Holding Iran accountable: Why the Gulf must act now

The most pressing question in the minds of Gulf populations today is: Can the Iranian regime escape accountability for its crimes against Gulf countries and their peoples? The core reason behind this question is that the official position of these countries has been limited to a defensive posture, focused on intercepting the daily missile and drone attacks launched by Iran against vital facilities and critical infrastructure, while reserving the right to respond as they deem appropriate.

The truth is that Gulf countries adopted a wise and historically commendable stance when they refused, from the outset, to engage in or participate in the war. They also took a clear and firm position, rejecting the use of their territories as a launchpad for attacks against Iran. Unfortunately, this highly rational approach did not deter the Iranian regime, which had already calculated, in a deceptive manner that contradicts established values, norms, and ethical standards, that expanding the scope of the conflict and increasing its cost for all actors inside and outside the region would serve its objectives. The regime’s leadership appeared to believe that targeting the security and stability of neighbouring Gulf countries and creating disruption in global energy markets would inevitably force the United States and Israel to halt the war. This represents one of the most serious strategic miscalculations made by any governing regime since the Second World War.

One of the most important foundations for achieving security and stability in the Arabian Gulf in the post-war phase lies in ensuring that such aggression is not repeated. This requires clearly defined procedural steps, foremost among them holding Iran accountable for grave violations and deliberate attacks against vital facilities and critical infrastructure in neighbouring countries, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

Since the outbreak of the war on February 28, 2026, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps launched waves of missiles and drones against the UAE, exceeding those fired at Israel, other GCC states, Jordan, and US naval vessels. In just 35 days, Iran launched more than 2,500 projectiles, reflecting the scale of the blatant aggression and the clear violation of international law.

Although most of these missiles and drones were intercepted and destroyed thanks to the efficiency and effectiveness of the UAE’s defense systems, the attacks nevertheless caused casualties among civilians due to falling debris from interception operations. They also resulted in significant material and moral losses. Beyond their direct consequences, these attacks constitute serious violations of international law and the principle of national sovereignty. They certainly provide a legal basis for internationalising the case and formally seeking compensation, safeguarding national rights, and holding Iran accountable before relevant international organisations and courts. Such steps are essential not only for reparations but also for restoring deterrence and regional security. This also includes compensation linked to disruptions to trade and navigation in the Arabian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, which directly impacts the economies of these countries.

Holding Iran accountable for its crimes is therefore the fundamental step for any Gulf action the day after the war. In this context, the UAE’s position appears balanced and highly rational, centred on formally seeking financial compensation and political guarantees from Iran to prevent the recurrence of such attacks. Dr Anwar Gargash, Diplomatic Advisor to the President of the UAE, has stated that any political settlement to the current crisis must be based on two key pillars: obliging Iran to provide compensation for targeting civilian populations and critical infrastructure, and establishing the principle of non-aggression through clear guarantees that prevent future attacks. Through this position, the UAE has moved beyond mere condemnation toward advocating the creation of a legal framework or accountability mechanism under international law. This aligns with the characterisation of the current situation as an unprecedented moment in the region’s history, as described by Noura Al Kaabi, Minister of State at the UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

In discussing the legitimate need to hold Iran accountable for its crimes, there are several foundations, dimensions, and precedents that can be examined in this context. With regard to the foundations, the ethical basis stands out as particularly important, as these crimes contradict all the values, principles, and religious slogans promoted by the Iranian regime, which repeatedly speaks of “good neighbourliness,” “brotherliness,” and “Islamic cooperation.” Yet, at the moment of truth, it revealed a deceptive face by launching strikes against a safe neighbouring country that had repeatedly affirmed it would not allow its territory to be used to target Iran.

However, the Iranian leadership had already intended to implement a plan to expand the scope of the war and raise its cost for everyone, openly declaring, without hesitation or embarrassment, that either all will live safely or everyone will live in the hell and flames of war. Such a position has been adopted by a regime that has long sought to lead what it presents as Islamic cooperation and to convince Muslims that it defends their causes, as if those it attacks in neighbouring countries are neither neighbours nor Muslims. More importantly, they are people living in safety, whose fundamental rights are guaranteed under Islam, yet these rights are disregarded by those who trade in slogans and ideologies and lead the Iranian regime. These leaders of the regime have not only committed serious crimes against their neighbours but have also openly called for compensation, claiming that their territory was used to launch US-Israeli attacks against them, which represents a clear and unsuccessful attempt to evade legal responsibility for their aggression.

The legal basis is one of the clearest and most persuasive foundations for holding Iran accountable for its crimes and obliging it to officially acknowledge them, provide compensation and reparations, issue an apology, and offer guarantees of non-repetition. The matter is not limited to individual claims by one country but rather reflects a collective position defending the material and sovereign rights of the Gulf Cooperation Council countries and Jordan, supported by clear international legal backing through the principle of state responsibility for internationally wrongful acts. One of the strongest legal arguments is United Nations Security Council Resolution 1817, issued on March 11, 2023, which condemns in the strongest terms the attacks carried out by Iran against neighbouring countries, describing them as violations of international law and a threat to international peace and security. This forms a legal basis for accountability and for seeking appropriate financial compensation through the principle of reparation under customary international law, international humanitarian law, and the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention, 1944), which affirms in Article 1 that every country has complete and exclusive sovereignty over its airspace.

In light of the above, the entitlement of Gulf countries to compensation is legally established, particularly given the weakness and invalidity of the self-defence argument promoted by Iran and the evidence supporting the idea of retaliation and the intention to expand the scope of the war. Gulf countries therefore have the opportunity to formally open this file, supported by international law, through careful technical and legal documentation that can be submitted to the international mechanism that may be agreed upon to consider the matter, whether through United Nations compensation commissions, international arbitration, or the International Court of Justice, should Iran agree, which is unlikely given the likelihood of a ruling against it.

In addition to the strength of the legal basis, United Nations Security Council Resolution 2817 is among the resolutions that condemn violations and define legal responsibility, as it describes the Iranian attacks as a threat to international peace and security. This characterisation is particularly important, as it provides a basis for potential recourse to Chapter VII of the UN Charter if the offending party fails to comply after being called upon to immediately cease its attacks and fulfill its international obligations. The resolution, therefore, provides a necessary legal framework for defining responsibility for violations and moving forward in the legal process that may ultimately lead to compensation, similar to other cases in which condemnations were followed by binding measures related to compensation and reparations.

Sultan Majed Al Ali is Deputy Head of Dubai Office Sector, TRENDS Research & Advisory