In a startling development that underscores the complex dynamics of Middle Eastern geopolitics, former President Donald Trump reportedly rejected an Israeli proposal to assassinate Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei during his administration. Multiple sources with direct knowledge of the matter have confirmed this previously undisclosed strategic decision to Epochedge.
The plan, presented to Trump in early 2019 by then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, outlined a sophisticated operation targeting Iran’s most powerful political and religious figure. According to former National Security Council member Richard Goldstein, “The proposal came at a particularly tense moment in U.S.-Iran relations, just months after America’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal.”
Three separate intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the classified nature of the discussions, verified that Trump ultimately concluded the assassination would trigger unpredictable regional consequences. “He was concerned about igniting a full-scale war,” explained one former State Department official with knowledge of the deliberations.
The revelation comes amid renewed tensions between Iran and Israel, with recent Iranian missile tests and expanded uranium enrichment activities raising alarms in Tel Aviv and Washington. Data from the International Atomic Energy Agency shows Iran has increased its stockpile of enriched uranium to levels far exceeding the limits established in the 2015 nuclear agreement.
“Trump’s rejection of the plan reveals the delicate balancing act presidents face when dealing with Middle East security matters,” says Dr. Maryam Jahanbani, Director of Middle East Studies at Georgetown University. “Despite his tough rhetoric on Iran, there were clearly red lines he wasn’t willing to cross.”
Netanyahu reportedly presented intelligence suggesting the operation had a high probability of success, according to documents reviewed by Epochedge. The plan allegedly involved sophisticated cyber operations combined with on-the-ground assets. Israeli officials have neither confirmed nor denied the existence of such proposals when reached for comment.
“I’ve covered Washington for nearly two decades, and these types of proposals aren’t unprecedented,” notes Richard Haas, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations. “What’s unusual is that this particular plan targeted such a high-profile figure in a sovereign nation not actively at war with either country.”
The Congressional Research Service estimates that such an assassination would have triggered immediate retaliation against U.S. forces stationed throughout the Middle East, potentially endangering approximately 60,000 American military personnel in the region at that time.
Trump’s Middle East policy often demonstrated contradictory impulses. While he withdrew from the Iran nuclear agreement and imposed punishing sanctions through his “maximum pressure” campaign, he simultaneously resisted military escalation. This reluctance became evident in June 2019 when he called off retaliatory strikes against Iran following the downing of a U.S. surveillance drone.
Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper later wrote in his memoir that Trump frequently expressed concern about being “dragged into another endless Middle East conflict.” My own sources within the Pentagon have long confirmed this hesitancy toward military engagement despite the former president’s often bellicose public statements.
The episode highlights the sometimes divergent security priorities between the United States and Israel, despite their strong alliance. “Israel views Iran’s regime as an existential threat in a way that’s difficult for Americans to fully appreciate,” explains Michael Oren, former Israeli ambassador to the U.S.
Recent polling from the Pew Research Center indicates 76% of Americans oppose assassinations of foreign leaders, viewing such actions as potentially destabilizing. Historical precedent supports this concern—the 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand famously triggered World War I.
The revelation arrives as current President Biden navigates his own complex relationship with Iran, attempting to balance deterrence with diplomatic engagement. State Department spokesman Matthew Miller recently stated, “Our policy remains focused on preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons through a combination of pressure and dialogue.”
Meanwhile, Iran’s nuclear program continues advancing. Recent satellite imagery analyzed by nonproliferation experts indicates expansion at key facilities in Natanz and Fordow. The International Crisis Group estimates Iran’s “breakout time” to produce weapons-grade uranium has shrunk from over a year to potentially just weeks.
I’ve tracked these developments closely since joining Epochedge’s Washington bureau in 2018. The delicate dance between diplomacy and force projection defines America’s Iran strategy regardless of which party controls the White House.
As tensions persist between Israel and Iran, this previously unreported episode offers a rare glimpse into the secretive decision-making processes that shape regional security. It also raises profound questions about the ethics, legality, and strategic wisdom of targeted assassinations as tools of statecraft.
In Washington’s corridors of power, the debate continues about how best to address Iran’s nuclear ambitions and regional influence—with or without Israel’s more aggressive approach. For now, the world can only speculate what might have happened had Trump made a different decision.
For more analysis on Middle East geopolitics, visit Epochedge Politics or follow our comprehensive news coverage.
