Reported Killing of Iran's Supreme Leader Reignites Debate on Targeted Killings

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's Supreme Leader, was reportedly killed in a US-Israeli operation in central Tehran in late February. This event, which involved advanced intelligence and military capabilities, has led to renewed discussions regarding the effectiveness of targeted killings as a foreign policy tool, their historical impact on state stability, and the complex legal and ethical considerations surrounding such operations.

Reported Killing and Attribution

U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran reportedly began in late February. The Israeli military reported the killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on the first day of these strikes. Other high-ranking Iranian officials, including the spokesman for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), have also been reported killed. The operation reportedly involved advanced intelligence and military capabilities. The US government and former President Donald Trump on social media had reportedly claimed credit for the assassination. Israel attributes its operations to intelligence-driven targeted strikes. Khamenei has reportedly been replaced by his son, Mojtaba Khamenei.

Intelligence Gathering Methods

Intelligence used to locate targeted individuals reportedly originates from several sources:

• On-the-ground informants providing current location details.
• Electronic tracking, including mobile phones, regular phones, satellite, or drone surveillance. Analysts suggest a notable number of individuals within Iran report on each other.
• Collaboration with partners such as Iran's neighbors, the United States, and various NATO sources.
• Monitoring other countries' surveillance of Iran, such as communications between Russia and Iran.
• Assistance from domestic resistance movements within Iran in providing information on the locations of targeted individuals and equipment.

U.S. Policy on Targeted Killings

The U.S. formally bans assassinations, though it has used self-defense as a justification to challenge this ban since the late 1980s. Historically, U.S. policy has varied significantly.

Cold War Era Approaches

During the Cold War, assassinations were considered an option. The U.S. often supported local allies or the CIA directly plotted against foreign leaders, though these plots did not always lead to their deaths. Examples include support related to Rafael Trujillo in 1961 and CIA plots against Patrice Lumumba in 1960 and Fidel Castro in the 1960s.

Mid-1970s Prohibition

In the mid-1970s, congressional investigations, notably the Church Committee, found U.S. involvement in plots to kill foreign leaders.

The committee's 1975 report concluded that "short of war, assassination is incompatible with American principles, international order and morality" and recommended rejecting assassinations as a foreign policy tool.

President Gerald Ford subsequently issued an executive order in 1976 prohibiting U.S. government engagement in political assassinations. This order was upheld by subsequent presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter. For over two decades, the U.S. largely refrained, though some military operations targeted command and control facilities where a leader's death would not have been lamented.

Post-9/11 Shift

The policy shifted after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks when Congress authorized "all necessary means," which was interpreted to include assassination. Armed drones were subsequently used to target alleged al-Qaida leaders.

Recent Developments

Then-President Trump's 2020 drone strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad further complicated policy lines, as Soleimani was a high-ranking Iranian government official despite a U.S. designation as a terrorist. This strike reportedly led to Iranian plots targeting U.S. officials. Some analysts note that the Trump administration had not consistently demonstrated an interest in justifying its military conduct through international law in its past operations.

Effectiveness and Historical Outcomes of Targeted Killings

Targeted killing is a strategy that has rarely been applied against states and has demonstrated mixed results.

Impact on Non-State Actors

• Hamas: Despite the elimination of senior command, Hamas has maintained control over a significant portion of Gaza and continued military activities. Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin was killed in 2004, and many figures behind the October 7, 2023, attack have since been eliminated. Hamas has continued operations, reportedly fueled by long-standing grievances related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
• Hezbollah: After an Israeli airstrike killed its then-leader Abbas Musawi in 1992, his successor, Hassan Nasrallah, led Hezbollah to become a prominent armed group, resulting in a stalemate with Israel in 2006. Even after the reported deaths of Nasrallah and other deputies in the 2024 conflict, Hezbollah resumed missile and drone attacks on Israel.
• Al-Qaeda and Islamic State: The United States conducted targeted killings against al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden in 2011 and Islamic State founder Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in 2019. While both groups were significantly weakened, this occurred after multi-year conflicts involving ground forces.

Impact on State Leadership

The targeted killing of state leaders is uncommon in the modern era and has frequently been followed by instability.

• Iran: Israel has reportedly targeted multiple senior Iranian leaders. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stated that these actions aim to weaken the Iranian government to facilitate an internal overthrow; however, no such uprising has occurred since mass protests in January. Iran's government and military institutions have historically withstood U.S. and Israeli strikes, and the Revolutionary Guard has continued operations despite leadership losses.
• Congo (1961): The overthrow and killing of Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba, reportedly backed by the CIA and Belgium, preceded decades of authoritarian rule and instability.
• Libya (2011): NATO's intervention led to the capture and killing of Moammar Gadhafi, followed by more than a decade of division and instability.
• Iraq (2003): The U.S.-led invasion dismantled Saddam Hussein's government and led to his execution, contributing to significant chaos in the country.

Expert Perspectives and Implications

Experts offer varied perspectives on the effectiveness and implications of targeted killings:

• Jon Alterman, chair of Global Security and Geostrategy at CSIS, stated that the effectiveness of targeted killings often diminishes over time and that governments, even authoritarian ones, rely on extensive support networks that can endure such strikes.
• Yossi Kuperwasser, a former head of Israel's military intelligence research division, described targeted killings as a tool to weaken adversaries but noted they do not fundamentally alter an organization's capacity for attacks, though they can reshape its leadership structure.
• A senior Israeli intelligence official indicated that Israeli strikes in Iran have reduced political leaders' ability to issue orders and formulate policy.
• Max Abrahms of Northeastern University stated that data from conflict zones suggests an increase in violence against civilians following targeted killings.

He cautioned that removing leaders who prefer restraint could lead to more extreme tactics from their successors.

• Mohanad Hage Ali of the Carnegie Middle East Center argued that targeted killings require a cohesive political strategy to be effective; otherwise, their long-term impact is limited.
• The CIA had previously advised against such assassinations, suggesting they could lead to the emergence of more radical Iranian leaders.

The reported killing of Khamenei highlights the increasing ease with which foreign leaders can be targeted due to advanced intelligence and military capabilities, prompting ongoing discussions about potential implications for international stability and the maintenance of a high threshold for such actions.