Iranian clerics call for assassination of Trump and Netanyahu

[Twiglets1]

Article in The Telegraph reports that Iran’s most senior clerics have called for the assassination of Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu.

In a 10-point statement, the Assembly of Experts said the killing of “the criminal American president” and “the wicked prime minister of the Zionist regime” was a religious duty.

Assassinating the two leaders – whom they described as mahdour al-dam, or deserving of death – “must not be neglected under any circumstances”.

In their call for Mr Trump and Mr Netanyahu to be assassinated, the clerics wrote that avenging the blood of Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader who was killed on the first day of the war, remained “paramount”.

“It is obligatory upon any duty-bound person who gains access to these criminals to send them to hell,” they added.

The language read like a religious edict but stopped short of a formal fatwa, which in Shia Islam is issued by an individual cleric in his own name rather than by a group.

The Assembly of Experts is an 88-member body of clerics constitutionally tasked with choosing and supervising the supreme leader.

The statement shows how fractured the establishment has become.

Only about 63 of the body’s members signed it, and the Assembly’s secretariat distanced itself hours later.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/06/30/iranian-clerics-call-for-trump-assassination/

My Iranian friends tell me the hardline clerics there are dangerous nutjobs. That’s as much as I know about it, other than what I read on the news.

That said, I don’t know how much we need to know about it to say that inciting the faithful to commit murder is evil, and the polar opposite of holy. No matter who they’re telling their followers to off.

Fair enough.

Iranian clerics bad.

End of thread really. What else is there to say ?

It does always surprise me when posters seem to leap to the defence of the Iranian regime. It seems as reasonable to me as leaping to defend the Russian or North Korean regimes.

I’d be interested in a discussion with some detail on the regime, its factions, its funding of terrorist organisations, whether the opposition are gaining traction, etc.

I didn't make your point for you.

If you wanted to speak about both sides doing it you should have said that instead of just choosing one side so you may have made your own point. If it doesn't help anyone to be like that, why did you start it.

Even by thinking one side is favoured is just feeding into the "point".

I have not seen anyone jump to the defense of the Iranian Government here.

Maybe you think me using the word "government" instead of "Regime" means I support them ? Well I don't.

To me, the whole thing is getting close to some criminal being sentenced to prison, and other cons saying "he need watch his back". Now I don't agree with cons saying that, I think prison should be safe. But there is still a bit of me that is meh about it.

Eh??

I made it VERY clear that I was talking about both ‘sides’.

I gave one example for illustrative purposes. I chose the one I see more of, given the relative weight of numbers of posters ‘for’ each ‘side’ generally on the board. But it could have been the other way around - I don’t agree with it when either side does it - but I wasn’t going to add both, in the interest of not making the post longer.

I’m not sure how much clearer I could have been that I was talking in the general.

The touchiness you have demonstrated - twice now - does indeed prove my point.

I wasn’t thinking anything about you using the word ‘government’. That feels like a correct term to me, sadly.

And to add, when I say ‘leaping to the defence of the goverment’, I meant the deflecting and whataboutery - posters talking about Trump and Netanyahu’s iniquities, for example, rather than expressing upset at so-called men of religion telling their followers to commit murder.

Not touchy at all. What a strange thing to say on a discussion forum.

You didn't make it clear at all.But if you want to make the point it's both then maybe an extra sentence in your post would clarify that. Its not much in a lengthy post.

It is pretty difficult to defend Trump and Netanyahu. And if someone can't defend Trump and Netanyahu, is it not natural to instantly think of why they can't defend them ?

See my bit above where I mention the idea of "prison justice" and the "meh" factor. This is not on the same scale as the Fatwa against Rushdie. I don't think so anyway. If I started a thread saying the prison death threats against some recently jailed con were outrageous, do you really think nobody would mention why the con is in jail ?

Very much agree. Posters will use deflection and whataboutery rather than talking about anything that casts Iran in a bad light.

One of the problems with men of religion acting like the mafia is it makes their religious beliefs look fake. Like if Pope Leo suddenly called on Catholics around the world to assassinate Trump, people would be shocked and question his faith.

If he was part of a group of top religious clerics all doing the same thing, it would suggest none of them were really men of religion but rather men of power cynically using their influence to achieve a desired outcome - murder.

If religion in this day and age is used to do things like order assassinations, how do we know as a society if we should still respect others' religious beliefs or not?

“but men of power cynically using their influence to achieve a desired outcome - murder.”

But yet you fail to see that Trump and Netanyahu are men of power. Not necessarily men of religion, but men of power nevertheless, and they have done exactly the same thing. Commit murder.

Religion is used in this day and age to call for people to be killed. It is far from unique to Iranian clerics. See my posts above re US evangelicals calling for gays to be killed by the Government. They made that come true in Uganda too.

The above post is justification for whataboutism being valid on this subject. Because if the above poster is suggesting that what a cleric of one religion says means ALL of that religion is tarnished, then surely that logic holds for all religions?

I don't see anyone saying The King should not do his Church thing because a Christian leader says gays should be executed.

They use religion non stop.

Edit. In my above post where I referenced the above post, did not mean yours of course.

I get your point. Doubt Donald could recite the Lord’s Prayer to be honest.

Of course I see that Trump and Netanyahu are men of power too. But this particular thread is not about world leaders abusing their power it is about the Iranian clerics.

This is just more whataboutery. I'll be sure to mention the Iranian clerics on threads about Trump and Netanyahu. People will think I've lost my mind but there you go.

I don’t think anyone reading this thread will think I have lost my mind. I hope they will see the double standards that you are trying to apply. Clerics, men of the cloth, shouldn’t promote murder. The POTUS, and Benjamin Netanyahu, who have committed murder, totally absolved. It makes no sense.

Or did these men of power not use their power cynically? Honestly, it doesn’t make sense.

I never suggested using religion for violent purposes is unique to the Iranian clerics. Nevertheless, it's pretty unique what they have done I think? Can't think of any other religious leaders who have called for people around the world to try to assassinate 2 world leaders.

I was talking about all religions when I said If religion in this day and age is used to do things like order assassinations, how do we know as a society if we should still respect others' religious beliefs or not? I don't respect anyone that uses religion to order assassinations and I don't respect the US evangelicals who call for death to gay people.

I don't think any UK church leaders have said that gay people should be executed. If people said that sort of thing in the UK now it wouldn't be tolerated (rightly so). Very different values from Iranian extremists and US extremists.

Who said they are totally absolved? They haven't been, they have been strongly criticised for starting the Iran war for example.

Clerics and men of the cloth shouldn't promote murder - that shouldn't be a controversial thing to say.

The POTUS and the Prime Minister of Israel shouldn’t commit murder either. But here we are.

whataboutery

It came across as touchy to me 🤷‍♀️

👍 I’ll consider adjusting my expectations of readers.

I wouldn’t defend either of them, myself.

My point is that they didn’t need defending. It wasn’t them (this time) committing the egregious act. The Iranian clerics shouldn’t be calling for their murder no matter what they’ve done. Apart from anything else, why on earth are they egging their faithful on to carrying out such a heinous crime?

do you really think nobody would mention why the con is in jail ?

I agree 100% with you that people would mention that, for sure. You can’t expect to come across nobody who disagrees with you in life. Equally, though, I wouldn’t agree that the con should be murdered summarily by a fellow prisoner, regardless of what they had done.

I couldn’t agree more.

I’ve just had an image of the Archbishop of Canterbury calling for the CofE faithful to hunt down Putin and murder him. it was so far away from what she would ever do or say, that it was actually amusing.