What legal precedents and international law doctrines could constrain or legitimize Israel’s alleged plan to assassinate Iran’s Supreme Leader, and how might this reshape norms of state‑sponsored targeted killings?
The joint United States-Israeli assassination of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on February 28, 2026, represents an unprecedented breach of multiple foundational doctrines of international law and marks a watershed moment in the erosion of norms constraining state-sponsored targeted killings. This analysis examines the legal frameworks that prohibit such actions, evaluates the justifications offered by the attacking states, and assesses the implications for the future of international legal order.
On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched coordinated military operations—designated Operation Epic Fury and Operation Shield of Judah respectively—against Iran, opening with strikes that killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei at his compound in TehranIs the International Norm Against Assassination Dead?verfassungsblog +1. The operation occurred while diplomatic negotiations between Washington and Tehran were actively underway, with the most recent round of US-Iran talks having concluded in Geneva just two days earlierNeither preemptive nor legal, US-Israeli strikes on Iran have blown up international lawtheconversation . President Trump indicated he would give negotiators more time before military action, then launched strikes regardlessNeither preemptive nor legal, US-Israeli strikes on Iran have blown up international lawtheconversation .
According to reports, over 555 Iranian civilians have been killed in the strikes, including more than 180 at a girls' school in Minab, Hormozgan ProvinceAs bombing continues, Israel’s war aim in Iran becomes clear: Regime change | Israel-Iran conflict News | Al Jazeeraaljazeera . The killing of Khamenei marked the first time in modern history that the United States openly and deliberately killed the leader of another sovereign nationAnalysis: Has the US ever assassinated a world leader before? | CNN Politicscnn . US Central Command stated that the operation targeted Iranian military facilities, air defense, launch sites, and airfields, with the goal of dismantling "the Iranian regime's security apparatus"US, Israel launch joint strikes on Iran; lawmakers reactyoutube .
The cornerstone of the post-1945 international legal order is the prohibition on the use of force contained in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which requires all member states to "refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state"Maduro raid flouted ‘central rule of international law,’ Professor Saira Mohamed saysberkeley +1. This prohibition constitutes both treaty law binding on UN members and customary international law obligating all statesMaduro raid flouted ‘central rule of international law,’ Professor Saira Mohamed saysberkeley .
The Charter permits only two exceptions to this blanket ban: authorization by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII, or the exercise of the "inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs" under Article 51Are US-Israeli attacks against Iran legal under international law? | Israel-Iran conflict News | Al Jazeeraaljazeera . Neither exception applies to the present case.
The Security Council did not authorize military action against Iran, the United States did not request such authorization, and it is unlikely the Council would have granted such a requestU.S. and Israel Aggression, Iran Misdirected Self-Defense, and Gulf State Self-Defensejustsecurity . Rebecca Ingber, professor at Cardozo School of Law who previously served as an adviser to the US Department of State, confirmed that "States may not use force against the territorial integrity of other states except in two narrow circumstances—when authorised by the UN Security Council or in self-defence against an armed attack"Are US-Israeli attacks against Iran legal under international law? | Israel-Iran conflict News | Al Jazeeraaljazeera .
UN Secretary-General António Guterres told the Security Council that the US and Israeli airstrikes violated international law, including the UN Charter, while also condemning Iran's retaliatory attacks for violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of nations in the Middle EastUS and Israeli attacks on Iran put further strain on international lawapnews . The Special Rapporteur on the promotion of human rights and counterterrorism, Ben Saul, stated unequivocally: "This is not lawful self-defence against an armed attack by Iran, and the UN Security Council has not authorised it"Are US-Israeli attacks against Iran legal under international law? | Israel-Iran conflict News | Al Jazeeraaljazeera .
The United States and Israel have invoked self-defense doctrine to justify their actions. President Trump stated the attacks were intended to "defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime"Are US-Israeli attacks against Iran legal under international law? | Israel-Iran conflict News | Al Jazeeraaljazeera +1. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared the goal was to "remove the existential threat posed by the terrorist regime in Iran"Neither preemptive nor legal, US-Israeli strikes on Iran have blown up international lawtheconversation .
