Podcast Summary: "Should the U.S. be in the business of assassinating foreign leaders?"

Podcast: Consider This from NPR
Host: Ilsa Chang, Ryan Lucas (NPR)
Date: March 12, 2026
Duration: ~8 minutes (excluding ads and credits)

Overview of the Episode

This episode of "Consider This" tackles the grave and controversial question: Should the United States engage in assassinating foreign leaders? Prompted by the U.S. and Israel's operation that killed Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, NPR explores the historical context, legal and moral boundaries, and the implications for democracies. The episode draws on expert analysis, historical episodes, and significant recent events to weigh the strategic, philosophical, and ethical dimensions of political assassination.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Khamenei Assassination – A New Precedent?

• Ilsa Chang introduces the unprecedented U.S.-Israeli strike that killed Iran's supreme leader.
  • "In the opening strike of their war on Iran, the US and Israel killed the Islamic Republic's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei." – Ilsa Chang [00:00]
• Ryan Lucas notes this is exceedingly rare for democracies and prompts the core episode question.
  • “Should the United States be in the business of assassinating foreign leaders?” – [00:56]

2. Historical Roots: Cold War Contingencies

• Ryan Lucas traces U.S. history of targeting foreign leaders, citing Dominican dictator Trujillo (1961) and multiple CIA plots:
  • "The CIA also plotted to assassinate Cuban leader Fidel Castro, among others in this era." – Ilsa Chang [00:27]
• Luca Trenta (historian):
  • “There was certainly a sense that assassination was just another contingency, something that the United States could not entirely exclude in the confrontation with the Soviet Union.” – Luca Trenta [02:42]

3. From Shadows to Scandal: The Church Committee

• Exposure of CIA plots in the 1970s forced public reckoning:
  • “...the Church Committee... declared assassinations incompatible with American principles, international order and morality... and said they should be rejected as a tool of foreign policy.” – Ryan Lucas [03:13]
• Trenta:
  • “The investigations of the Church Committee really provide a brief moment of self-reflection for US politicians, for the US public, in which there is a sense that maybe if we are a democracy... we should not be doing these things.” – Luca Trenta [03:44]

4. Formal Ban: Executive Orders and Presidential Taboos

• President Gerald Ford (1976) issues an executive order banning assassinations, echoed by Carter and Reagan.
  • “Gerald Ford felt that this was not a tool that he wanted to use. And what's really interesting is that his successors expanded the ban.” – Timothy Naftali [04:16]
• Despite the ban, the US skirted the lines with military actions targeting leaders' compounds (Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein).
  • “We don't do assassinations, but yes, we targeted. We targeted all the places where Saddam might have been.” – Brent Scowcroft [05:00]
  • “I guess. Yeah, that's fair enough.” – Brent Scowcroft [05:13]

5. The War on Terror: A Shifting Line

• Naftali: After 9/11, the old taboo faded as Congress granted all necessary means to pursue Al Qaeda.
  • “Well, all necessary means includes assassination. And I think the taboo... against using assassination, disappears in the post 9/11 world.” – Timothy Naftali [05:57-06:09]
• The rise of drone strikes blurred military and political assassinations—especially with the 2020 strike on Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, a government official labelled terrorist by the U.S.

6. Blurring the Boundary: State Leaders as Targets

• Ryan Lucas notes that six years after Soleimani, the Khamenei killing marks a direct move against a head of state, with U.S. intelligence aiding an Israeli lethal operation.
  • “President Trump has crowed about the operation, saying on social media that Khamenei was unable to avoid our intelligence and and highly sophisticated tracking systems.” – [06:55]

7. Strategic and Ethical Reckoning

• Luca Trenta cautions against eroding the taboo:
  • "I think the Khamenei assassination is a major deal because democracies have killed a foreign heads of state because other countries might follow the same example and there will be nothing that democracies will be able to say when that happens, the moral high ground is lost." – Luca Trenta [07:26-07:43]
• Ryan Lucas: This act potentially "loses the moral high ground," threatening the taboo and opening the door for tit-for-tat assassinations by others.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Ilsa Chang [00:56]: "Just because a country can doesn’t mean it should."
• Luca Trenta [02:42]: "Assassination was just another contingency... in the confrontation with the Soviet Union."
• Church Committee finding [03:13]: "'Assassinations [are] incompatible with American principles, international order and morality.'"
• Timothy Naftali [05:57]: "...the taboo... against using assassination, disappears."
• Luca Trenta [07:26]: "The moral high ground is lost... and perhaps along with it, the taboo against such assassinations."

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:00-01:26 – Introduction, context for Khamenei assassination
• 02:26-03:44 – Cold War era, CIA operations, and Church Committee
• 04:03-04:31 – Executive Orders and aftermath
• 05:00-05:16 – Targeting of Saddam Hussein, bending the ban
• 05:37-06:09 – Post-9/11 paradigm shift
• 06:26-07:26 – Soleimani precedent, Khamenei strike
• 07:26-07:53 – Trenta on the loss of moral high ground

Conclusion

The episode delivers a concise yet thorough exploration of America's uneasy dance with the practice of assassinating foreign leaders. From Cold War plots and executive bans to the post-9/11 era of drones and blurred lines, the killing of Khamenei represents a significant departure for democracies—and raises critical questions about morality, legality, security, and precedent in global affairs. The experts warn: what democracies do now will shape what others feel justified in doing next.