An Iraqi Shiite Muslim girl holds up the picture of killed Iranian supreme chief Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, throughout a symbolic funeral the day after his assassination, within the district of Sadr Metropolis, in Baghdad on March 1, 2026.
Ahmad Al-Rubaye/AFP by way of Getty Pictures
cover caption
toggle caption
Ahmad Al-Rubaye/AFP by way of Getty Pictures
Keep updated with our Politics e-newsletter, despatched weekly.
The opening strike of the U.S.-Israeli struggle on Iran was a extremely refined operation that dealt a serious blow to the Islamic Republic, killing Supreme Chief Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in his workplace in central Tehran.
The U.S. and Israel used an array of high-tech intelligence and navy {hardware} to tug it off—a surprising show of energy and deadly precision. However misplaced in all that fashionable wizardry is a basic ethical and strategic query: Ought to the U.S. be within the enterprise of assassinating overseas leaders?
“Know-how generally takes us to locations we have not been earlier than, earlier than we’re prepared for it,” mentioned Columbia College historian Timothy Naftali. “And our capacity now to take out overseas leaders is placing us in a spot we have by no means been earlier than. We should always take inventory of the strategic, philosophical and ethical implications of that.”
The U.S. has had an extended and shifting relationship with the thought of killing overseas heads of state.
Within the first few many years of the Chilly Conflict, the U.S. needed to maintain all choices on the desk, together with assassinations, in its world wrestle in opposition to the Soviet Union.
“There was actually a way that assassination was simply one other contingency, and one thing that the USA couldn’t completely exclude within the confrontation with the Soviet Union that was seen as this kind of omnipotent and horrible enemy,” mentioned Luca Trenta, a professor at Swansea College within the U.Okay. and the creator of a ebook on assassinations in U.S. overseas coverage.
Within the early years of the Chilly Conflict, the U.S. usually helped set the stage for the removing or killing of a overseas chief, by offering weapons or intelligence, however native allies pulled the set off, Trenta mentioned.
The 1961 assassination of Rafael Trujillo, the dictator of the Dominican Republic, is one instance. The Eisenhower administration needed Trujillo eliminated however finally a bunch of Dominican dissidents gunned him down.
The CIA was additionally prepared to take direct motion.
In 1960, it plotted to assassinate Congolese Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba, even sending poison to the Congo to kill him. Finally, Lumumba was assassinated by Congolese rivals, not the U.S.
All through the Nineteen Sixties, the CIA additionally repeatedly plotted to kill Cuban chief Fidel Castro, together with as soon as with a poison pen. None of these efforts succeeded, and Castro dominated Cuba for one more 4 many years.
Church Committee prompts self-reflection
This was all accomplished within the shadows, with out the American public’s data.
It got here tumbling out within the mid-Nineteen Seventies when revelations of CIA abuses led to congressional investigations, together with one referred to as the Church Committee, led by Idaho Democratic Sen. Frank Church.
The panel issued an interim report in 1975 that examined U.S. involvement in plots to kills overseas leaders, and decided the U.S. was certainly implicated in such efforts.
It additionally declared that “in need of struggle, assassination is incompatible with American ideas, worldwide order and morality;” the panel said that assassinations ought to be rejected as a software of overseas coverage.
“The investigations of the Church Committee actually present a short second of self-reflection for U.S. politicians, for the U.S. public, in which there’s a way that perhaps if we’re a democracy and we’re to be completely different from the enemies that we’re supposedly combating, we shouldn’t be doing these items,” Trenta mentioned.
In 1976, President Gerald Ford issued an govt order banning the U.S. authorities from participating in political assassinations.
Columbia College’s Naftali mentioned the consensus that developed in that period in opposition to assassinations was a product of a number of issues, together with public dismay over the imperial presidency within the wake of the Vietnam Conflict and the Watergate scandal.
The political elite, in the meantime, had been nonetheless deeply affected by the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, his brother Robert Kennedy and civil rights chief Martin Luther King Jr., he mentioned.
“Gerald Ford felt that this was not a software that he needed to make use of, and what’s actually attention-grabbing is that his successors expanded the ban,” Naftali mentioned. “So Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter each felt that the USA shouldn’t be within the assassination enterprise.”
Multi-decade pause on assassinations, with an asterisk
For the subsequent 20-plus years, the U.S. was not within the enterprise, though with an asterisk or two.
In 1986, the U.S. bombed a number of websites in Libya, together with chief Moammar Gaddafi’s household compound. And twice within the Nineteen Nineties, the U.S. struck Iraqi chief Saddam Hussein’s palaces.
Brent Scowcroft, who served as President George H.W. Bush’s nationwide safety adviser, was interviewed by ABC Information’ Peter Jennings in regards to the concentrating on of Saddam in 1991.
Requested whether or not the U.S. needed to kill Saddam, Scowcroft replied: “Uh, effectively, we do not do assassinations, however sure we focused all of the locations the place Saddam might need been.”
Jennings adopted up by asking whether or not that meant the U.S. intentionally got down to kill Saddam if it may. After an extended pause, Scowcroft mentioned: “I assume, yeah, that is truthful sufficient.”
In Naftali’s view, the operations in opposition to Gaddafi and Saddam weren’t cloak-and-dagger conspiracies to kill a overseas chief, however as a substitute had been navy operations concentrating on command and management amenities.
“These navy operations weren’t designed as assassination plots, but when the top of state had died, the USA would not have wept any tears,” he mentioned. “And I feel that is how presidents Reagan, Bush and Clinton obtained across the assassination ban.”
That displays, as least partially, that presidents discovered assassinations distasteful, and thought the American public did as effectively, Naftali mentioned.
The shift after 9/11
That modified with the al-Qaida terrorist assaults on Sept. 11, 2001. Congress responded by authorizing all vital means to go after the perpetrators of 9/11.
“All vital means consists of assassination,” Naftali mentioned. “And I feel that the taboo, if you wish to name it an elite and public taboo, in opposition to utilizing assassination disappears.”
Within the post-9/11 world, the U.S. adopted a brand new know-how, the armed drone, to kill al-Qaida leaders across the globe. However these strikes focused alleged terrorists, not overseas authorities officers.
President Trump blurred that line when he ordered the drone strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani in January 2020 in Baghdad. Whereas the U.S. thought of Soleimani a terrorist, he was a high-ranking Iranian authorities official.
Iran responded with plots of its personal to assassinate Trump and senior administration officers.
Now, six years later, a joint U.S.-Israeli operation has killed Iran’s prime political and spiritual chief, Khamenei. The U.S. supplied intelligence whereas Israel carried out the deadly strike.
Trump crowed in regards to the operation, saying on social media that Khamenei “was unable to keep away from our intelligence and extremely refined monitoring methods.”
These refined intelligence and navy capabilities make it more and more simple to focus on overseas leaders with a excessive chance of success, Naftali mentioned.
“That was not potential within the Chilly Conflict and within the early post-Chilly Conflict. And in that form of setting, it’d make the edge, or does make the edge, decrease for that call to have interaction in political assassination,” he mentioned.
That makes America’s adversaries extra susceptible, but additionally the U.S. as effectively.
“Generally mutual vulnerability results in deterrence, however generally it may result in existential angst and instability,” Naftali mentioned. “And once more, to not mourn Ayatollah Khamenei, however at this second we should always simply take inventory of how uncommon it ought to be for the USA to assassinate a overseas head of state and attempt to preserve a way of taboo about it. After which as a nation, have a dialog about once we might violate such a factor, however maintain that threshold very excessive.”
