Skip to content
Chimera readability score 62 out of 100, Academic reading level.

-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
- The prospect of foreign assassination plots targeting U.S. leaders puts the United States in dangerous new territory.
- Experts fear the existential threat of assassination has pushed peace further out of reach.
WASHINGTON — Shortly before President Trump ended a ceasefire with Iran this week, Israeli officials presented his team with intelligence indicating Tehran was hatching new plots to kill him.
It was not the first such warning. U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies have tracked evidence for years of Iranian efforts to target the president, with signals only increasing since the start of the war.
Their desire to target Trump and his top aides began six years ago, just outside Baghdad International Airport, when the president ordered a drone strike that killed Iran’s most powerful general. The assassination of Qassem Suleimani brought the two countries to the brink of war.
Yet even as full-scale war was averted, top Iranian officials vowed revenge for the strike, authorizing attempts on the lives not just of the president, but of his secretary of State and national security advisor, among others, even after they had left office.
The switch raised questions about the gifted jet that the U.S. spent $400 million to retrofit. Images of the plane show it lacks some of key security features.
Now, calls for revenge have reached a sharper pitch in Tehran, after a joint U.S.-Israeli operation killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, at the start of the war in February.
At Khamenei’s funeral ceremonies this week, red flags of vengeance flew throughout the capital as protesters explicitly called on their government to “kill Trump.” His son, Mojtaba, the new supreme leader, was absent from the commemorations, fearing assassination himself.
The prospect of foreign assassination plots targeting U.S. leaders puts the United States in dangerous new territory, where its embrace of political killings could ultimately place its own officials at unprecedented risk. And experts fear the existential threat of assassination has pushed peace further out of reach: When both sides believe their survival is at stake, the trust required for diplomacy becomes far harder to achieve.
Israeli news organizations have reported that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, cited Iranian attempts to kill Trump in recent years as part of his case to go to war in the first place.
A U.S. official told The Times that a range of serious threats exist against the president, including from Iran, but that Israel’s intelligence pointed to a more specific plot. The official did not provide further details. Israeli officials did not respond to requests for comment.
Iran’s president, Masoud Pezeshkian, has said in recent months that the government sees vengeance against U.S. officials as “its legitimate duty and right,” and “will fulfill this great responsibility and duty with all its might.”
“The Suleimani killing accelerated a lifting of restraints on foreign assassinations — and the taboo on targeting and killing foreign leaders, with U.S. military assets, has been more or less lifted,” said Matt Dallek, a political professor at George Washington University.
“If the United States sets the example of how to conduct international relations, and it is using assassination of foreign leaders as a political weapon, it’s only logical that other countries will be more inclined to also engage in assassinations,” Dallek added. “It does seem likely that Trump will have a bigger target on his back.”
Returning from a NATO summit in Turkey on Wednesday, Trump was forced to switch back to an old model of Air Force One — equipped with specialized defensive technologies — from a new plane given as a gift by Qatar, after the Secret Service warned of potential threats to the aircraft from Iran.
“They want to take out the U.S. leader — me,” Trump told reporters aboard the plane. “I’m on whatever list. I saw this morning I’m on every single one of their lists. And so far, I guess I’ve been a bit lucky, but maybe that doesn’t last very long.”
The threat has remained on his mind in the days since. In an interview with the New York Post, Trump told the reporter, “I hope you’ll miss me,” adding that he has “been on their list for a long time.” And in a subsequent social media post Friday night, he warned of a catastrophic response he instructed the administration to pursue in the event Tehran succeeds.
“1000 Missiles are Locked and Loaded and aimed at the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he wrote, “with thousands of more to immediately follow, should the Iranian Government act on its threat, pronounced in many corners of the Globe, to assassinate, or attempt to assassinate, the sitting President of the United States of America, in this case, ME!”
The United States had a decades-old prohibition against assassinating foreign leaders before Trump’s presidency, codified in an executive order signed by President Ford in 1976 over concerns of a CIA plot to kill Fidel Castro.
Iran has targeted American military sites in the gulf after the U.S. launched strikes on several places in Iran and reinstated sanctions on its oil sales.
The policy was only strengthened further by subsequent administrations, fearing a new international standard for targeted killings could result in unintended consequences in the halls of Washington.
Other administrations have been accused of targeting foreign leaders before. Under the Obama administration, an international coalition targeting the Libyan regime of Moammar Kadafi during the country’s 2011 civil war struck his fleeing convoy, leading to his capture and killing by rebel fighters.
But experts say Trump’s explicit targeting of Suleimani and Khamenei — and his public celebration of their deaths — marks a new paradigm.
“Through words and actions, President Trump has done more to normalize political violence than any other U.S. president, certainly in modern times,” said Robert Pape, a professor at the University of Chicago and author of “Our Own Worst Enemies: America in the Age of Violent Populism.”
“On the international front alone, the president routinely brags about killing Iranian leaders and seizing the leader of Venezuela, among others,” he added, “to the point that assassination is becoming the new normal in international politics.”