The customary international law standard for anticipatory self-defense derives from the 1837 Caroline incident, which established that defensive force is permissible only when the need is "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation"'To stop a war': Did Soleimani killing violate international law?aljazeera . This standard requires that an attack be "imminent" in the sense that it is about to occur'To stop a war': Did Soleimani killing violate international law?aljazeera .
International law scholars identify three possible positions on uses of force in response to future armed attacks:
As Professor Marko Milanovic of the European Journal of International Law has noted, "there is unanimous agreement among international lawyers that the first position is legally untenable"Is Israel’s Use of Force Against Iran Justified by Self-Defence? – EJIL: Talk!ejiltalk . This expansive interpretation "is so boundless that it completely eviscerates the prohibition on the use of force—a state could act whenever it perceives an existential threat"Is Israel’s Use of Force Against Iran Justified by Self-Defence? – EJIL: Talk!ejiltalk .
Some Western states and scholars have argued for an expanded conception of imminence based on a "last window of opportunity" test—that a state may act when the attacker is clearly committed to launching an armed attack and the victim will lose its last opportunity to effectively defend itself unless it actsThe Right of Self-Defence Against Imminent Armed Attack ...ejiltalk . Australia's government, for example, has articulated that "the appropriate question to ask when it comes to assessing imminence is: 'What is the last feasible window of opportunity to act against the threatened armed attack?'"The Right of Self-Defence Against Imminent Armed Attack ...ejiltalk
However, this expanded doctrine has been explicitly rejected by the vast majority of states. The Non-Aligned Movement, representing 120 member states, has declared that "Article 51 of the UN Charter is restrictive and should not be re-written or re-interpreted" and explicitly opposes "the adoption of the doctrine of pre-emptive attack"The “Last Window of Opportunity” Test Is Not the Law — and Shouldn’t Beopiniojuris . Professor Kevin Jon Heller has calculated that "at most four states have explicitly claimed that the 'last window of opportunity' test is lawful, while 120 have explicitly claimed that it is not"The “Last Window of Opportunity” Test Is Not the Law — and Shouldn’t Beopiniojuris .
The facts undermine any claim of imminent threat. International Atomic Energy Agency Director Rafael Grossi confirmed that inspections of Iran's nuclear program found "no evidence supporting claims that Iran has incorporated military elements into its peaceful programme"Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's remarks and answers to questions at the 11th Primakov Readings International Forum, Moscow, June 24, 2025globalsecurity . The US Director of National Intelligence testified in March 2025 that Iran was not pursuing nuclear weaponsNeither preemptive nor legal, US-Israeli strikes on Iran have blown up international lawtheconversation .
Professor Suedi of international law explained that "Imminence in international law is really understood to be something that is instant, something that is overwhelming, something that leaves really no other choice but to act first, something that is pretty much happening now"Are US-Israeli attacks against Iran legal under international law? | Israel-Iran conflict News | Al Jazeeraaljazeera . She noted that Trump himself had previously claimed that June 2025 US attacks on Iran "obliterated" the country's nuclear program, and that Tehran and Washington were holding talks when the war broke out: "There really was no evidence of an imminent threat, and that the attack was a pre-emptive strike... If it's pre-emptive, it means that you are acting to counter something that is in the future, hypothetical, speculative, and that is not imminent... That is illegal under international law"Are US-Israeli attacks against Iran legal under international law? | Israel-Iran conflict News | Al Jazeeraaljazeera .
Israel has invoked what is known as the Begin Doctrine to justify preemptive strikes against perceived nuclear threats. This policy, articulated by Prime Minister Menachem Begin in 1981, holds that "no regional enemy committed to the destruction of the Jewish state can be allowed to obtain weapons of mass destruction"Begin Doctrine - Wikipediawikipedia +1.
The foundational precedent for the Begin Doctrine was Operation Opera, Israel's 1981 airstrike on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactorIsrael’s Operation Rising Lion and the Right of Self-Defense - Lieber Institute West Pointwestpoint . Although Israel justified the operation on the basis of anticipatory self-defense, the UN Security Council unanimously condemned it as a violation of international law in Resolution 487Israel’s Operation Rising Lion and the Right of Self-Defense - Lieber Institute West Pointwestpoint +1. The Security Council declared it "a clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct"A Brief History of: Operation Opera (Osiraq reactor)youtube . The UN General Assembly followed with Resolution 36/27, condemning Israel's "premeditated and unprecedented act of aggression"Operation Opera - Wikipediawikipedia .
