The Dangerous Normalization of Political Assassinations: A New Era of Global Instability
It’s hard not to feel a sense of unease when reading about the escalating threats against former President Donald Trump by Iran. What makes this particularly fascinating is how it reflects a broader, more troubling shift in global politics—one where political assassinations are becoming disturbingly normalized. Personally, I think this isn’t just about Trump or Iran; it’s about the erosion of long-standing norms that once kept international relations, however fragile, from descending into chaos.
The assassination of Qassem Suleimani in 2020 was a turning point. From my perspective, it wasn’t just a tactical strike; it was a symbolic act that shattered decades of restraint. What many people don’t realize is that the U.S. had a decades-old prohibition against assassinating foreign leaders, rooted in the fear of setting a dangerous precedent. Trump’s decision to target Suleimani, and later Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, effectively tore up that playbook. If you take a step back and think about it, this wasn’t just a policy shift—it was a moral one.
One thing that immediately stands out is how this has created a cycle of vengeance. Iran’s calls for revenge against Trump and his aides aren’t just rhetorical; they’re deeply personal and institutionalized. At Khamenei’s funeral, protesters openly called for Trump’s death. This raises a deeper question: When political assassinations become a tool of statecraft, how can diplomacy ever truly flourish? Trust, already a rare commodity in international relations, becomes virtually impossible.
What this really suggests is that we’re entering a new era of global instability. Matt Dallek’s observation that the U.S. has lifted the taboo on targeting foreign leaders is spot-on. In my opinion, this isn’t just about Iran retaliating against Trump; it’s about every nation now recalibrating its playbook. If the U.S. can do it, why can’t others? This isn’t just a slippery slope—it’s a free fall into a world where leaders are fair game.
A detail that I find especially interesting is Trump’s own reaction to the threats. His comments about being ‘on every single one of their lists’ and his warning of 1,000 missiles aimed at Iran reveal a mix of bravado and genuine fear. But what’s more telling is how he’s framed this as a personal vendetta. This isn’t just a geopolitical crisis; it’s a psychological one. Trump’s rhetoric normalizes the idea of assassination as a legitimate tool of political retaliation, and that’s a dangerous precedent for any leader to set.
From a broader perspective, this situation highlights the unintended consequences of breaking long-standing norms. Robert Pape’s observation that Trump has normalized political violence more than any modern U.S. president is hard to dispute. What’s alarming is how quickly this normalization has taken hold. Assassinations are no longer seen as extreme measures but as part of the toolkit. This isn’t just a shift in policy—it’s a shift in how we perceive the rules of engagement.
Looking ahead, I can’t help but wonder where this leads. If assassinations become the new normal, what does that mean for global stability? Will every conflict now carry the specter of targeted killings? And more importantly, can we ever go back to a world where such acts are seen as beyond the pale?
In my opinion, the answer lies in recognizing the profound moral and strategic implications of this shift. The U.S. and other global powers need to reassert the norms that once kept us from this brink. Because if we don’t, we’re not just normalizing assassination—we’re normalizing a world where no leader, and perhaps no one, is truly safe.
Takeaway: The cycle of vengeance between the U.S. and Iran isn’t just a bilateral issue—it’s a canary in the coal mine for global politics. If we don’t course-correct, we risk normalizing a world where assassination is just another day at the office. And that’s a future none of us should want.
