Despite ongoing diplomatic discussions about a possible peace agreement, tensions involving Iran appear to be moving in the opposite direction. While some reports suggest that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has become increasingly influential following recent military setbacks, Iran’s clerical leadership also continues to project authority, even as questions remain about the country’s internal power structure.
Officially, members of Iran’s remaining civil government continue to speak about negotiations and the possibility of reducing regional tensions. At the same time, however, the IRGC has continued operations in the Strait of Hormuz, where attacks on commercial shipping and aggressive military activity have kept one of the world’s most important waterways under constant pressure. Reports of additional strikes involving neighboring countries have only added to concerns that diplomacy and military escalation are unfolding simultaneously.
Adding to the uncertainty, a group of Iran’s senior clerics has reportedly issued one of its strongest public statements in years. According to reports, members of the country’s 88-member Assembly of Experts declared that both U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were mahdour al-dam—a term used in Islamic jurisprudence that they interpreted as making the two leaders deserving of death.
The statement reportedly described carrying out such assassinations as a religious obligation that should be fulfilled “under any circumstances.” The clerics also linked the call to what they described as avenging Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, describing that objective as one of paramount importance.
The Assembly of Experts occupies a unique position within Iran’s political system. In addition to supervising the country’s supreme leader, it is constitutionally responsible for selecting a successor should the position become vacant. Because of that authority, statements coming from members of the body tend to attract international attention, even if questions remain about how much practical influence individual clerics currently possess.
At the same time, uncertainty continues to surround the condition of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei himself. Public appearances have been limited, and speculation regarding his health and ability to actively govern has continued to circulate. Iranian authorities have provided little clarity, leaving outside observers to debate who is exercising the greatest influence inside Tehran.
Meanwhile, inflammatory rhetoric has extended beyond official statements. Iranian newspaper Hamshahri reportedly published a front-page image depicting President Trump’s face inside the crosshairs of a rifle scope beneath a headline declaring, “Revenge is certain.” Images like these are often viewed as propaganda, but they have nevertheless intensified international concern given the broader political climate.
Historically, Iran has frequently used strong rhetoric against both the United States and Israel. However, many analysts argue that the latest threats deserve careful attention because they come against the backdrop of previous assassination attempts targeting President Trump. Although those earlier attacks were not linked to the Iranian government, they demonstrated that such threats cannot simply be dismissed as political theatre.
Security experts generally note that any operation backed by a nation-state would differ significantly from an attack carried out by isolated individuals. A government-sponsored plot could potentially involve trained operatives, extensive surveillance, sophisticated planning, logistical support, and multiple participants working together. Intelligence agencies routinely evaluate these possibilities whenever explicit threats are issued by foreign governments or organisations connected to them.
Another factor that has entered the discussion is border security. Some commentators have argued that the large number of Iranian nationals who entered the United States illegally during previous years raises questions about whether hostile operatives could have exploited weaknesses in immigration enforcement. While there is no public evidence showing that such individuals have entered the country for terrorist purposes, critics contend that even a small percentage of trained operatives could represent a significant security concern.
Others caution against assuming that immigration status alone indicates malicious intent, noting that the overwhelming majority of migrants are not connected to terrorism or foreign intelligence services. Nonetheless, intelligence officials typically assess threats based on capability as well as intent, meaning that explicit assassination calls from influential figures naturally receive close scrutiny regardless of broader political debates.
For the U.S. Secret Service and Israeli security agencies, any public declaration encouraging violence against national leaders is treated as a matter requiring serious evaluation. Protective measures are routinely adjusted whenever credible threats emerge, particularly when hostile governments or organisations appear to endorse violent action.
The broader geopolitical implications could be enormous. Were an attack on a sitting or former U.S. president ever conclusively traced to a foreign government, it would almost certainly provoke an extraordinary American response. Such an incident could trigger severe diplomatic consequences, expanded sanctions, cyber operations, military retaliation, or other actions depending on the circumstances and the evidence available.
For now, diplomacy between Iran and the West remains clouded by deep mistrust. While officials continue to discuss the possibility of negotiations, events on the ground—from maritime confrontations to increasingly hostile rhetoric—suggest that meaningful progress remains elusive. As both sides continue to exchange threats while diplomatic channels remain open, the prospects for lasting stability in the region appear increasingly uncertain.