The United States initially condemned the Osirak strike and determined that Israel "may have substantially violated its agreement to use U.S. arms for self-defense only," suspending shipment of F-16 aircraftIsraeli Attack on Iraq's Osirak 1981: Setback or Impetus for Nuclear Weapons? | National Security Archivegwu . US newspapers characterized the attack as "state-sponsored terrorism" and "inexcusable"A Brief History of: Operation Opera (Osiraq reactor)youtube .
The June 2025 Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear and military infrastructure, Operation Rising Lion, sparked intensive debate over self-defense parametersInterpreting the Law of Self-Defense - Lieber Institute - West Pointwestpoint . Israel's justifications were "crafted in broad terms," with Netanyahu stating "We can't leave these threats for the next generation. If we don't act now, there will not be another generation"Israel’s Operation Rising Lion and the Right of Self-Defense - Lieber Institute West Pointwestpoint . Israel had not provided detailed legal justification such as an Article 51 notification to the UN Security CouncilIsrael’s Operation Rising Lion and the Right of Self-Defense - Lieber Institute West Pointwestpoint .
Professor Milanovic concluded that "until Israel is able to provide substantially more compelling evidence than is currently publicly available, it cannot reasonably be argued that Iran would imminently attack Israel, or that using force was the only option to stop that attack. Israel is therefore using force against Iran unlawfully, in violation of Article 2(4) of the Charter. It is committing aggression"Is Israel’s Use of Force Against Iran Justified by Self-Defence? – EJIL: Talk!ejiltalk .
The 1973 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, Including Diplomatic Agents, provides specific treaty-based protection for heads of state[PDF] Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against ...un . The Convention defines "internationally protected person" to explicitly include "a Head of State, including any member of a collegial body performing the functions of a Head of State under the constitution of the State concerned"[PDF] Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against ...un .
Article 2 of the Convention requires each State Party to make the "intentional commission of a murder, kidnapping or other attack upon the person or liberty of an internationally protected person" a crime under its internal law, punishable by "appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature"[PDF] Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against ...un . The Convention entered into force on February 20, 1977, and as of 2016 has been ratified by 180 state partiesProtection of Diplomats Convention - Wikipediawikipedia .
Legal scholars have explicitly noted that "attacking heads of state is illegal under [the] New York Convention, for obvious reasons of stability"Neither preemptive nor legal, US-Israeli strikes on Iran have blown up international lawtheconversation . The Convention creates an obligation for states to either prosecute perpetrators of such attacks or extradite them to face prosecution elsewhere (aut dedere aut judicare)Protection of Diplomats Convention - Wikipediawikipedia .
Beyond the prohibition on the use of force, the assassination constitutes an independent violation of Iran's sovereignty and territorial integrityIran’s Threat of Retaliationopiniojuris . As noted by Professor Salvador Santino Regilme, "unless Washington can prove that the targeted actors carried out or imminently threatened a large-scale armed attack attributable to [the target state], these actions risk violating the charter's core prohibition on the use of force and undermining another state's territorial integrity"Can US strikes on suspected drug boats off Venezuela be legally justified?aljazeera .
Iran's representative to the UN Security Council, Amir Saeid Iravani, stated that "targeting the highest official of a sovereign UN member state is an egregious breach of international law and a direct attack on sovereign equality"Iran's UN envoy urges Security Council to act firmly on US-Israeli ...globaltimes . The principle of sovereign equality, enshrined in Article 2(1) of the UN Charter, means that all states possess equal rights and obligations regardless of their size, wealth, or military power.
If no armed conflict exists at the time of a killing, international humanitarian law does not govern the use of force, and the applicable framework becomes international human rights lawAssassination of Ali Khamenei: Is It Legal?diplomacyandlaw . Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protects every human being against arbitrary deprivation of lifeAssassination of Ali Khamenei: Is It Legal?diplomacyandlaw .
