Trump to Include Compensation Claims Against Iran in Future Negotiations
U.S. President Trump stated that he will demand Iran pay compensation for what he calls "killing and injuring individuals," and will incorporate this demand into all future negotiations with Iran. This move is a response to Iran's request for compensation for recent military conflict losses. Trump's compensation claims not only involve conflicts from the past five months but also extend to roadside bomb attacks, the USS Cole incident, deaths of domestic protesters in Iran, and related losses in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Gaza.
Iran, on the other hand, lists compensation, lifting sanctions, unfreezing assets, withdrawing U.S. naval and air forces, ending military actions against Iran and regional allies, and lifting maritime blockades as conditions for fully reopening the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi stated that Iran and Oman are close to completing arrangements for a new shipping route, but the U.S. must first meet other political conditions, including compensation; currently, there are no direct negotiations between the U.S. and Iran.
The compensation claims from both sides have not entered international arbitration or reached a legal arrangement regarding amounts, but serve as political leverage in negotiations over ceasefires, sanctions, maritime control, and nuclear issues. Trump did not disclose the amount the U.S. intends to claim, the payment deadline, or legal enforcement pathways; Iran also has not released a formal loss assessment or accepted any compensation mechanism. The inclusion of historical casualties, regional conflicts, asset freezes, and recent war losses in discussions indicates that future negotiations will evolve from a singular focus on ceasefire to a comprehensive deal encompassing security, economic, and regional order.
The Strait of Hormuz is the core economic leverage in this game. Before the conflict, this waterway carried about one-fifth of the world's maritime oil and liquefied natural gas transport; Iran has tied the reopening of the waterway to U.S. compensation, easing sanctions, and security commitments, making humanitarian and war compensation issues directly impact energy supply, shipping insurance, and global crude oil pricing. After market expectations for the reopening of the waterway cooled, oil prices briefly rose by nearly 2%.
In market mechanisms, oil-importing countries, shipping companies, refiners, and insurance companies are the buyers of certainty in the Strait of Hormuz; Iran and the U.S. are each trying to use control of the waterway, sanctions, asset freezes, and compensation demands as negotiation assets. If the deadlock continues, rerouting of tankers, insurance rates, transport times, and energy import costs will rise, benefiting non-Middle Eastern oil-producing countries, alternative shipping routes, and tanker capacity; those under pressure will include Asian and European buyers reliant on Gulf oil and LNG, refining companies, and energy-sensitive industries.
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
Iran's compensation demands are not isolated incidents but a continuation of its financialization of control over the Strait. The traditional purpose of blockading or threatening to blockade the Strait of Hormuz is to increase the energy costs for opponents; in this round of negotiations, Iran further ties the reopening of the waterway to financial compensation, lifting sanctions, unfreezing assets, and security commitments, attempting to convert military and geopolitical pressure into negotiable economic conditions. Compensation is not just a demand for funds but also a request for the U.S. to acknowledge responsibility for the conflict and change its subsequent pressure tactics.
Trump's counterclaims are not merely a rejection of Iran's demands but a rewriting of the negotiation anchor points. Iran focuses on the infrastructure, economic, and human losses caused by U.S.-Israeli airstrikes; Trump expands the discussion to include Iranian-supported armed activities, historical terrorist attacks, U.S. casualties, and domestic repression in Iran. Once both sides shift from "who should compensate for recent war losses" to "who should be responsible for decades of regional conflict," the amounts, responsible parties, and legal bases will expand indefinitely, reducing the likelihood of directly reaching a compensation agreement.
Historically, disputes over assets and compensation between the U.S. and Iran have long been tied to diplomatic negotiations. The Iranian assets frozen after 1979, U.S. court compensation judgments for victims of terrorism, and Iran's claims for losses from sanctions and military actions have all made "how to handle frozen assets" a political and legal intersection. The difference this time is that control over shipping in the Strait of Hormuz provides Iran with immediate economic leverage; asset freezes provide the U.S. with actionable financial leverage, with both sides attempting to turn each other's core assets into negotiation chips.
In April 2026, the Iranian government estimated the losses caused by U.S.-Israeli attacks at about $270 billion and stated that compensation is one of the negotiation topics; however, such figures have not undergone joint audits, loss determinations, or international arbitration recognized by both sides. International compensation mechanisms typically require ceasefire agreements, responsibility determinations, loss assessments, sources of funding, and execution guarantees, while currently, the U.S. and Iran have not fully determined the negotiation framework, waterway management, and security commitments, making compensation more of a political price rather than a financial arrangement close to execution.
This represents a transfer of pricing power. When energy transport is no longer solely dependent on military security but rather on political exchanges of compensation, sanctions, and asset unfreezing, the right of passage through the Strait of Hormuz transforms from a geographical fact into an asset that can be priced in negotiations. Oil prices, freight rates, and insurance premiums will no longer solely reflect supply and demand but will also begin to reflect expectations of "who will pay for the costs of war, shipping, and sanctions."
ABAB News · Cognitive Laws
- War compensation superficially discusses history but fundamentally contends for future leverage.
- Once the waterway is politicized, oil prices will become a language of negotiation.
- Frozen assets are financial tools and diplomatic leverage.