The Illegal Assassination of Ali Khamenei
Israel and U.S. wage an unlawful attack on Iran amid negotiations.
IRAN—The geopolitical landscape of the Middle East was irrevocably altered. In a joint operation labeled “Operation Epic Fury,” the United States and Israel carried out widespread attacks in Iran and assassinated its Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (علی خامنهای). The attack violates international law including the United Nations Charter.
The U.S. and Israel attacked Iran during negotiations
The strikes did not occur in a vacuum. In the days leading up to the attack, a flurry of diplomatic activity suggested a potential breakthrough.
On Thursday, indirect talks began in Geneva with when President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, and Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff met with met with de facto mediator Omani Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr Albusaid, to negotiate with Iran.
On Friday, Iran’s Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, joined the fray. The U.S. demanded that Iran dismantle its nuclear sites at Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz,
Araghchi noted the negotiations were the “most intense so far.” Their negotiation efforts were scheduled to resume on Monday in Vienna.
But on Saturday morning, instead of packing up for Vienna, the U.S. and Israel launched “the most lethal, most complex aerial operation in history,” according to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
The strikes, ordered by President Trump, were described by the administration as a “pathway to diplomacy.” However, the timing—occurring amidst active indirect negotiations in Geneva—has raised harrowing questions about international law, executive overreach, and the definition of state-sponsored assassination.
During the initial attack, the Minab school, an all-girls primary school in Southern Iran, was bombed. 115 girls between the ages seven and 12 were killed.
After the initial bombing, President Trump attempted to war to Americans while he spoke from his luxury Mar-a-Largo compound in south Florida.
During the eight minute speech, Trump rehashed old incidents between the countries and claimed the Iranian regime only wanted to “practice evil.” Be that as it may, that is not justification for using force under international law.
Later on Saturday, Trump announced on his social media platform Truth Social, that Ali Khamenei had died. “He was unable to avoid our Intelligence and Highly Sophisticated Tracking Systems and, working closely with Israel, there was a not a thing he, or the other leaders that have been killed along with him, could do,” Trump wrote.
During President Trump’s first term at the White House, he called for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the U.S. Then he signed Executive Order 13769, the so-called “Muslim Ban.” The order led to the suspension of Syrians, Iranians, Iraqis, Libyans, Somalians, and Sudanese from entering the U.S. Over 700 travelers were detained and 60,000 visa revoked.
Israeli video depicts the bombing of Khamenei’s home.
The Israeli Army released aerial footage showing Khamenei’s home exploding. Presumably he was killed in the blast. The video evidences an intentional, premeditated, planned assassination—a clear violation of the UN Charter.
American Muslim writer Daniel Haqiatjou criticized that killing of Khamenei “turned him into a global symbol of resistance.”
Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian characterized the killing of Khamenei as a“declaration of war against Muslims.”
“The assassination of the highest political authority of the Islamic Republic of Iran and a prominent leader of Shiism worldwide… is perceived as an open declaration of war against Muslims, and particularly against Shiites, everywhere in the world,” Pezeshkian said.
Russian President Vladimir Putin responded. "The assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader is a brutal murder that violates all ethics and international law." Putin said.
The UN Charter prohibits use of force except in cases of “self-defense”
The core purpose of the United Nations is to maintain international peace. Member nations, including the U.S., Israel, and Iran, are prohibited under Article 2(4) from using force:
Article 2(4) prohibits all members from the threat of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Specifically, Article 2(4) provides:
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
There is one exception: self-defense from an armed attack under Article 51:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
The White House and its UN Ambassador Mike Waltz argued on Saturday morning at the UN in New York that the U.S. was acting out of self-defense and therefore justified under Article 51. Waltz argued:
The United States has made every effort to negotiate a peaceful resolution of this conflict with Iran, but Iran has failed to take that opportunity. So in close coordination with the Government of Israel, the United States has taken lawful actions to address these threats, in line with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.
And Mr. President, I’ll just say on a final note, you know who is not complaining tonight? You know who is not citing the vagaries of international law? You know who is celebrating in the streets around the world? The Iranian people.
The U.S. was not facing an armed attack
Waltz has grossly misinterpreted Article 51 in defiance of the binding interpretations promulgated by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and Security Council (UNSC). The ICJ is primarily responsible for interpreting the UN Charter. Whereas the Security Council has authority to determine whether a member state’s unilateral action constitutes “self-defense” under the Charter and to issue sanctions and pass binding resolutions.
Citing Article 51 themselves, Iran labeled the move “blatant military aggression.” Foreign Minister Esmaeil Baghaei warned that the fabric of the UN Charter is at stake, stating, “Any location providing logistical support to the aggressor is a legitimate target.”
Pete Hegseth’s Tweet proves the attacks were not justified under International law
On Saturday, U.S. Department of War, Secretary Pete Hegseth thumped his chest in a lengthy social media post. “The Iranian regime had their chance, yet refused to make a deal — and now they are suffering the consequences,” Hegseth wrote. This proves that the U.S. and Israel did not attack Iran in “self-defense” but because Trump and Netanyahu did not get the deal they wanted.
Lack of imminence
Under the Caroline Test—the gold standard of international law—preemptive self-defense is only legal when the threat is “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” Because the U.S. and Israel had ample time to plan “Epic Fury” and were simultaneously engaged in diplomacy, they clearly fail to meet the strict requirements of imminence necessary to justify the use of force.
Lack of proportionality
Self-defense must be proportional to the injury suffered. As there was no active Iranian kinetic operation against the U.S. mainland or Israel at the time of the strike, the assassination of a Head of State—an act of forced regime change—arguably exceeds the legal bounds of repelling an attack.
By Sunday, President Trump posted on social media that if Iran hits harder than they have ever hit before, then the U.S. “will hit them with a force that has never been seen before!” This implies a U.S. response will be more than proportional.
Reagan’s Executive Order 12333 prohibits assassinations
In 1981, President Ronald Reagan signed Executive Order 12333, explicitly stating: “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in or conspire to engage in assassination.” While the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) argues that “targeted killings” of “lawful military targets” are exempt, the assassination of a sovereign leader during peacetime negotiations is a clear violation of the spirit of the order.
“Assassination” as defined by Oxford English Dictionary:
The murder of a person (esp. a prominent public figure) in a planned attack, typically with a political or ideological motive, sometimes carried out by a hired or professional killer; a murderous attack of this kind.
The term assassination originated from the Hashīshīn, a 12th Century Shia Muslim sect in the Middle East infamously known for getting high from hashish and murdering its opponents.
Dangerous territory
By executing "Operation Epic Fury" in the middle of active diplomatic channels, the United States and Israel have signaled that the "negotiating table" may now serve as a tactical distraction rather than a tool for peace.
If the UN Charter’s prohibitions on the use of force and the domestic bans on assassination are treated as mere "vagaries" of law—as suggested by Ambassador Waltz—the global community enters a volatile new era. In this landscape, the Caroline Test of imminence has been replaced by a doctrine of convenience, and the line between statecraft and state-sponsored killing has been all but erased. As the world waits for Iran’s next move, one thing is certain: the events of February 28 have ensured that diplomacy will never be viewed the same way again.