Under human rights law, the use of lethal force is an exceptional measure, permissible "only where strictly necessary to protect life against an imminent threat. The standard is restrictive. Force must be a last resort. Less harmful alternatives must be unavailable or ineffective. The response must be proportionate to the concrete danger faced"Assassination of Ali Khamenei: Is It Legal?diplomacyandlaw . Political hostility, strategic rivalry, or long-term security concerns do not meet this thresholdAssassination of Ali Khamenei: Is It Legal?diplomacyandlaw .
Human rights obligations apply extraterritorially when a state exercises power or effective control over an individual. The Human Rights Committee has clarified that jurisdiction under the ICCPR extends to persons subject to a state's authority or control, even outside its territoryAssassination of Ali Khamenei: Is It Legal?diplomacyandlaw . When a state intentionally directs lethal force against a specific individual, it exercises authority over that person decisively and immediately, engaging human rights obligationsAssassination of Ali Khamenei: Is It Legal?diplomacyandlaw .
Heads of state enjoy personal immunities and inviolability under customary international lawUS and Israeli attacks on Iran put further strain on international lawcitynews . Professor Marko Milanovic of Reading University stated that in peacetime, "it is a clear violation of international law to assassinate the head of state or government of some other state," noting that they "enjoy personal immunities and inviolability, and any attacks against them would also violate the sovereignty of their state"US and Israeli attacks on Iran put further strain on international lawcitynews .
The legal analysis differs if an armed conflict exists. International law draws a structural distinction between diplomatic protection and battlefield targetingAssassination of Ali Khamenei: Is It Legal?diplomacyandlaw . Immunity cannot authorize targeting—it does not relax the strict requirements of lawful attack. A head of state who remains a civilian under IHL retains protection from attack unless directly participating in hostilitiesAssassination of Ali Khamenei: Is It Legal?diplomacyandlaw .
The ayatollah occupied a "hybrid status"—he was a civilian, not a uniformed member of the Iranian military, but was also the supreme leader of Iran's armed forces, comparable to how US presidents are civilian commanders-in-chiefCan Trump Legally Kill Iran’s Leader? - The New York Timesnytimes . This creates a legal complication regarding his targetabilityCan Trump Legally Kill Iran’s Leader? - The New York Timesnytimes .
Some analysts have argued that because Khamenei was "in command of the armed forces" and "calling the shots," he constituted a lawful military targetNatasha Hausdorff discusses the legality of US and Israeli military action against Iranyoutube . However, this view is contested. One legal expert noted that even setting aside the jus ad bellum issues, "targeting a head of state who is not a combatant, who is not actively participating in hostilities... is simply not justified. He wasn't even a military commander... He wasn't giving tactical decisions"Is Assassinating a Head of State Legal? | Khamenei | US Israel Iran | Explained | Legally Speakingyoutube .
A particularly troubling aspect of the operation is that it was launched while diplomatic negotiations were actively ongoing. The strikes came just two days after the conclusion of talks in Geneva, with both sides having agreed to continue negotiationsNeither preemptive nor legal, US-Israeli strikes on Iran have blown up international lawtheconversation . Secretary-General Guterres expressed deep regret that "this opportunity of diplomacy has been squandered"Iran Strikes Could Trigger Wider Conflict in Middle East, Secretary-General Warns, as Security Council Speakers Call for Urgent Restraint, Return to Talks | UN Meetings Coverage and Press Releasesun .
Article 2(2) of the UN Charter requires that members fulfill their obligations "in good faith"Bad Faith in International Law: Is it Time to Adopt ...linkedin . Launching strikes during active negotiations violates this principleNeither preemptive nor legal, US-Israeli strikes on Iran have blown up international lawtheconversation . Iran's Foreign Ministry denounced the February 28 attacks as "striking during negotiations, violating international law"Neither preemptive nor legal, US-Israeli strikes on Iran have blown up international lawtheconversation . This marked the second time during negotiations that the United States "betrayed diplomacy"—Iranian policymakers had already accused the US of bad faith after the June 2025 strikes disrupted previously scheduled talksNeither preemptive nor legal, US-Israeli strikes on Iran have blown up international lawtheconversation .
