The Human Rights Implications of Assassination Threats by State Officials: A Focus on Israeli Authorities

Sahar Barati Borujeni, PhD Student in International Relations, University of Isfahan

Azadeh Najafi, M.A. in International Relations, Allameh Tabataba’i University

Introduction

In 2025, amidst escalating tensions between Iran and Israel, threats of assassination made by state officials—particularly those emanating from high-ranking Israeli authorities—emerged as a critical juncture at the intersection of international law, human rights, and geopolitics. Recent statements by Israel’s Defense Minister Katz against the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (Politico, 2025), have raised profound questions regarding the adherence to and enforcement of international legal norms, especially when such threats are issued by senior governmental figures. These developments necessitate a re-examination and precise articulation of the legal dimensions and broader implications of such conduct.

According to the core principles of the United Nations Charter, states are obligated to refrain from any threat or use of force that compromises the sovereignty and political independence of other nations. A state-sponsored threat of assassination not only violates this fundamental norm but also challenges the framework of international peace and security. Such conduct—especially when it instills fear, destabilizes diplomatic relations, or escalates regional conflict, as seen in the aftermath of the October 2023 clashes between Hamas and Israel and the subsequent confrontation between Iran and Israel—may constitute a breach of human rights (Cingöz, 2025). Accordingly, it is imperative for the international community to hold violators of these norms accountable and to reinforce mechanisms that promote diplomatic engagement.

From the perspective of accountability, mechanisms such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) offer a potential avenue for addressing such violations, particularly when threats escalate into violence or crimes against humanity. However, the effectiveness of these legal instruments is often hampered by various factors. Powerful states frequently evade prosecution through strategic alliances and procedural privileges—a reality evident in the ICC’s limited success in holding officials of influential nations to account (Shereshevsky, 2025). This selective enforcement undermines the credibility of international law and raises serious concerns about systemic inequality in global justice.

Such threats also present profound ethical and diplomatic challenges, eroding normative frameworks for the peaceful resolution of disputes. Moreover, they foster a climate of insecurity and mutual hostility. When senior officials resort to assassination rhetoric—particularly when emboldened by the support of major powers—they exacerbate existing inequities in the international order and complicate interstate relations (Almohawes, 2025).

Although existing legal frameworks provide a foundation for addressing threats made by state actors, their enforcement remains inconsistent and subject to geopolitical influence. Addressing this disparity requires structural reforms that enhance the neutrality, accessibility, and enforceability of international legal institutions. In this context, the following section will focus specifically on the various forms of threats issued by Israeli officials against Iranian leaders.

Types of Threats Issued by Israeli Officials Against Iranian Leaders

A) Explicit Verbal Threats as a Strategic Weapon

The Israeli military assault on Iran in June 2025 marked a turning point in bilateral relations, shifting from decades of proxy and indirect conflict to open and direct confrontation between two states. In this context, Israel’s strategy of threatening rhetoric toward Iran encompassed various dimensions, including explicit verbal threats, legal justifications, and psychological intimidation. These components served not only as instruments for conveying messages and intentions but also as tools for deterrence, mobilizing domestic public opinion, and legitimizing state conduct on the international stage.

One prominent feature of this strategy was the deliberate use of overt verbal threats as a calculated strategic tool. Israeli officials carefully selected their tone to project resolve and pre-empt criticism. For example, on June 13, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that the Israeli operation would continue “as long as necessary to eliminate the threat,” framing it within a broader narrative of self-defense (Speakman Cordall, 2025; Apnews, 2025). This rhetoric was further reinforced by Defense Minister Israel Katz, who stated that Israel would hold “all of Iran’s leadership responsible for any retaliatory action,” thus extending the scope of culpability from military personnel to political elites.

In parallel with these declarations, Israeli leaders escalated public intimidation by targeting Tehran’s civilian population in their threats. Katz’s statement that “the people of Tehran will pay the price” exemplifies this approach. Such rhetoric not only intensified the tone of discourse but also raised serious ethical and legal concerns. By attributing collective responsibility to civilians, such statements blur the distinction between combatants and non-combatants, violating core principles of international humanitarian law (Speakman Cordall, 2025).

Israeli officials also sought to legitimize their actions within international legal frameworks. One of the primary anchors for this effort was the invocation of Article 51 of the UN Charter. The Israeli regime persistently argued that its June 2025 attack was an act of “legitimate self-defense” in response to an alleged imminent threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program. However, legal scholars emphasized the absence of an “imminent armed attack” as required for invoking such justification under international law (Speakman Cordall, 2025; Dabbagh, 2025).

