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/

Think there would be a few threads about that on MN and the response wouldn’t be Meh…

Liberals shed more tears over tyrants being killed. I can't even begin to imagine mourning the assassination of a man who orders women to be stoned to death.

Of course leaders shouldn’t be calling for assassinations nor extra judicial killings. That it’s a religious leader is remarkable, but so is targeted killing by a democratic state allied to the West. It’s something we expect from Russia or other authoritarian states. It’s illegal.

For a religious state, a cleric also has a clear leadership role. It’s not whataboutery to make a comparison as to how leaders of different types of states act and what they say.

Imagine how uniquely horrifying the Iranian clerics call to assassinate others would be if it didn’t occur in a world were Iranian leadership has itself been assassinated, alongside Iranian scientists etc. by Israel.

Iran seems to exist in a region where assassination of prominent people by other countries seem to be part of doing business. It not unreasonable to draw attention to this, particularly given recent events.

For the Iranian clerics - this may have a religious basis. Reminds me of the religious tone of some of the violent rhetoric against Gazans by some Israeli leaders, including Rabbis.

This will also be sidelined as whataboutery by those not wanting to hear uncomfortable truths.

Who’s been mourning him on this thread? I don’t think any sane person would mourn the Iranian regime leaders

How so? Which country has killed who? Do you think it’s ok for another country to go in and kill another countries leader? Clearly you do. And yet here you are saying that Clerics shouldn’t do this. Double standards much?

Just more whataboutery. Clerics shouldn’t do it! And see how ridiculous it is even having to defend that statement if we swap clerics for the Archbishop of Canterbury or Pope Leo. What makes the Iranian religious clerics so different they get a free pass to openly ordering assassinations?? They seem to have more in common with the mafia than genuine people of religion.

I don’t agree with a President or Prime Minister authorising the killing of another country’s leader. The Ayatollah I wasn’t bothered about on account of the thousands of Iranian protesters that were being murdered under his watch and the human rights abuses being inflicted upon his own people. But anyway, that’s a different topic to assassinations being called by a group who aren’t the elected leaders of the country. Or are you saying the Iranian clerics are effectively running Iran?

Even just from a timing perspective the actions of this group should be condemned as it’s an inappropriate time to call for assassinations while Iran and the US have both signed the Memorandum of Understanding and negotiators have 60 days to agree a framework for peace. Seems like the Iranian clerics don’t want peace but WW3. Not very holy of them is it?

There’s nothing very holy about anyone in this stupid war, no.

But this is ok is it? Because it’s just Israel planning the assassinations? Not Clerics.

“Senior U.S. officials feared that Israel intended to assassinate Iran’s top negotiators as the Trump administration pursued a high-stakes deal to end the war there and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, current and former officials familiar with the matter said.
Washington’s objection to killing Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister, and Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the country’s parliamentary speaker, was so acute that this spring it took the extraordinary step of asking intermediaries to warn Iran about Israel’s assassination aims, the officials said.
“You kill those folks and you’re killing the pragmatists,” said a U.S. official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the U.S. outlook on Israel’s targeted killing campaign.”

Excerpt From
“U.S. warned Iran about Israel’s aims to assassinate leaders”
John Hudson, Ellen Nakashima
The Washington Post
https://apple.news/APOhEIdo5TVCpJrDm3OFGBA
This material may be protected by copyright.

But this is ok is it? Because it’s just Israel planning the assassinations? Not Clerics.

Am I missing something? Where has anybody said that this is ok?

Well, this is why what the clerics said is important I think. Does anyone have the document they issued, translated.

Because if they said " We approve the killing of A and B because of XYZ and said they will kill us", then what A and B say are totally valid to the discussion.

If I threatened to kill someone and the cops turned up at my door, any backstory would matter. If they had already killed my family and were threatening to kill everyone else and burn my house down, the cops (and the beak) might take that into account.

Would you not agree ?

No it’s not “ok” for anyone to order assassinations of world leaders, I already said that. And for the Israeli military to consider assassinating Iranian negotiators seems unwise which is probably why they didn’t do it.

This thread is about religious leaders ordering assassinations though. They shouldn’t be doing that if they are supposed to be some spiritual authority. I think this demonstrates they are religious in name only.

Yes a bit like Trump if he claims to believe in God. But no one goes to him for spiritual guidance I imagine (hope).

Posts like this do confuse me. Because what do you mean by liberal here ?

Because in political terms, so far as I can make out, liberals cover everyone as per liberal democracy. Surely the opposite of liberal is in the authoritarian/theocracy/dictatorship group.

That is my understanding of it anyway. Happy to be corrected. Political terms do tend to get muddled up.

Well let’s hope the good old US of A has yanked Israel’s chain hard enough to prevent any more assassinations at this funeral. Because negotiations will be well and truly off the table if Israel murder anyone else.

This thread is about religious leaders ordering assassinations though. They shouldn’t be doing that if they are supposed to be some spiritual authority. I think this demonstrates they are religious in name only.

