Who pays the price of destruction?

Throughout history, human beings have waged countless wars — some lasting days, some weeks, some months, some decades, and some spanning hundreds of years. Those wars eventually ended, but the ruin and devastation they left behind endured. So who paid the price?

In our Gulf region, over the past several months, the area has witnessed successive waves of attacks targeting civilian installations, infrastructure, shipping lanes, and vital economic facilities.

The Arab Gulf states have paid a heavy toll for these attacks — in human losses, economic damage, and the cost of defensive measures they were compelled to take to protect their security and stability.

The conversation today is no longer confined to halting escalation or preventing its recurrence; it is also about justice. The entire world knows that rebuilding what has been destroyed requires enormous resources, and that repairing damage to airports, ports, power stations, communications networks, and civilian installations demands years of work and billions of dollars.

It is against this backdrop that the idea of using frozen Iranian funds to compensate those who have suffered opens the door to a wide debate about the concept of international responsibility. International law does not merely condemn acts that cause harm to other states; it also recognises the principle of compensation for such harm once responsibility has been established.

This is the context in which circulating reports of a plan to redirect frozen Iranian assets toward compensating regional states for damages resulting from Iranian attacks should be understood — a development that goes beyond its financial dimension to touch on deep political, legal, and strategic implications.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has directed a dedicated team to prepare a comprehensive assessment of the damages sustained by countries in the region since the escalation began. If Washington does indeed proceed in this direction, the message it sends to the world will be unambiguous: the cost of conflicts must not be borne by the victims, and those who cause harm should share in addressing its consequences.

In wars, battles do not stop at the last bullet fired, nor do they end with a ceasefire declaration. There is always another chapter — more complex and more protracted — and that is the chapter of reckoning. Who pays the price? Who bears the responsibility?

And who compensates for the destruction wrought by missiles, aircraft, and drones? These questions are no less important than military and political ones, for they touch the lives of people, the futures of nations, and the stability of societies.

What cannot be ignored is that the region has already paid a steep price in recent times. The funds spent on countering security threats, repairing damage, reinforcing defences, and protecting vital installations could have gone toward development, education, and healthcare projects benefiting millions of people.

The issue, therefore, is not merely one of money. At its core, it is a matter of principle — that stability is not free, that tampering with the security of states carries a price, and that respecting the sovereignty of nations and refraining from interfering in their affairs is not merely a political slogan repeated in communiqués, but a fundamental rule for safeguarding regional and international security.

Over the past decades, the region has grown accustomed to hearing about sanctions, blockades, asset freezes, negotiations, and agreements. But today it faces a different discussion — one concerning compensation and accountability.

This is a discussion that could shape the contours of a new era in the handling of regional disputes, if it is translated into practical, enforceable measures. This is particularly so given that the aggressor — Iran — is today demanding that compensation be paid to it, a demand that defies logic when one considers that the Arab Gulf states never attacked Iran, and that they showed patience and wisdom despite the attacks to which they were subjected.

Will this idea become reality, or will it remain merely a political pressure card to be played during the negotiating phase — which experience has taught us can drag on far longer than expected?

The answer remains contingent on coming developments. But what is certain is that the era of ignoring the cost of wars is drawing to a close, and that the world is increasingly inclined to seek mechanisms that make those responsible for igniting crises partners in settling the bill for their consequences.

When that moment arrives, the message will be clear: no one can export crises to their neighbours and then disclaim responsibility for the fallout. Every action has a price, every harm has an accounting, and every accounting has a day when the ledgers are opened.