Overall, these verbal assaults form part of Israel’s broader deterrence strategy, aimed at dissuading Iran from advancing its nuclear capabilities (Juneau, 2025). As such, the threats are often direct and personalized, reflecting a calculated effort to influence Iran’s strategic decision-making.

Table 1: Verbal threats by Israeli officials (June 2025)

B) Implicit Threats Through Military Action

The missile and drone exchanges between Israel and Iran in 2024 exemplify implicit threats delivered through military action, reflecting both sides’ readiness to engage in open conflict if diplomacy were to fail. Nonetheless, this posture entailed significant risk of miscalculation. Analysts predicted that Israel’s air force—possibly backed by the United States—would launch extensive strikes on Iranian nuclear and military infrastructure if Tehran crossed predetermined “red lines” concerning its nuclear program (Ivanov, 2025). However, Israel launched its attack while Iran was still engaged in negotiations with the U.S., and there was no credible evidence that Iran posed an imminent nuclear threat at the time.

C) Digital Signaling and Cyber Operations as Pre-Conflict Threats

Cyber operations have played a pivotal role in shaping the covert phase of the Israel–Iran confrontation. These actions function not only as preparatory tools but also as enablers for subsequent kinetic operations. While documentation on cyber reconnaissance preceding the attacks remains limited, reports indicate that the successful deployment of drones previously smuggled into Iranian territory was facilitated by extensive digital mapping and cyber infiltration of Iran’s infrastructure (Apnews, 2025).

Moreover, based on precedent—particularly the 2010 Stuxnet operation—analysts argue that Israel’s planning for these actions likely began months before the open hostilities commenced. This preparatory stage aligns closely with a broader strategic model in which cyber capabilities serve as a key enabler of operational advantage through stealth and surprise.

Strategic and Normative Implications of Israel’s Aggression Against Iran

Israel’s military aggression against Iran produced a dangerously destabilizing context, with profound strategic and normative consequences for both states and broader implications for international security:

1. Challenge to Legal Norms of Preemptive War: Israel’s decision to launch a military assault based on anticipated threats and claims of imminent danger challenged the traditional legal framework governing preemptive warfare—particularly the Caroline Doctrine, which stipulates that self-defense must be in response to a threat that is “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation” (Rand, 2025). By acting outside this narrow legal threshold, Israel set a precedent that could be replicated by other regional powers—such as Pakistan, India, China, or Taiwan—potentially normalizing and expanding the justification for preemptive military action on a global scale.
2. Escalation Dynamics and the Breakdown of Deterrence: The conflict featured escalating cycles of retaliation. Despite Israel’s initial surprise assault, Iran responded forcefully, launching over 100 drones and missiles toward Tel Aviv. This unprecedented direct attack exposed the limitations of deterrence theory in asymmetrical confrontations (Haberman et al., 2025; Apnews, 2025). Rather than curbing threats, preemptive attacks increased the potential for reciprocal violence, intensifying instability and undermining the deterrent logic that such operations purportedly rely upon.
3. Unintended Strengthening of Iranian Sovereignty: Contrary to Israeli objectives, the assault on Iran inadvertently reinforced national unity and regime legitimacy within the Islamic Republic. Instead of weakening Tehran’s position, the attacks sparked a consolidation of domestic support. Prominent clerics issued fatwas condemning Israel as “enemies of God,” which bolstered nationalist and religious cohesion (Borens et al., 2025). This illustrates that foreign military pressure can, under certain conditions, galvanize internal solidarity and strengthen state authority in the face of external threats. Ultimately, Israel not only failed to delegitimize Iran’s leadership, but may have also undermined its own credibility by enabling the very unity it sought to disrupt.

Relevant Treaties, Conventions, and Customary Laws on State-Sponsored Threats of Assassination

• Treaty-Based Prohibitions

The Charter of the United Nations, as the cornerstone of modern international law, establishes binding norms regarding state conduct. Article 2(4) of the Charter explicitly prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. While the provision primarily addresses physical aggression, international courts and legal scholars have interpreted it broadly to include coercive verbal acts that carry the potential for violence (Grenfell, 2013). Beyond the UN Charter, several other international treaties reinforce this prohibition:

• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): This covenant obligates states to prevent incitement to violence, including threats made against individuals such as government officials.
• Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide: This treaty criminalizes incitement to genocide and underscores the responsibility of states to prevent all forms of hate speech and violent rhetoric with malicious intent (Johnmary, 2024).

Together, these instruments form a comprehensive normative framework that restricts state behavior, including the verbal conduct of high-ranking officials.