You didn't have a single word of condemnation when you broke the news that Trump and Netanyahu assassinated Irans leader, not even a 'they shouldn't be doing that'. No scolding of the posters who replied to you celebrating his assassination, no surprise that posters were celebrating a leaders actual assassination like you expressed surprise that people were 'shrugging their shoulders' at words on this thread. That's where this thread falls flat for me. I don't really understand where you are coming from with it? Are you very religious yourself is that why you take more issue with words from clerics than people actually being assassinated? Maybe if this thread is about religion and not assassinations it would have gone better on the religion board or whatever it is called.

I just reported the story about the start of the Iran war and the Ayatollah's assassination in a neutral way.

I didn't "scold" posters who replied celebrating his assassination, no - I could understand that people felt emotional after all the build up we had been reading/seeing in the media about what the IRGC were doing in murdering thousands of their own civilians for protesting. The regime is toxic and the Ayatollah was their figurehead so I could understand people being glad he was dead. That doesn't mean I agree with assassinating world leaders, I don't.

I would have expressed more surprise and yes condemnation if the assassination had been done on the orders of the Pope/Archbishop of Canterbury.

Do Mumsnetters have a duty to monitor all threads and scold every poster who they disagree with?

I’m not sure I follow, sorry if I’m missing something that should be obvious.

The post I quoted made an accusation that posters had been saying that Israel’s actions were ok. I hadn’t seen that on the thread, so was asking who had said they were. If somebody did, then that’s going to be very easy to quote.

The OP was about the Iranian clerics - supposedly men of God - inciting their followers - supposedly Muslims - to commit murder. It wasn’t about other leaders, and there was a specific point being discussed about the fact it was religious leaders - not state leaders - making the call.

It would make a very brief thread if we just all agreed, yes clerics shouldn’t be ordering killings. Who disagrees with this? No-one that I can see.

What else do you think there is say on this @Twiglets1 before you agree we are allowed to discuss the clerics order in the context in which it was made?

Nah. Because then threads become about who posts what rather than what they post. For example, I notice some posters who post a decent amount on what do appear to be anti-Muslim threads. But I don't say "you seem to have an anti Muslim thing going on"

I also notice posts have been removed from this thread, hence reported. But I can't recall seeing anything offensive being posted.

This is why I am asking if anyone has what the clerics actually said. I can't get that on my net, can anyone else ?

And do you agree with the point that I made, that threats can have mitigating circumstances. Do you agree with that ?

Really this instance of A threatening B because B threatened A can be traced back decades. Is this war not about Iran threatening to nuke Israel ? So it does really go back to 1979 and who threatened who first.

Personally I would like to see this cycle stop, through dialogue, not bombs.

But if this is specifically about what the clerics said this time, then mitigating stuff does come in.

This is not an anti Muslim thread. It is a thread about Iranian clerics calling for the assassination of 2 world leaders. If you said you seem to have an anti Muslim thing going on, your post would get deleted because that's a personal attack and you are confusing anti Muslim with anti Islamic extremists.

I am anti Islamic extremists, which these clerics clearly are. To be clear, so are the IRGC, Hamas and Hezbollah. I think we should all agree they deserve to be criticised and it's harsh on ordinary Muslims to think they should all be lumped in with Islamic extremists.

This is what Laura Loomer posted on her social media in regards to the Ayatollah’s funeral. She is a staunch ally of Donald’s.

Loomer stirred the internet on Thursday with a post indicating the idea of bombing Iran. She replied to a post stating that Khamenei's body was currently in cold storage as Iran prepared for a “historic funeral” by writing, “A funeral for Khameni? That’s what we call a target rich environment. 💣," on her social media handle.

But she’s not a cleric, so that’s ok then.

You would think so from the people - regular posters - who seem to have come onto this thread purely to say there's no point in it and nothing to discuss.

They could have just ignored it which is what normally happens with threads that people don't think there's any point in.

Yet this one has turned out to be quite long due to some feeling the need to be argumentative. It doesn't really matter, it's transparent that they don't want any focus on the Iranian clerics for some reason.

I'm leaving this thread now as there's nothing new being said anyway. Thank you for your contributions and understanding what the thread was about.

I could understand that people felt emotional after all the build up we had been reading/seeing in the media about what the IRGC were doing in murdering thousands of their own civilians for protesting.

You understood people celebrating an assisination yet you are 'surprised' when people shrug their shoulders at words about 2 men who are responsible for the deaths of 10s of 1000s of innocent people and the suffering of millions and millions more?

You 'report neutrally' on actual assisinations but then condemn words from clerics.

Like I said it just doesn't really add up for me.

Who's said it's ok?

I think she's an absolute lunatic, who spouts dangerous nonsense.

What she isn't, though, is a religious leader. These people are in a position where they can wield huge influence and appear to be trying to lead people to believe their spiritual wellbeing depends on carrying out the worst crimes.

Surely you see the distinction?

The thread is about the religious leaders of Iran. Do you approve of them?