The damages of the eight-year Imposed War waged by Iraq’ s Ba’ athist regime against Iran have been estimated at 1,044 billion dollars.

In international law, reparation is defined as “ compensation for damage. ”⁠[1] The obligation of states to pay reparations arising from violations of the laws of war is provided for in Article 3 of the Fourth Hague Convention and Article 231, Part VIII, of the Treaty of Versailles.⁠[2] International judicial and arbitral decisions have also generally and explicitly accepted that the breach of any international obligation entails an obligation to pay reparation or compensation.⁠[3]

The eight-year Imposed War waged by Iraq against Iran inflicted enormous material and non-material costs on Iran. According to a report by the Bureau of Macroeconomics of the Plan and Budget Organization in 1369 (1990/1991), the direct damages of the Iran– Iraq War over the eight years were estimated at 3,081 billion tomans, which, at the 1359 (1980/1981) dollar-to-rial exchange rate, amounts to 440 billion dollars, divided almost equally among the construction and installations, machinery and equipment, and materials and goods sectors. According to the same report, the indirect costs of the war were reported at 3,454 billion tomans, or 493 billion dollars, of which 41 percent related to damage to the agricultural sector, 39 percent to damage to the oil sector, and the rest to the services, electricity, water, gas, and industrial sectors.

Another factor in estimating the damages of the Imposed War is the increase in insurance costs for cargo ships in the Persian Gulf. This issue intensified after Iraq’ s attacks on oil tankers began in 1362 (1983/1984), leading to an increase in insurance costs and crew wages of these ships amounting to about 3 billion dollars.

In addition, due to Iraq’ s attacks on the country’ s refineries and in order to make up for the shortfall of refined petroleum products in the country during the war, refined petroleum products worth approximately 12 to 14 billion dollars were imported, which would otherwise have been supplied by domestic refineries had there been no war. Furthermore, the cost of Iran’ s gift of one million tons of oil per year to Syria, in exchange for the closure of the Iraqi oil pipeline running from Syria to the Mediterranean, should not be overlooked; this cost Iran 11 billion dollars. The cost of lost opportunity in oil exports during the war has also been estimated at between 84 billion and 350 billion dollars.

Also, due to the damage inflicted on the ports of Khorramshahr and Abadan, the import of goods was carried out through other ports or via Soviet roads and railways, which entailed an additional cost of about 3 billion dollars for Iran.

During the Imposed War, military expenditures have been estimated at about 87 billion dollars, whereas, had there been no war, this would have followed a normal trend and would not have exceeded about 37 billion dollars. In effect, the Imposed War added 50 billion dollars to Iran’ s military expenditures, funds that could otherwise have been allocated to other purposes.

Some researchers have estimated the payments made to the families of the wounded and the martyrs of the Iran– Iraq War at 25 billion dollars, which should be added to the total damages of the war.

According to reports, the total damages of the Iran– Iraq War in Iran are estimated at 1,044 billion dollars.⁠[4]

The displacement of 5.2 million people in the country,⁠[5] the martyrdom of more than 221,682 people, the wounding of more than 554,858 people, and the injury of 250,000 people by chemical gases — most of whom were of working age and part of the country’ s active workforce⁠[6] — as well as the involvement of more than 3 million family members of martyrs and war veterans in coping with the consequences of the Imposed War, constitute another part of the material damage to the country that cannot be reduced to numerical or financial calculation.⁠[7]

The receipt of war reparations was one of Iran’ s conditions for accepting a ceasefire; however, none of the resolutions issued by the United Nations made any mention of Iraq’ s status as the aggressor or the need for it to pay reparations.⁠[8]

In Resolution 598 as well, the United Nations’ biased conduct is entirely evident; the resolution makes no explicit mention of identifying the aggressor or the need to pay reparations, and only in its sixth paragraph does it refer to the Secretary-General’ s duty to establish an impartial commission to determine responsibility for the conflict.⁠[9] The resolution’ s seventh paragraph also refers to the establishment of an international fund for the reconstruction of the two countries after the war, which implies that Iraq and Iran bear equal blame for the war.⁠[10]

This was in contrast to the war waged by Iraq against Kuwait, during which Resolution 687 provided for the establishment of a fund to pay war reparations arising from Iraq’ s attack on Kuwait. The Iraqi government was also obligated to compensate for the damages resulting from its attack and for the losses sustained by other governments, individuals, and foreign companies that were directly attributable to Iraq’ s invasion and occupation of Kuwait.⁠[11] Ultimately, a compensation fund was established under the supervision of the United Nations Compensation Commission, and Iraq was required to finance the fund through a percentage of the annual proceeds of its exports, a percentage of its frozen assets resulting from the sale of oil and petroleum products held by other countries, and voluntary financial contributions from other countries.⁠[12]

Despite the United Nations’ delay in identifying the aggressor and the party that initiated the war, after Iraq’ s attack on Kuwait and Saddam Hussein’ s resulting position of weakness, Javier Pé rez de Cué llar (Secretary-General of the United Nations) explicitly stated that Iraq had initiated the war with Iran.⁠[13]

Despite the weaknesses of Resolution 598 with respect to obtaining reparations, based on the report of the UN Secretary-General identifying Iraq’ s Ba’ athist regime as the aggressor, Iran could, in accordance with Resolution 598, have pursued the receipt of reparations from Iraq; however, for various reasons, it has not been able to take such action. A look at successful cases of obtaining reparations in the world today shows that achieving this goal requires securing the support of the members of the Security Council — something Iran was unable to do by taking advantage of the circumstances that had turned against Saddam Hussein following Iraq’ s attack on Kuwait.⁠[14]

In recent years too, despite the passage of laws in the Islamic Consultative Assembly such as the “ Act Obligating the Government to Pursue the Rights of Veterans and Victims of Chemical Warfare against the Islamic Republic of Iran” domestically, and despite the growth of Iran’ s influence in Iraq, and despite the availability of mechanisms such as bilateral negotiation, mediation, filing a claim with the Security Council, and filing a claim with the International Court of Justice, no practical action has been taken thus far, and the issue of obtaining war reparations from Iraq has remained dormant on Iran’ s part.⁠[15]

On the other hand, Iraqi officials have also sought to shirk the payment of reparations; for instance, Jalal Talabani, the former president of Iraq, spoke of Iran forgiving the reparations,⁠[16] and Iraq’ s ambassador to Tehran, referring to Iraq’ s economic situation, has said that a brother does not sue a brother, and that Iran should take into account the difficult conditions of the Iraqi people.⁠[17]