Targeting Iran's Supreme Leader is madness

Al Arabiya

4 hours ago

Last week, the idea resurfaced that Israel may target Iran's Supreme Leader – as if he were just another easy military target in the fierce war between Israel and Iran, which may soon involve the United States. US President Donald Trump made a point of distancing himself from the Israeli plan, announcing that the Iranian Supreme Leader is at the top of Israel's target list and now within their reach. Trump made it clear he opposes Israel's move and does not support it.
For all the latest headlines, follow our Google News channel online or via the app.
This issue is far more serious than just another military objective; it could become a matter of ideology and trigger deeply dangerous cycles of revenge.
There have been times in history when warring parties refrained from targeting leaders and symbolic figures for reasons beyond direct military calculation.
For example, Emperor Hirohito of Japan was a ruler and a sacred symbol. Documents confirm that he authorized his military leaders to go to war, invade Manchuria, and carry out the attack on Pearl Harbor, which led to America's entry into World War II. Yet, during the war, and on the recommendation of General Douglas MacArthur, the US government decided not to target him. He was also excluded from the list of Japanese leaders prosecuted after the American victory and the occupation of Tokyo. That decision paved the way for reconciliation between the US and Japan, and helped the Japanese people accept the Americans. Hirohito remained emperor and respected until his death, living for another 45 years.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is a spiritual leader, and any harm inflicted on him would cause wounds that may never heal – regardless of how decisive the Israeli or American victories are on the battlefield.
The Supreme Leader is a lifelong authority, not a president. He would play a vital role in bringing about peace, just as Ayatollah Khomeini did in 1988, when he unilaterally announced an end to the war with Iraq – a war we thought would only end with the complete destruction of one or both countries. We remember that no one in the Iranian regime at that time dared to call for a ceasefire with neighboring Iraq – except the late Supreme Leader.
Some people get carried away by the intoxication of war, blinded by overwhelming military power and temporary victories, only to create hatred that could last for decades or even centuries – when they could have achieved victory without doing so.
There is no doubt that the Israelis possess superior intelligence capabilities and overwhelming destructive power, which allow them to penetrate deep into Iran and reach its leadership's hideouts, as they have done in Lebanon and Gaza. But Iran's Supreme Leader cannot be equated with Hezbollah's Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, who was assassinated last year. The difference in symbolic weight is enormous, and the consequences of a miscalculation are grave.
And even if the comparison isn't entirely accurate, the execution of Saddam Hussein on Eid al-Adha in 2006 – though he was a Baathist and not a religious or tribal leader – came at a heavy price. US generals later attempted to reconcile with Sunni forces, but failed. Washington still suffers the consequences of that event, especially with half the Iraqi population. That grave mistake could have been avoided, and the resulting rift healed, after their military victory.
Israelis are capable of stunning military victories, as they achieved in 1967 and again last year – but that doesn't mean they win the larger war. We are truly on the brink of entering a new and critical chapter of history that will reshape what we've known and lived through over the past half century. What's needed now is the use of the threat of force without reaching for its maximum limits—to bring about change through consensus, as much as possible. That would benefit everyone, including Israel, the United States, Iran, and all the nations in the region. Both winners and losers share an interest in reducing tensions and achieving a collective peace.