Iran seeks to assassinate Donald Trump

Recent media reports alleging that Iran seeks to assassinate US President Donald Trump, alongside claims that Trump has instructed the United States to launch a devastating military response should such an attack occur, raise a far more important question than the headlines themselves. Are the rules governing the use of force universal, or are they reserved only for the powerful?

This is not a debate about personalities. It is a debate about principles.

For years, the United States and Israel have defended targeted killings of foreign military and political leaders as legitimate acts of self-defense or national security. Their argument is that extraordinary threats justify extraordinary measures. However, if this doctrine is accepted as a legitimate principle of international conduct, can other states not invoke the very same rationale when they perceive an existential threat?

The issue is not whether Iran is right or wrong. The issue is whether international law can survive if every country adopts the same standard. A principle that applies only to one nation is not a principle at all; it is simply an expression of power.

International politics has long demonstrated that labels are rarely neutral. One nation's freedom fighter is another nation's terrorist. Likewise, one country's "targeted strike" may be viewed by another as political assassination or an act of war. Perspectives differ, but the consequences remain the same.

Iran has endured US sanctions, diplomatic isolation and repeated military threats for nearly half a century. From Tehran's perspective, these policies represent continuous hostility. It is therefore understandable why successive Iranian leaders have described the United States as the "Great Satan." Whether one agrees with that description is beside the point. The reality is that prolonged confrontation has deepened mistrust on both sides.

History offers a consistent lesson. Political assassinations rarely resolve conflicts. More often, they fuel retaliation, strengthen hardliners, weaken diplomacy and perpetuate cycles of violence. Every action establishes a precedent, and every precedent eventually finds a new claimant.

The world should therefore resist the normalization of assassination as an instrument of statecraft. If the targeted killing of another country's political leadership becomes an accepted practice, no head of state can reasonably expect immunity from the same logic. Such a doctrine would make global politics less stable and far more dangerous.

The United States still has an opportunity to reverse this trajectory. Military threats, sanctions and coercion have failed to produce lasting stability in the Middle East. A renewed commitment to diplomacy, respect for sovereignty and the gradual easing of sanctions would serve regional and global security far better than another cycle of escalation.

The international order cannot be sustained through selective justice. The same rules must govern allies and adversaries alike. Otherwise, the world risks replacing the rule of law with the law of retaliation—a path from which there are no true victors.