• Customary International Law

Customary international law complements treaty-based norms and provides additional grounds for assessing the legality of threats of assassination. It centers around two key domains: the principle of sovereignty and non-intervention, and the prohibition of extrajudicial killings.

• Sovereignty and Non-Intervention: This principle emphasizes the equal sovereignty of states and prohibits interference in the internal affairs of other nations. Threats to assassinate foreign officials can be interpreted as violations of this principle, warranting international condemnation or diplomatic sanctions (Mansell & Openshaw, 2013; Reydams, 2003).
• Prohibition of Extrajudicial Killings: Under customary law, unlawful killings—including threats of assassination, especially when issued by state actors—are prohibited. Such acts may incur individual criminal liability under international law (Kittrie, 2007).

• International Humanitarian Law

International humanitarian law (IHL) lays down rules governing the conduct of hostilities and primarily aims to protect individuals not participating in armed conflict, such as civilians. Although IHL generally applies during active armed conflicts, its core principles—such as distinction and proportionality—guide the lawful behavior of states. Threats of assassination, even outside declared conflicts, contradict the spirit of IHL, particularly by eroding the principle of distinction, which requires parties to differentiate between military and civilian targets, including state officials.

Moreover, such threats impede de-escalation, endanger civilian lives, and complicate humanitarian protections. Accountability mechanisms under IHL—such as investigations by international tribunals or the International Criminal Court—are tools available for addressing these violations (Luban, 2015; Kolotukha, 2023; Sassóli, 2007). Strengthening the protective framework for civilians and ensuring the effective enforcement of humanitarian law remains a vital priority for the international community, as it helps not only reduce the risks of violence but also enhances a culture of global accountability.

Political, Social, and Legal Consequences of Assassination Threats

Threats of assassination by state officials carry multifaceted implications within the framework of international relations, touching on legal, political, and social dimensions. Such threats not only challenge fundamental norms of international law but also risk destabilizing diplomatic relations and undermining global peace and security.

• Political Consequences of Assassination Threats

Assassination threats issued by state actors can significantly damage international diplomacy and geopolitical stability. These threats often provoke retaliatory measures such as sanctions or military posturing and elevate the risk of escalating conflicts (Steinberg, 2006). They may also trigger widespread international condemnation. In such cases, the global community often responds through formal denunciations, multilateral resolutions, or targeted sanctions intended to deter future misconduct and uphold international norms (Mayer, 1996).

• Social Consequences of Assassination Threats

Beyond their political and legal implications, threats of assassination have powerful effects on societal perceptions and domestic cohesion. Threatening rhetoric may fuel nationalism, xenophobia, and inter-state hostility, leading to heightened tensions and potential cycles of violence (Donoho, 1991). In both the threatening and targeted societies, such threats can instill fear, anxiety, and social unrest. Citizens may demand stronger governmental responses—potentially complicating diplomacy and influencing political decisions in ways that make future conflict more likely (Herzberg, 2008).

• Legal Consequences of Assassination Threats

When issued by government officials, assassination threats entail a wide spectrum of legal consequences, especially when such statements are part of a broader pattern of aggression or public intimidation. Mechanisms such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) may hold individuals accountable for crimes against peace, including threats that indicate preparation for acts of aggression (Wilmshurst, 2012). Additionally, the international community frequently employs economic and diplomatic tools—such as asset freezes, travel bans, or suspensions from international organizations—to express disapproval and impose tangible costs on perpetrators (Zhu, 2009).

Conclusion

The use of assassination threats by Israeli officials against Iranian leaders constitutes a clear violation of international law and human rights norms. These actions—amounting to extrajudicial incitement to violence—stand in direct contradiction to the UN Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, while contributing to regional instability and heightened tensions.

This approach reflects a troubling prioritization of strategic interests over adherence to international legal obligations and undermines the global legal order. When high-level state actors employ such rhetoric with the backing—implicit or explicit—of powerful allies, it not only erodes the normative foundations of diplomacy but also exacerbates the inequities embedded within the international system.

Ultimately, such behavior calls into question the integrity of global governance structures and demands renewed efforts to strengthen the mechanisms of accountability. Upholding the principles of international law, ensuring the protection of civilian populations, and promoting a diplomatic culture of de-escalation are imperative steps toward reversing the normalization of political violence in interstate relations.

