reparations

Iran has publicly outlined key elements of its latest peace proposal to the United States, demanding reparations for war damage, the withdrawal of United States forces from areas near Iran, and the lifting of economic sanctions as part of any broader agreement.

According to comments from Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi, the proposal also calls for the release of frozen Iranian assets, an end to restrictions affecting Iranian trade and shipping, and a halt to hostilities across regional conflict zones including Lebanon.

The proposal emerged after United States President Donald Trump announced that he had paused a planned military strike against Iran to allow additional time for negotiations regarding Tehran’s nuclear programme and regional security issues.

Iran Pushes for Broader Regional Settlement

Tehran’s proposal reflects an effort to expand negotiations beyond nuclear issues into wider geopolitical and security concerns across the Middle East.

Iran appears to be seeking a comprehensive arrangement that addresses not only sanctions and military pressure but also the broader regional balance of power involving Lebanon, the Gulf region, and United States military deployments.

The demand for reparations is particularly significant because it frames the recent conflict as an act requiring compensation for damage caused by joint United States and Israeli military operations.

Iranian officials also continue insisting that economic sanctions and frozen overseas assets remain central obstacles to any sustainable agreement.

United States Signals Openness but Maintains Pressure

Trump stated that there was a strong possibility of reaching a deal that would prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons while avoiding renewed military escalation.

However, Washington has not publicly confirmed any major concessions in negotiations. Reports suggesting the United States may release a portion of frozen Iranian funds or allow limited peaceful nuclear activity under international supervision remain unverified by American officials.

At the same time, United States officials continue denying claims that sanctions on Iranian oil exports would be fully waived during negotiations.

The situation reflects a complex diplomatic balancing act in which Washington seeks to maintain leverage while preventing a wider regional conflict that could destabilise global energy markets and military alliances.

Regional Powers Push for De Escalation

Regional governments including Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates reportedly urged Trump to delay military action in hopes that negotiations could succeed.

The involvement of regional mediators highlights growing concern across the Gulf about the economic and security consequences of another large scale conflict involving Iran.

The Strait of Hormuz remains especially important because it serves as one of the world’s most critical shipping routes for oil and energy exports. Any escalation threatening maritime trade could have severe consequences for global energy prices and economic stability.

Meanwhile, Pakistan has reportedly continued acting as a communication channel between Tehran and Washington after previously hosting peace talks between the two sides.

Ongoing Tensions Despite Ceasefire

Although a ceasefire has largely held since the suspension of major hostilities earlier this year, tensions remain extremely high across the region.

Iran and its regional allies continue facing accusations of supporting drone activity and proxy operations targeting Gulf states and Israeli interests. At the same time, Iran maintains that it has survived military pressure without abandoning its nuclear capabilities, missile programmes, or regional alliances.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump previously justified military operations as necessary to weaken Iran’s nuclear programme and reduce its influence through allied militias across the Middle East.

However, analysts note that Iran still retains significant strategic capabilities despite extensive military strikes and economic sanctions.

Analysis

Iran’s latest proposal demonstrates that Tehran is attempting to negotiate from a position of resilience rather than surrender.

By demanding reparations, sanctions relief, and troop withdrawals, Iran is signalling that it expects recognition of its regional influence and strategic endurance despite months of conflict and economic pressure. The proposal also reflects Tehran’s broader objective of reducing the long term military presence of the United States near its borders.

For Washington, the negotiations present a difficult challenge. The United States wants to prevent Iran from advancing toward nuclear weapons capability while avoiding another prolonged regional war that could damage global markets, strain military resources, and increase political pressure at home.

The talks are also shaped by wider geopolitical realities. Gulf states increasingly prioritise regional stability and economic security, making them more supportive of diplomacy than direct military confrontation. Rising energy prices and fears of shipping disruptions further increase international pressure for a negotiated outcome.

At the same time, deep mistrust continues to define relations between both sides. The United States remains sceptical of Iran’s regional ambitions, while Tehran sees sanctions and military deployments as tools of long term containment.

Ultimately, the negotiations reveal a broader struggle over the future balance of power in the Middle East. Even if temporary agreements are reached, the underlying strategic rivalry between Iran, the United States, and Israel is unlikely to disappear in the near future.

With information from Reuters.

On March 25, the International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade, the United Nations General Assembly passed a landmark resolution. Proposed by Ghana, it recognised the transatlantic slave trade as the “gravest crime against humanity” and called for reparations. A total of 123 countries supported the resolution; three opposed it, including the United States and Israel, while 52 abstained, Britain among them, and several European Union countries.

The UN’s slavery resolution is a historic moment, but what comes next is even more important. Leading up to the resolution, the African Union urged its 55 member states to pursue slavery reparations through formal apologies, the return of stolen artefacts, financial compensation, and guarantees of non-repetition.

This raises a question the resolution does not directly ask: reparations from whom, and to whom? If the answer is simply from European governments to African governments, then the reparations movement risks ignoring the long history of European engagement with Africa, and in doing so delivering justice to the wrong people.

What the reparations debate misses

The contemporary framing of the reparations debate is seductive in its simplicity: Europeans arrived in Africa, Africans were enslaved, Europeans grew rich, and Africans became impoverished. Therefore, Europe owes Africa. This narrative carries moral force, but it risks flattening the complex history of European engagement with the continent.

While European actors undeniably drove the demand for enslaved labour, African political and economic elites were not passive victims. They played a significant role in capturing, transporting and selling enslaved people to European traders.

In some cases, African states, seeking to expand their treasuries and consolidate territorial power, preyed on neighbouring communities, condemning them to enslavement for profit. The Oyo Empire, a powerful Yoruba state in what is now south-western Nigeria, expanded significantly in the eighteenth century through its participation in this commerce. Across the region, African elites who had the means sustained the system by exchanging enslaved people for European goods such as alcohol, textiles and other manufactured commodities.

None of this diminishes European culpability in the slave trade. The demand was European. The ships were European. The plantation system was European. The racialised ideology constructed to justify slavery was European. But it does complicate the story.

The transatlantic slave trade was not solely a narrative of African victimhood and European perpetration. It is a story of elite collaboration, which did not end when the slave ships stopped sailing.

The historical argument: three phases, one logic

European encounter with African societies can be understood in three broad phases, each distinct in form but similar in the underlying logic of collaborative extraction.

The first phase was slavery. Europeans extracted human labour from Africa, often with the active participation of African political rulers. Britain emerged as the world’s leading slave-trading country, transporting roughly 3.4 million Africans across the Atlantic between 1640 and 1807. The abolition of the British slave trade in 1807 marked the formal end of this phase. But abolition did not disrupt the underlying logic of the elite collaboration. It reshaped it.

The second phase was colonialism. A less understood aspect of European domination in Africa is how seamlessly some African rulers transitioned from collaborators during the slave trade to intermediaries in the colonial period.

In Nigeria, for example, regional African rulers became intermediaries for British administrators. As Nigerian historian, Moses Ochonu, demonstrates in Emirs in London, a study of Northern Nigerian Muslim aristocrats who travelled to Britain between 1920 and independence in 1960, these African figures were far from passive subjects of British rule. They actively leveraged their relationship with British authorities to reinforce their own authority at home. Such sponsored travel to the imperial centre helped solidify personal ties between Nigerian elites and British administrators, reinforcing the system of indirect rule.

The third and current phase is the postcolonial era. While formal empire has ended, the structure of elite alignment endures. In countries such as Nigeria, the majority of citizens remain largely excluded from political and economic power. The institutional successors of intermediaries and collaborators during the eras of slavery and colonial rule are now running the African postcolonial states.

Rather than dismantling extractive systems, many have repurposed them. Similar patterns of exclusion and extraction that defined earlier periods have been reproduced, leaving the majority of Africans short-changed by a system that continues to serve elite interests.

Nigerian President Bola Tinubu’s state visit to the United Kingdom last month – complete with royal ceremony, photo opportunities and symbolic gestures – reflected this relationship whose origins lie in the very history the UN resolution condemns. While the majority of Nigerians face difficult socio-economic conditions, the British government announced that Nigerian companies would create hundreds of new jobs in the UK.

This is not an anomaly but a continuation of the extractive logic that shaped the slave trade and colonialism. It endures, now recast in the language of diplomacy and partnership.

Reparations are just, and Britain’s debt is undeniable. But direction matters. If compensation flows from one set of elites to another, the oppressed majority of Africans will once again be excluded. True justice must run in two directions: from European states to formerly colonised societies, and from African elites to the citizens they continue to exploit.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.