Assassination of Enemy Leaders – Legitimate Weapon or Red Line? An old dilemma brought back to the fore
The idea of eliminating adversary leaders is not new, but it is returning to the center of the international debate, in a tense geopolitical context in which the administration of Donald Trump seems willing to push the limits accepted until recently.
The supreme leader of Iran, killed in an American-Israeli bombing/PHOTO: Profimedia
An unconfirmed anecdote from the Financial Times illustrates this age-old dilemma. During the Battle of Waterloo, a British soldier is said to have relayed to the Duke of Wellington that the troops had Napoleon in their sights and were awaiting the order to fire. The answer would have been a categorical refusal: killing the enemy commander would have been undignified and would have overshadowed any victory.
Today, however, the rules seem less clear. This story illustrates an age-old question recently brought back to the fore by Donald Trump's policies: Is a “beheading” — the term used for the targeted and intentional assassination of another state's leader — a legitimate war or foreign policy tactic? Unlike the removal of Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the US operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January does not fall into this category because he was not killed, but it nevertheless shocked the world in a similar way, contributing to the ongoing debate on the issue.
In parallel, the removal of key figures from military or political structures has become increasingly frequent, notes slate.fr.
Leaders – combatants or civilians?
From a legal point of view, the issue is a complex one. In times of peace, leaders enjoy diplomatic immunity. In war, however, the rules of armed conflict apply.
The key to interpretation is the status of the leader: is he a civilian or a combatant? Some experts, such as US diplomat Philip Zelikow, argue that the leaders can be considered combatants, which would make them legally legitimate targets.
However, even if the law would allow such actions, there is a political and moral dimension that cannot be ignored. For a long time, there was a tacit consensus that removing adversary leaders was a red line because it would pave the way for similar retaliation.
Professor Lawrence Freedman, a specialist in war studies, points out that this unwritten rule has been maintained precisely for reasons of mutual interest: if one leader becomes a legitimate target, then all leaders become vulnerable.
From covert operations to public spectacle
According to analyst Luca Trenta, the evolution of these practices can be divided into three stages. Initially, until the end of the 20th century, such operations were rare and carried out in secret, with official denial of state involvement.
But following the release of a damning CIA report on the matter, the assassination ban was passed by presidential decree, first under Gerald Ford, then by successive decrees – one of which, signed by Ronald Reagan, is still in effect.
During the Ronald Reagan administration, the discourse changed: actions were no longer completely denied, but justified by legal arguments such as self-defense.
Then came the third phase, which began with the assassination of Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani in 2020 by the first Trump administration. All respect for international law was then abandoned, says Luca Trenta. The secret is out: these political assassinations are now being used as vast public relations campaigns. “These targeted assassinations are staged,” the expert summarizes.
This third phase could be seen as the end of hypocrisy, as everything is now in plain sight. But the world also has a lot to lose, especially on the question of mutual interest: if one leader is targeted, then all leaders can be. For reasons similar to those that justify other forms of diplomatic protection given to heads of state, the reasoning has always been that reciprocity is best for everyone.
An effective strategy?
But the essential question remains: do these “decapitation blows” work?
Experts are skeptical. Philip Zelikow believes that the results achieved by the United States in such operations are limited. Lawrence Freedman points out that replacements for ousted leaders can be just as problematic or even more radical.
In some cases, removing a popular leader can have the opposite effect of mobilizing supporters and amplifying conflict.
“If this strategy has not given convincing results so far, why is it still being used?” asks Luca Trenta. The answer, he suggests, lies in the broader logic of power politics, where efficiency is not always the decisive criterion.
