Trump’s admission that the strike on Iran was a surprise attack, likened to Japan’s Pearl Harbour assault, leaves no doubt as to who started the war and is the belligerent.
UNDER the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001), adopted by the International Law Commission, a State that commits an internationally wrongful act is obliged to make full reparation for the injury caused. This principle applies to any such act, including, where applicable, violations arising from the unlawful use of force (Articles 1, 31, 34 and 35).
When asked by a reporter during Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s visit why US allies in Europe and Asia, including Japan, were not informed in advance of the attack on Iran, Trump replied: “One thing you don’t want to signal too much,” he said, adding that the operation was carried out forcefully and without prior notice for that reason. He then drew a comparison, remarking: “Who knows better about surprise than Japan? Why didn’t you tell me about Pearl Harbour?”
The surprise Japanese attack on the US naval base at Pearl Harbour, Hawaii, on Dec 7, 1941, killed 2,390 Americans and prompted the US to declare war on Japan the following day. Then president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, described it as “a date which will live in infamy”.
Supporting Trump, his son Eric posted on the social media platform X, calling it “one of the great responses to a reporter in history”.
However, Trump failed to emphasise that the strike was not only an act of war but was launched at a time when the US and Iran were engaged in negotiations aimed at addressing American concerns about Iran’s nuclear capability.
Likely flashpoint after the war
Historical precedent and international law on state responsibility recognise that a country subjected to an unlawful or “surprise” military strike – such as those launched by Japan and Germany during the Second World War – may seek reparations for the damage suffered. Iran’s ultimate position on this issue is, therefore, likely to be a significant aspect of the war’s aftermath.
As of March 2026, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has called on the US and Israel to pay reparations and provide guarantees against future aggression as core conditions for ending the conflict. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has reinforced this position, asserting that “reparations will be paid” and demanding a permanent end to attacks, not just a temporary ceasefire.
Iran has also sought compensation from Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, alleging that their territories were used to facilitate US-Israeli strikes in violation of international law, resulting in material and moral damages.
Estimated damage and casualty metrics (mid-March)
Under international law, reparations typically cover restitution, monetary compensation and guarantees against future violations.
While a final, fully verified total from Iran will only be available after the war, existing data – including assessments from US and Israeli sources monitoring the impact of their bombing strikes – provides an indication of the scale of potential claims.
Direct civilian damage and human casualties
This category covers the physical destruction of property and the human cost of the conflict, which are central to any war reparations claim. Reports indicate highly significant damage, though the exact numbers vary by source.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry has characterised strikes on fuel depots in Tehran as “ecocide”, citing long-term health and environmental damage.
Historical precedents
If Iran were to pursue these claims through a mechanism such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or a specialised compensation commission, the “amount” would likely be based on historical benchmarks.
The total amount could be staggering, combining:
direct physical repairs to damaged infrastructure;
environmental cleanup for “ecocide”; and
compensation for civilian loss of life
Estimates suggest a global figure potentially exceeding hundreds of billions of US dollars, reflecting the scale of modern infrastructure destruction.
Iran has also argued that US “maximum pressure” campaigns constitute economic warfare. Some Iranian officials cite damages exceeding US$1 trillion (RM3.91 trillion), including lost oil revenue, industrial stagnation and widespread social and economic disruptions affecting health, education and utilities.
It should be noted that the United Nations Compensation Commission, established in 1991, provided reparations for damages resulting from Iraq’s 1990–1991 invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
The commission awarded approximately US$3 billion for environmental remediation, including groundwater treatment and desert restoration.
By 2022, the UNCC had disbursed over US$50 billion in total compensation to individuals, corporations and governments, with the final payment made in early 2022, effectively concluding the compensation process.
While the US and Israel maintain that their strikes are legally justified as “preemptive self-defence” or “maximum pressure”, international law experts contest this, labelling the February 2026 strikes as violations of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.
The continuing bombardment may even be interpreted as genocide, defined under international law as acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
Trump’s admission that the strike on Iran was a surprise attack, likened to Japan’s Pearl Harbour assault, leaves no doubt as to who started the war and is the belligerent.
How much this surprise attack and continuing war will cost the US may come back to haunt Trump, his administration and the American public in more ways than just the moral and ethical concerns.
Lim Teck Ghee’s Another Take is aimed at demystifying social orthodoxy.
Comments: letters@thesundaily.com
