situation remains unresolved.

Original article: toutiao.com/article/1861893988134912/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.