Introduction
Recent reports suggest that former U.S. President Donald Trump advised Israel against assassinating Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, during his tenure. This revelation raises critical questions about the dynamics of U.S.-Israel-Iran relations, the limits of covert operations, and the broader implications of such a move on Middle Eastern stability.
As an International Relations Analyst, I examine this development through the lenses of geopolitics, strategic deterrence, and conflict escalation. Why did Trump discourage Israel from such an extreme measure? What would have been the consequences if Israel had proceeded? This article explores the motivations, risks, and long-term effects of this decision.
Understanding the Landscape
U.S.-Israel Relations Under Trump
The Trump administration was one of the most pro-Israel U.S. governments in history, recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, moving the U.S. embassy there, and brokering the Abraham Accords. However, even with such strong ties, Trump reportedly drew a red line at assassinating Khamenei.
Iran’s Geopolitical Significance
Iran remains a key player in the Middle East, with influence extending through proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas, and various Shia militias in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Eliminating its Supreme Leader could have triggered a catastrophic regional war, drawing in major powers and destabilizing global energy markets.
Historical Precedents of Assassinations in International Relations
Assassinations of high-profile leaders often lead to unintended consequences:
The killing of Archduke Franz Ferdinand sparked World War I.
- The U.S. elimination of Qasem Soleimani in 2020 led to Iranian missile strikes on U.S. bases in Iraq.Had Israel killed Khamenei, Iran would likely have retaliated with full force, potentially escalating into a broader conflict.
Case Studies: When Targeted Killings Backfire
1. The Assassination of Qasem Soleimani (2020)
The U.S. drone strike that killed Iran’s top general was a high-risk move. While it weakened Iran’s Quds Force temporarily, it also:
Provoked direct Iranian missile attacks on U.S. troops.
Increased anti-American sentiment in the region.
Strengthened hardliners in Tehran.
A strike on Khamenei would have been far more destabilizing, given his symbolic and religious significance.
2. Israel’s Historical Use of Assassinations
Israel has a history of targeting high-profile enemies (e.g., Hamas leaders, nuclear scientists). However, killing a sitting Supreme Leader would cross a threshold, risking:
Massive rocket attacks from Hezbollah and Hamas.
Possible Iranian nuclear escalation.
A breakdown in U.S.-led diplomatic efforts.
Implications and Consequences
1. Escalation to Full-Scale War
Iran possesses long-range missiles, cyber warfare capabilities, and proxy networks. A direct attack on Khamenei could have led to:
Missile strikes on Israeli cities.
Attacks on U.S. bases in the region.
Disruption of global oil supplies via Hormuz Strait blockades.
2. Impact on Nuclear Negotiations
Trump’s "maximum pressure" campaign aimed to force Iran back to the negotiating table. Killing Khamenei would have derailed any diplomatic progress, pushing Iran toward rapid nuclear weaponization.
3. Global Reactions
Russia & China: Likely condemnation, possibly increased military support for Iran.
Europe: Calls for de-escalation but limited action.
Arab States: Mixed reactions—some quietly supportive, others fearful of regional chaos.
Theoretical Analysis: Deterrence vs. Provocation
Realist Perspective
From a realist standpoint, Trump’s decision aligns with power-balancing:
Preventing an uncontrollable war preserves U.S. and Israeli security.
Maintaining Iran’s regime (however hostile) may be preferable to chaos.
Liberal Institutionalist View
International organizations (UN, IAEA) would have struggled to mediate, highlighting their limitations in crisis scenarios.
Constructivist Angle
The religious and ideological weight of Khamenei’s position means his killing would be seen as an existential attack, justifying extreme retaliation.
The Role of International Organizations
United Nations
The UN Security Council would likely have convened emergency sessions, but veto powers (U.S., Russia, China) would block decisive action.
IAEA & Nuclear Oversight
An escalated conflict could push Iran to abandon the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), accelerating its nuclear program.
NATO & Regional Alliances
U.S. allies might be forced to choose sides, fracturing Western cohesion.
Strategies Moving Forward
1. Covert Pressure Over Direct Confrontation
Cyber operations (e.g., Stuxnet) can degrade Iran’s capabilities without overt war.
Economic sanctions remain a tool, though their long-term efficacy is debated.
2. Strengthening Regional Alliances
Expanding the Abraham Accords to counter Iran.
Bolstering Gulf state defenses against Iranian proxies.
3. Diplomatic Engagement
Reviving or revising the JCPOA (Iran nuclear deal) to prevent proliferation.
Backchannel negotiations to de-escalate tensions.
Conclusion and Summary
Trump’s alleged warning to Israel against killing Khamenei underscores a critical lesson in international relations: even the most aggressive strategies have limits. While regime change or decapitation strikes may seem tempting, the risks of uncontrollable escalation often outweigh the benefits.