References

• Ahmed, S. (2025). The Middle East: Terrorism, international law, and the cosmopolitan myth. Critical Studies on Terrorism, 18, 400–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/17539153.2025.2461727
• Almohawes, M. (2025). International relations and its effect on enforcement of international law: The case studies of Ukraine and Syria. Access to Justice in Eastern Europe. https://doi.org/10.33327/ajee-18-8.1-a000109
• Associated Press. (2025). Israel strikes Iran’s nuclear sites and kills top generals. Iran retaliates with missile barrages. https://apnews.com/article/iran-explosions-israel-tehran-00234a06e5128a8aceb406b140297299
• Borens, A., Wells, K., Parry, A., & Carter, B. (2025). Iran update. Institute for the Study of War. https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iran-update-june-30-2025
• Cingöz, M. (2025). Iran’s Palestinian policy after Hamas’ 7 October attack. MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi. https://doi.org/10.33206/mjss.1567000
• Dabbagh, H. (2025). What Israel’s attack on Iran means for the future of war. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2025/7/1/what-israels-attack-on-iran-means-for-the-future-of-war
• Donoho, D. (1991). Relativism versus universalism in human rights: The search for meaningful standards. Stanford Journal of International Law, 27, 345–391. https://nova.elsevierpure.com/en/publications/relativism-versus-universalism-in-human-rights-the-search-for-mea-2
• Haberman, M., Fassihi, F., Schmitt, E., Boxerman, A., & Shear, M. D. (2025). Israel and Iran trade new rounds of attacks. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/22/world/israel-iran-us-trump
• Ivanov, S. M. (2025). The Middle East remains in a state of military-political turbulence. Diplomaticheskaja Sluzhba (Diplomatic Service). https://doi.org/10.33920/vne-01-2501-01
• Johnmary, A. (2024). Examining the legality of the use of force in international law. Newport International Journal of Research in Education. https://doi.org/10.59298/nijre/2024/4344490
• Juneau, T. (2025). Iran’s Annus Horribilis in 2024: Beaten, but not defeated. Middle East Policy. https://doi.org/10.1111/mepo.12814
• Kittrie, O. F. (2007). Emboldened by impunity: The history and consequences of failure to enforce Iranian violations of international law. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=991043
• Kolotukha, I. (2023). Features of responsibility of commanders during the war. Analytical and Comparative Jurisprudence. https://doi.org/10.24144/2788-6018.2022.06.59
• Grenfell, K. (2013). Perspective on the applicability and application of international humanitarian law: The UN context. International Review of the Red Cross, 95, 645–652. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383114000217
• Luban, D. (2015). Human rights thinking and the laws of war. In J. D. Ohlin (Ed.), Theoretical boundaries of armed conflict and human rights (pp. 45–77). Cambridge University Press.
• Mansell, W., & Openshaw, K. (2013). International law: A critical introduction. Bloomsbury Publishing. https://www.google.com/books/edition/International_Law/CgupDwAAQBAJ?hl=en
• Mayer, A. (1996). Islamic rights or human rights: An Iranian dilemma. Iranian Studies, 29(3–4), 269–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/00210869608701851
• (2025). Israel threatens Iran’s top leader after missiles damage hospital and wound more than 200. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/19/israel-threatens-irans-top-leader-after-missiles-damage-hospital-and-wound-more-than-200-00414195
• RAND Corporation. (2025). The Israel–Iran conflict: Q&A with RAND experts. https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2025/06/the-israel-iran-conflict-qa-with-rand-experts.html
• Reydams, L. (2010). Universal jurisdiction: International and municipal legal perspectives. Oxford University Press.
• Sassóli, M. (2007). Ius ad bellum and ius in bello: The separation between the legality of the use of force and humanitarian rules to be respected in warfare: Crucial or outdated? In Y. Dinstein (Ed.), War crimes in international law (pp. 391–408). Martinus Nijhoff. https://doi.org/10.1163/EJ.9789004154285.I-590.51
• Shereshevsky, Y. (2025). Complementarity (un)fairness: Powerful states and their ability to avoid ICC proceedings by conducting domestic investigations. Journal of International Criminal Justice, mqaf013. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqaf013
• Speakman Cordall, S. (2025). What is behind Israel’s decision to attack Iran?. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/13/what-is-behind-israels-decision-to-attack-iran
• Steinberg, G. M. (2006). Soft powers play hardball: NGOs wage war against Israel. Israel Affairs, 12, 748–768. https://doi.org/10.1080/13533310600890083
• Wilmshurst, E. (2012). International law and the classification of conflicts. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780199657759.001.0001
• Zhu, L. (2009). Chinese practice in public international law: 2008. Chinese Journal of International Law, 8, 493–551. https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmp011