The Killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: A Modern Precedent in Warfare?
The Israeli bombing that killed Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on Saturday represents a significant escalation in modern warfare and a rare instance of a foreign military successfully killing an enemy head of state. This event, reminiscent of the 1979 KGB assassination of Afghan Communist leader Hafizullah Amin, raises complex questions about international law and the potential for further conflict.
A Rare Occurrence: Targeting Heads of State
Historically, the direct targeting of heads of state has been uncommon in modern warfare. Leaders typically remain distanced from front lines or operate from heavily fortified locations. The fact that Ayatollah Khamenei was reportedly meeting with senior officials in a well-known compound, despite the imminent threat of airstrikes, was surprising. He reportedly took the risk to avoid appearing to hide.
Previous attempts to eliminate leaders include the US “Shock and Awe” campaign targeting Saddam Hussein in 2003, the Reagan administration’s 1986 bombing of Muammar al-Qaddafi’s compound, and subsequent NATO airstrikes during the 2011 Libyan intervention. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has likewise reportedly survived multiple assassination attempts since the 2022 Russian invasion. However, these instances often involved leaders of states not internationally recognized or resulted in death by rebel forces, as in the case of Qaddafi.
Legality Under International Law
Under international law, a civilian head of state who also serves as commander-in-chief of a country’s armed forces is generally considered a legitimate military target. This is comparable to situations like the US military’s downing of Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto in 1943. However, the killing must not involve “treachery” – a breach of trust, such as feigning surrender. Given the warnings issued by former President Donald Trump regarding potential airstrikes, it would be challenging for Iran to claim treachery in this case.
US law, established through executive orders by Presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan, prohibits US government employees from engaging in assassination. This prohibition stemmed from congressional investigations revealing the CIA’s involvement in the killings of leaders like Patrice Lumumba (Democratic Republic of Congo), Ngo Dinh Diem (South Vietnam), and Salvador Allende (Chile), as well as plots against Fidel Castro (Cuba). However, these actions occurred when the US was not at war with those leaders’ countries.
Michael Schmitt, a professor of international law at the University of Reading and former US Air Force Judge Advocate General, distinguishes between “assassination” and legitimate targeting during armed conflict. “Assassination usually has political motives. It occurs outside the context of unarmed conflict,” he stated. “Once the bombs begin to drop, then you immediately shift over to the law of armed conflict to determine who may be attacked and who may not.”
Political and Strategic Considerations
Beyond legal considerations, there are practical reasons why countries rarely resort to killing enemy leaders. Eliminating a leader can complicate negotiations for ending a conflict and potentially incite stronger resistance. During World War II, British intelligence developed plots to kill Adolf Hitler but worried about creating a martyr. Similarly, in the lead-up to the first Gulf War, then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney dismissed Air Force Chief of Staff Michael Dugan for discussing plans to “decapitate” the Iraqi leadership.
The killing of Khamenei suggests that Israel, with US support, is prioritizing the destruction of the current Iranian regime over reaching a negotiated settlement. While the CIA reportedly provided intelligence for the strike, US officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, have clarified that the operation was conducted by Israel and that the US is not directly targeting Iranian leaders.
A Troubling New Frontier
The death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei may signal a shift towards a more dangerous precedent in international relations. Wars between sovereign states are becoming more frequent, and political assassinations appear to be on the rise. Technological advancements, including precision bombing, satellite technology, and the proliferation of drones, are making it easier to target individuals remotely. The potential use of artificial intelligence, such as Anthropic’s Claude system reportedly used in the Khamenei strike, could further simplify such operations.
A world where heads of state are readily identifiable and vulnerable targets is one that demands careful consideration. As the saying goes, “Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas dinner.”