Reports have emerged that Israeli intelligence warned the United States of a fresh Iranian plot to assassinate President Donald Trump; but what was US intelligence doing? Whether every detail of the intelligence ultimately proves accurate remains for investigators to determine, and the public will never know. Intelligence assessments are, after all, assessments rather than verdicts. But the broader idea itself should surprise precisely nobody.
Indeed, perhaps the real headline would have been the opposite: "Iran Announces It Has Absolutely No Interest in Harming the American President Responsible for Ordering the killing of General Qassem Soleimani." Now that would have qualified as breaking news!
International politics has never resembled a Nobel Peace Prize essay competition. States have long sought to eliminate enemy leaders whom they regard as dangerous. The United States itself has an extensive history of targeting hostile military commanders and terrorist leaders through military operations. The strike that killed Soleimani in 2020 was defended by Washington as a legitimate act of national self-defence. From Tehran's perspective, however, the event became a powerful symbol demanding retaliation. One need not approve of that reasoning to recognise its strategic logic.
This is one of the enduring realities of geopolitics. Nations frequently condemn actions carried out by their adversaries while reserving the right to undertake similar actions themselves under different names or legal justifications. "Targeted killing," "decapitation strikes," "counter-terrorism operations," and "assassination" often describe actions that differ more in political vocabulary than in practical effect.
History offers countless examples. During wartime, removing enemy leaders has often been viewed as a legitimate military objective. What has changed is not the underlying logic but the technology available to pursue it. Drones, cyber capabilities, precision-guided weapons and global intelligence networks have made leaders more vulnerable than ever before, while simultaneously surrounding them with unprecedented layers of protection.
Donald Trump occupies a particularly unusual position in this regard. Few modern political leaders have generated such intense reactions, both supportive and hostile, across the globe. Having authorised the operation against Soleimani and later overseen further military action against Iran, he inevitably became a symbolic target for elements within the Iranian regime and its supporters. That is not an endorsement of such threats. It is simply an acknowledgement that actions in international politics usually produce reactions.
Perhaps we should retire the habit of expressing theatrical astonishment every time intelligence agencies reveal that hostile governments may harbour hostile intentions; it's what they do as their day and night job! Countries at odds with one another generally do not spend their evenings exchanging Christmas cards and recipes. They collect intelligence, prepare contingencies, attempt to deter opponents, and sometimes contemplate actions that would be unthinkable in peacetime.
The lesson is less about Donald Trump personally than about the nature of international conflict. Once nations cross the threshold into direct military confrontation, retaliation becomes part of the strategic equation. Every strike creates incentives for a counter-strike. Every escalation generates pressure for another response. States may differ in capability, opportunity and restraint, but very few voluntarily abandon the principle of reciprocity when they believe vital national interests are at stake.
So yes, reports of a possible assassination plot deserve to be investigated seriously. Protecting political leaders is an essential function of any government. But let us not pretend that the mere existence of such a plot, if confirmed, represents some extraordinary departure from history. The remarkable story would have been discovering that one of America's most determined adversaries had no interest whatsoever in retaliating against the man who ordered one of its most consequential military losses. That would have been news worthy of genuine surprise.
https://nypost.com/2026/07/09/us-news/israel-warned-us-of-new-iranian-plot-to-kill-trump-report/