Under Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, Article 37 prohibits perfidy—"acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence"Assassination in the Law of War - Lieber Institute - West Pointwestpoint . Examples include "the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce"Assassination in the Law of War - Lieber Institute - West Pointwestpoint +1.
Hugo Grotius explained that treachery "comprised a breach of confidence by the attacker in a situation where the victim had reason to trust that attacker"Assassination in the Law of War - Lieber Institute - West Pointwestpoint . Observers have noted that "when one sees the way that the Trump administration has dealt with the Iranians while in the middle of negotiation, it really sends one story even to the most trusting that the United States of America under the Trump administration cannot be trusted"Operation Epic Fury: Trump & Netanyahu’s Real Mission in Iran | PLO Lumumba Explainyoutube .
Both the United States and Israel have articulated regime change as a central objective of their military operations. President Trump stated the attacks were intended to end Iran's nuclear weapons program and bring about regime change, urging Iranians to "take over your government"Neither preemptive nor legal, US-Israeli strikes on Iran have blown up international lawtheconversation . Netanyahu declared the goal was to "remove the existential threat posed by the terrorist regime in Iran"Neither preemptive nor legal, US-Israeli strikes on Iran have blown up international lawtheconversation .
Forcible regime change fundamentally violates the principles of state sovereignty and non-intervention under the UN CharterNeither preemptive nor legal, US-Israeli strikes on Iran have blown up international lawtheconversation +1. The National Lawyers Guild has stated that directly fomenting regime change in a sovereign nation "is not only illegal and outright shunned by the international community"The US Is Orchestrating a Coup in Venezuelatruthout . UN Special Rapporteur Idriss Jazairy emphasized that "coercion, whether military or economic, must never be used to seek a change in government in a sovereign state. The use of sanctions by outside powers to overthrow an elected government is in violation of all norms of international law"The US Is Orchestrating a Coup in Venezuelatruthout .
Colombia's delegate to the Security Council stressed that "no State may unilaterally claim the right to attack another in order to implement regime change" and warned against any "selective interpretations" of that principleIran Strikes Could Trigger Wider Conflict in Middle East, Secretary-General Warns, as Security Council Speakers Call for Urgent Restraint, Return to Talks | UN Meetings Coverage and Press Releasesun . Professor Marieke de Hoon of the University of Amsterdam stated plainly that the attacks amount to a crime of aggression: "It is a violation of the prohibition to use force, the cornerstone of the international legal order, and there is no legal justification for it... Regime change moreover violates the sovereignty of another state"US and Israeli attacks on Iran put further strain on international lawapnews .
Under Article 8bis of the Rome Statute, the crime of aggression is defined as "the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations"Definition of the crime of aggression | The Global Campaign for the Prevention of Aggressioncrimeofaggression .
Iran's ambassador to Austria stated that "this criminal act... endangers the international responsibility of the warmongering states concerned, as well as the individual criminal responsibility of the president of the United States, the so-called prime minister of the Israeli regime, and all individuals involved in planning, ordering, authorizing, committing, or otherwise aiding and abetting this criminal act"Khamenei murder to have legal consequences for aggressor statestass .
However, significant jurisdictional barriers prevent ICC prosecution of US and Israeli leaders. Neither the United States nor Israel is a party to the Rome StatuteExplained: The US has approved sanctions against International Criminal Court. How things got hereindianexpress . Under Article 15bis, paragraph 5, the ICC cannot exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression "when committed ANYWHERE by an individual from a non-ICC State, except if the UN Security Council refers the matter to the ICC"US, Ukraine Build Russia 'War Crimes' Case, But Not Likely Putin Sees Courtnewsweek . Given that the United States holds veto power on the Security Council, such a referral is virtually impossibleUS, Ukraine Build Russia 'War Crimes' Case, But Not Likely Putin Sees Courtnewsweek .
The United States has maintained an executive order banning assassination since 1976, currently codified as Executive Order 12333, which states: "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination"Executive Orders | National Archivesarchives +1. However, the term "assassination" is nowhere definedThe Assassination Ban and Targeted Killings - Just Securityjustsecurity .
