The United States District Court for the District of Columbia has ruled that the Islamic Republic of Iran is liable for the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The ruling, issued on October 23, 2025, grants default judgment on liability to the plaintiffs, who are victims and/or family members of victims of the attacks.
Background of the Case
The case stems from the devastating bombings that occurred on August 7, 1998, when terrorists detonated truck bombs outside the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The attacks resulted in thousands of casualties and caused widespread destruction. The plaintiffs in this case are seeking damages from Iran, alleging its involvement in supporting the perpetrators of the attacks.
Legal Framework: The FSIA and State-Sponsored Terrorism
The plaintiffs brought their claims under the state-sponsored terrorism exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The FSIA generally protects foreign nations from being sued in U.S. courts. However, an exception exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1605A, allowing lawsuits for damages against a foreign state for acts of terrorism, including extrajudicial killing or providing material support for such acts. This exception applies if the defendant is designated as a state sponsor of terrorism and the victim is a U.S. national, a member of the armed forces, or a U.S. government employee or contractor.
Key Findings of the Court
The court took judicial notice of a prior case, *Opati v. Islamic Republic of Iran* (2014), where Iran was found liable for the attacks. The court adopted the findings of fact from *Opati*, which relied on the *Owens v. Republic of Sudan* (2011) case. The evidence presented in these cases established that al Qaeda was responsible for the 1998 embassy attacks. Iran provided material aid and support to al Qaeda, including connecting them with other terrorist groups, granting safe passage, and providing technical training. This assistance was aimed at helping al Qaeda launch large-scale bombing attacks against U.S. targets. Specifically, Iran trained al Qaeda on how to destroy large buildings with sophisticated explosives.
Based on these findings, the court concluded that it had subject matter jurisdiction over Iran and that the plaintiffs, who are U.S. nationals or worked for the U.S. government, have valid causes of action under FSIA section 1605A.
Plaintiffs’ Claims and Potential Damages
The plaintiffs asserted various claims, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), aiding and abetting, civil conspiracy, wrongful death, loss of consortium, and claims for survival and punitive damages. The court found Iran liable for assault and battery, as Iran provided material support with the intention of causing harmful contact and fear thereof. Survivors may also recover for pain and suffering. Family members who are not U.S. nationals may seek damages under District of Columbia law.
The court noted that plaintiffs who brought multiple claims could only recover under one such theory, as double recovery is prohibited.
Next Steps: Special Masters and Damages Determination
While the court determined Iran’s liability, it lacked sufficient evidence to determine individual damages. The court will refer the individual claims to Special Masters, who will receive evidence and prepare proposed findings and recommendations for the disposition of each claim. The Special Masters will consider the evidence and report on the measure of damages warranted for each plaintiff. They will also consider whether individual claims are consistent with prior rulings, such as the one limiting IIED recovery for plaintiffs outside the blast radius. The court will defer consideration of punitive damages until the compensatory damages phase is complete.