Facts Only

* Israeli officials presented intelligence to the U.S. team regarding new assassination plots targeting President Trump before a ceasefire with Iran this week.
* U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies have tracked evidence of Iranian efforts to target the president for years.
* The desire to target Trump and his aides began six years ago near Baghdad International Airport following a drone strike that killed Qassem Suleimani.
* Top Iranian officials vowed revenge against the strike, authorizing attempts on other officials after the war ended.
* Calls for revenge sharpened after a joint U.S.-Israeli operation killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in February.
* Protesters at Khamenei’s funeral explicitly called for the government to "kill Trump."
* A U.S. official reported threats against the president from Iran, with Israel's intelligence pointing to a more specific plot.
* The threat led President Trump to switch back to an older aircraft model after receiving warnings about potential threats from Iran.
* Trump stated he was on "every single one of their lists."
* Iran’s president stated that vengeance against U.S. officials is the government's legitimate duty.

Executive Summary

Israeli officials presented intelligence to the U.S. team indicating that Iran was planning assassinations against President Trump shortly before a ceasefire with Iran ended this week. This concern stems from years of tracking evidence of Iranian efforts to target the president by U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies, escalating since the start of the war. The desire for retribution expanded after the killing of Qassem Suleimani, leading to threats against other officials following the war's conclusion. Further escalation occurred after a joint U.S.-Israeli operation killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in February. Following Khamenei’s funeral ceremonies, protesters explicitly called for the government to "kill Trump." Iranian officials have stated that vengeance against U.S. officials is their legitimate duty, noting that the killing of Suleimani accelerated a lifting of restraints on foreign assassinations. The prospect of such plots has led to concerns about the risk to U.S. officials and increased difficulty in achieving diplomatic peace.

Full Take

The narrative presented reflects a shift in international norms regarding political violence, where the actions of one state can normalize lethal targeting of foreign leaders. The progression from tracking past threats to active calls for revenge following high-profile deaths suggests an escalation driven by perceived impunity and a redefinition of acceptable state behavior. The observation that the assassination of Suleimani opened "lifting of restraints on foreign assassinations" indicates a systemic erosion of international taboos when military assets are involved, creating a dangerous feedback loop where political killings become normalized tools in international relations. This dynamic suggests that leaders who engage in such actions can inadvertently set a precedent, potentially increasing the risk for themselves and others. The tension between the desire for vengeance by Iran and the established legal prohibitions against foreign assassinations, as well as the U.S. desire to maintain stability, highlights the fragility of diplomacy when existential threats are perceived. The suggestion that this dynamic is becoming the "new normal in international politics" implies a significant challenge to existing frameworks built around sovereignty and non-intervention.
* Bridge Questions: What mechanisms can be established to restore and enforce international norms against political assassination when state actors perceive such actions as legitimate duties? How does the normalization of targeted killing influence the perceived risk calculus for leaders seeking diplomatic solutions? What are the long-term consequences for the stability of international law if explicit assassinations become routine tools for geopolitical maneuvering?

Sentinel — Human

Confidence

The text functions as informed political commentary, weaving factual reporting with expert analysis to explore themes of international assassination and diplomatic risk.

Signals Detected
low severity: Sentence length variance is present; flow is slightly uneven but coherent.
low severity: Maintains a central narrative thread linking Iranian action, US policy shifts, and existential threat without excessive hedging.
low severity: Uses attribution (experts, officials) but the flow of arguments is largely driven by narrative development rather than verbatim source stacking.
low severity: Specific details (names, dates related to known events like Suleimani killing) anchor the text in verifiable context, reducing fabrication risk.
Human Indicators
Idiosyncratic emphasis is present in the shift between reporting on official statements and academic commentary.
The inclusion of specific historical events (Suleimani killing, Obama/Libya context) suggests a framework built by an experienced reporter rather than pure LLM synthesis.
Assassinations unleashed under Trump haunt Iran war endgame — Arc Codex