Government lawyers have interpreted this ban narrowly. A 1989 Department of Army memorandum (the Parks Memo) defines assassination as murder for political purposes and interprets the order as merely incorporating existing prohibitions under international lawCould Trump Assassinate A World Leader and Get Away With it?defenseone . Post-9/11, the executive branch has taken the position that the ban does not bar targeted killings of high-level terrorist leaders as self-defense or part of armed conflictIran vs US-Israel war: The legality, or illegality, of killing a foreign leader, explainedindiatimes . Crucially, because the ban was established by presidential order rather than statute, "the president giveth, the president can taketh away"Could Trump Assassinate A World Leader and Get Away With it?defenseone .
Russia condemned the operation as "a deliberate, premeditated, and unprovoked act of armed aggression against a sovereign and independent UN member state, in direct violation of the fundamental principles and norms of international law"Emergency Meeting on the Military Escalation in the Middle East : What's In Blue : Security Council Reportsecuritycouncilreport . The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs called for "an immediate stop to the military actions and a return to dialogue"Communist and workers' parties around world condemn war on Iranpeoplesworld .
Oman, which had been facilitating the nuclear talks, said the US action "constitutes a violation of the rules of international law and the principle of settling disputes through peaceful means"World hurries to respond to rapidly changing war around Iranapnews . The African Union warned of repercussions for energy markets, price stability and food security, calling for restraint and respect for the UN CharterWar in the Middle East: What implications for the EU and the world?europa . Denmark emphasized that the operation "contributes to a very troubling precedent" and "truly undermines the principle of sovereign equality"LIVE | UN Security Council Convenes on Venezuela Situation | APTyoutube .
The Communist Party of India condemned the "unilateral military attacks" as a "grave violation of international law" and part of a "dangerous strategy aimed at imposing regime change in Iran"Communist and workers' parties around world condemn war on Iranpeoplesworld . The Communist Party of India (Marxist) stated the attacks were carried out "in flagrant violation of Iran's national sovereignty, the UN Charter and all international treaties"Communist and workers' parties around world condemn war on Iranpeoplesworld . Cuba's Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned the attacks "in the strongest terms" as a violation of the UN CharterCommunist and workers' parties around world condemn war on Iranpeoplesworld .
The Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations, now consisting of over twenty members, issued statements condemning the aggression against IranForeign Minister Sergey Lavrov's remarks and answers to questions at the 11th Primakov Readings International Forum, Moscow, June 24, 2025globalsecurity . Iran urged UN member states, "particularly countries in the region and members of the Non-Aligned Movement, to condemn the strikes"Iran security council warns strikes may continue, advises public to ...iranintl .
Conversely, Canada's Prime Minister stated that "Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security"Experts react: How the world is responding to the US-Israeli war with Iran - Atlantic Councilatlanticcouncil . Argentina's President Milei commended the operation, calling Khamenei "one of the most evil, violent, and cruel individuals that human history has ever seen"Experts react: How the world is responding to the US-Israeli war with Iran - Atlantic Councilatlanticcouncil . The G7 had previously expressed support for Israel's military campaign through a joint statement "affirming that Israel has a right to defend itself" The Law of Going to War with Iran, Redux | Lawfare lawfaremedia .
For three centuries, the international norm against assassination of foreign leaders has been "quite robust"[PDF] Targeted Killings: - Is the Norm Against Assassination in Decline?isodarco . Ward Thomas documented that "the directly targeted killing of foreign adversaries, once rejected as beyond the pale," only recently became "a prominent issue in debates over U.S. security policy"Is the International Norm Against Assassination Dead?verfassungsblog . Even during the Cold War, when states plotted against foreign leaders (such as CIA attempts on Fidel Castro), "they always did so covertly and rarely acknowledged responsibility when exposed"Is the International Norm Against Assassination Dead?verfassungsblog .
The United Nations in 1973 and the Charter of the Organization of African Unity in 1963 explicitly prohibit the killing of high-level state representativesFull article: The transformation of targeted killing and international ordertandfonline . This prohibition arose from concerns about "instability and disorder that would follow from the killing of state leaders"Full article: The transformation of targeted killing and international ordertandfonline .
