One thing that stands out about President Trump is his straightforwardness. When he makes a claim, you can often expect action to follow. For example, he’s talked about sweeping deportations, and those have happened. He mentioned imposing sharp tariffs, and we’ve seen those take effect. His threats have sometimes led to significant consequences for law firms and universities, too. Most recently, he warned Iran regarding its nuclear facilities, and the fallout is still being assessed.
After asserting that he has “eliminated” Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the Pentagon commented on substantial damage inflicted. However, experts caution that it’s premature to gauge the full impact, leaving us to wonder about Iran’s potential response.
The entire situation is fraught with geopolitical tensions. It’s possible that this strike has left Iran with a nearly effective response.
In a speech last Friday, Trump remarked, “What happens next in Iran could either lead to peace or to more tragedy, similar to what we’ve witnessed recently. This could very well have been the most challenging night yet.”
Reflecting on Trump’s statements, we must take them seriously, at least for the next week or so. He even mentioned turning down a proposal from Israel to assassinate Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. His language hinted at knowledge of Khamenei’s location, calling him an “easy target” while stating, “For now, I won’t take him out.” This leaves the idea of taking lethal action open-ended.
It makes you wonder, though—is this for real? Political leaders typically shy away from outright assassination, even during wartime. Targeting another head of state can trigger a dangerous tit-for-tat. Plus, international law clearly prohibits such actions.
There are significant risks associated with pursuing Khamenei. Attacking him could inadvertently bolster local support for his regime, transforming him into a martyr. And while many leaders aren’t particularly admirable, targeting them in this manner usually crosses a line we, as a nation, refrain from crossing.
Or do we?
Political assassinations aren’t entirely foreign to Trump. He once expressed interest in eliminating Syrian president Bashar al-Assad back in 2017. If that had happened, it would have marked America’s first assassination of a foreign leader.
Instead of going that route, Trump opted for airstrikes in retaliation for a chemical attack against Syrian civilians, but those strikes themselves have faced scrutiny for legality under international law, specifically regarding humanitarian intervention.
So far, his actions have stopped short of officially sanctioning the assassination of foreign leaders. However, in January 2020, he did order the drone strike that killed Qassem Soleimani, a top Iranian general, claiming he posed an immediate threat to U.S. citizens. The United Nations has labeled that strike illegal.
Trump argues there was legal justification for hitting Soleimani since he considered the general a “dangerous” individual. The confusion arises from differentiating between “terrorists” and those in active military conflicts. While Soleimani was deemed a terrorist, military operations against ISIS leaders had a different legal context.
President Gerald Ford’s Executive Order 11905 bars U.S. government officials from engaging in political assassinations, a stance echoed in a subsequent order from Ronald Reagan, yet the definition of assassination remains vague. According to Webster, it involves covertly or violently killing someone.
This ambiguity continues to fuel discussions about U.S. engagement in targeted killings. Trump, knowing how to issue executive orders, might shift this landscape if he chooses.
However, under international law, killings in self-defense or during officially recognized conflicts are generally permissible. Yet, the validity of such laws as they pertain to U.S. actions is still a matter of contention.
If we do eliminate a leader like Khamenei, who knows what might come next? The next person in charge could be less malleable. Plus, dead leaders can’t negotiate. Khamenei is already 86 years old. Perhaps we should consider that every situation has its time.
Yet, with Trump in charge, the notion of assassination is still viable. His approach tends to be aggressive. As his son-in-law Jared Kushner said, “We live in a very dangerous world.” In a 2020 interview, Trump noted, “This is a full-contact sport, not a gentle game.”