The assassination of Khamenei represents "a new stage in the erosion of the international norm against assassination"Is the International Norm Against Assassination Dead?verfassungsblog . Combined with the widespread availability of drone and long-range strike technologies, "assassination becomes both politically easier to defend and materially easier to replicate. As a result, the practice of state-sponsored assassination, which once required covert modalities and plausible deniability, is increasingly conducted openly"Is the International Norm Against Assassination Dead?verfassungsblog .
Scholar Jose's research identified the United States as "the key entrepreneur of a new norm, which renders targeted killing an appropriate form of violence"Full article: The transformation of targeted killing and international ordertandfonline . Fisher concluded that "a norm permitting the use of targeted killing for counter-terrorism purposes appears likely to emerge"Full article: The transformation of targeted killing and international ordertandfonline . Fisk and Ramos have argued that "a norm of preventive self-defence slowly supersedes the existing prohibition of the preventive use of force"Full article: The transformation of targeted killing and international ordertandfonline .
CNN presidential historian Tim Naftali observed that "making the decision to wipe out a foreign head of state should not be taken easily or quickly"Analysis: Has the US ever assassinated a world leader before? | CNN Politicscnn . The Church Committee hearings in the 1970s established bipartisan opposition to assassinations. Testimony from former CIA Director Richard Helms explained both moral and practical objections: "If you are going to try by this kind of means to remove a foreign leader, then who is going to take his place running that country, and are you essentially better off as a matter of practice when it is over than you were before?"Analysis: Has the US ever assassinated a world leader before? | CNN Politicscnn
President John F. Kennedy himself was quoted saying the US "can't get into that kind of thing, or we would all be targets"Analysis: Has the US ever assassinated a world leader before? | CNN Politicscnn . Chinese scholar Zheng Yongnian has characterized the assassination as marking a shift toward a "fear-based jungle world" governed by raw power, warning that if Japan similarly leverages US power in East Asia, China will face difficult strategic choicesChinese Debates on a Fragmenting Global Order | Sinification: February 2026sinocism .
The assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei violates virtually every applicable legal framework: the UN Charter's prohibition on the use of force (Article 2(4)); the stringent requirements for anticipatory self-defense under customary international law; the 1973 Convention on Internationally Protected Persons; fundamental principles of state sovereignty and territorial integrity; the right to life under international human rights law; the prohibition on forcible regime change; and the principle of good faith in diplomatic negotiations.
The legal justifications offered—self-defense against existential threats, the Begin Doctrine, and commander-in-chief authority—fail to establish legitimacy under international law. The absence of an imminent armed attack, the ongoing diplomatic negotiations, and the explicit regime change objectives all undermine any self-defense claim. As Professor Allen Weiner of Stanford Law School concluded: "The notion that Iran presents a general security threat to U.S. interests does not constitute a threat of imminent attack. Nor does the possibility that Iran might at some point in the future acquire either nuclear weapons or intercontinental missiles... amount to a threat of an imminent attack"Stanford’s Allen Weiner on the Constitutional and International Law Questions Raised by the Iran Attack - Legal Aggregate - Stanford Law Schoolstanford .
The implications extend far beyond this single event. The Chatham House assessment warns that President Trump is "making use of force new normal and casting aside international [law]"With Iran attacks, President Trump is making the use of force the new normal – and casting aside international law | Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tankchathamhouse . The rules-based international order "balances the need to safeguard the security of states with the aim of suppressing war and its devastating consequences"With Iran attacks, President Trump is making the use of force the new normal – and casting aside international law | Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tankchathamhouse . When major powers openly assassinate foreign heads of state, declare regime change objectives, and dismiss international legal constraints as obstacles, the entire architecture of the post-1945 world order faces existential strain.
The precedent now established—that powerful states may openly kill the leaders of sovereign nations based on unilateral determinations of threat—risks accelerating norm cascade effects that could fundamentally reshape international relations. Other states may invoke similar justifications for their own targeted killings, and the prohibition on the use of force that has served as "the cornerstone of the international legal order"US and Israeli attacks on Iran put further strain on international lawapnews risks becoming, in practice, a dead letter. The international community now confronts a pivotal choice: whether to collectively reaffirm and enforce the legal constraints that have governed inter-state relations for eight decades, or to acquiesce in their erosion and accept a return to a world where military might determines right.