Iran's Vow: Why Donald Trump Remains A Target

Kenyon Legros 20 Jun 2025

The notion of a sovereign nation actively seeking the assassination of a former U.S. President is not only alarming but also deeply unsettling, raising profound questions about international relations and global security. For years, whispers and outright declarations have circulated regarding Iran's alleged desire to eliminate Donald Trump. These aren't mere rumors; they are claims backed by intelligence briefings, public statements from high-ranking officials, and ongoing investigations. The question isn't whether such threats exist, but rather, *why does Iran want to kill Trump*? This article delves into the complex web of geopolitical motivations, historical events, and explicit declarations that underpin this extraordinary animosity.

Understanding the depth of this animosity requires a journey through recent history, examining the pivotal moments and policies that have irrevocably shaped the relationship between Washington and Tehran during and after the Trump presidency. From specific military actions to broader diplomatic stances, the reasons behind Iran's declared intent are multifaceted, yet converge on a singular, potent desire for retribution and strategic advantage.

The Unmistakable Threat: Why Iran Targets Trump
Soleimani's Shadow: The Genesis of Iranian Vows
- The Strategic Importance of Qassem Soleimani
- Iran's Public Declaration of Vengeance
Trump's Aggressive Middle East Policies: Fueling the Fire
- "Enemy Number One": A Label Earned
Proxy Warfare and Intelligence Operations: Iran's Modus Operandi
Unsubstantiated Accusations vs. Credible Threats: The Official Stance
- The Legal Path vs. Direct Action
Security Lapses and Heightened Alert: Protecting Former Officials
A Rogue Nation's Motive: Understanding Iran's Geopolitical Stance

The Unmistakable Threat: Why Iran Targets Trump

The severity of the threats against former President Donald Trump is not a matter of conjecture but a subject of serious intelligence assessments and public statements. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, when pressed by Fox News' Bret Baier about his claim that Iran launched two assassination attempts, unequivocally stated, "through proxies, yes." He further elaborated, "through, through their intel, yes, they want to kill him." This direct assertion from a key regional ally underscores the perceived reality of the danger. Indeed, in September, Trump’s campaign confirmed he had been briefed on “real and specific threats from Iran to assassinate him,” with Trump himself posting on social media about “big threats on my life by Iran.”

These warnings are not isolated incidents. CNN reported on Tuesday that U.S. officials recently learned of a plot to assassinate Trump by Iran, citing a U.S. national security official speaking on condition of anonymity. This continuous flow of intelligence and public acknowledgment from various sources paints a consistent picture: the threat is real, persistent, and actively monitored by U.S. security agencies. The question of *why Iran wants to kill Trump* moves from a speculative query to an urgent geopolitical concern, demanding a deeper understanding of the underlying motivations.

Soleimani's Shadow: The Genesis of Iranian Vows

At the heart of Iran's declared animosity towards Donald Trump lies a singular, pivotal event: the U.S. ordered killing of Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani in January 2020. This drone strike, carried out on Trump's direct order, was a seismic shock to the Iranian establishment and its regional allies. Experts widely agree that Iran has threatened to assassinate Donald Trump ever since this operation. For Tehran, Soleimani was not just a military leader; he was a national hero, a strategic mastermind, and a symbol of Iran's regional influence. His death was perceived as an act of state terrorism, a direct assault on the core of the Islamic Republic's security apparatus.

The Strategic Importance of Qassem Soleimani

General Qassem Soleimani led the Quds Force, the extraterritorial operations arm of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). He was instrumental in shaping Iran's foreign policy and projecting its power across the Middle East, from Syria and Iraq to Lebanon and Yemen. Soleimani orchestrated proxy wars, supported allied militias, and was seen as the architect of Iran's "axis of resistance" against the U.S. and its regional partners. His elimination was a significant blow to Iran's strategic capabilities and its leadership's prestige. Hajizadeh, a high-ranking Iranian official, explicitly stated that Iran did not intend to kill "poor soldiers" stationed at the base in retaliation for Soleimani's death, but that "Trump and his top officials were the true target." This clarifies the specific, high-level nature of Iran's desired vengeance.

Iran's Public Declaration of Vengeance

Following Soleimani's death, Iranian officials, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, openly vowed "harsh revenge." This wasn't a veiled threat but a public commitment to retribution. The "Data Kalimat" provided reinforces this, stating that "Iranian officials have said quite openly that they want to avenge the death of an" individual they considered a national hero. For Iran, avenging Soleimani's death is a matter of national honor and deterrence. Failure to retaliate, in their view, would signal weakness and invite further aggression. The threats against Trump are a direct fulfillment of this vow, underscoring the deep-seated belief within the Iranian leadership that justice, as they define it, must be served.

Trump's Aggressive Middle East Policies: Fueling the Fire

Beyond the immediate catalyst of Soleimani's killing, the broader context of Donald Trump's aggressive Middle East policies significantly deepened Iran's animosity. From withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, to imposing crippling sanctions and adopting a confrontational stance, Trump's administration pursued a "maximum pressure" campaign designed to isolate and weaken Iran. Netanyahu described Iran's animosity toward Trump as "deeply rooted in his aggressive Middle East policies, including the U.S." actions.

The nuclear deal, signed under the Obama administration, was seen by Iran as a pathway to economic relief and international legitimacy. Trump's unilateral withdrawal in 2018, despite Iran's compliance as certified by the IAEA, was viewed as an act of betrayal and economic warfare. This move, coupled with increased military presence in the region and strong rhetoric, solidified Iran's perception of Trump as a relentless adversary.

"Enemy Number One": A Label Earned

The cumulative effect of these policies led Iranian officials to label Trump as their "enemy number one." This isn't just political rhetoric; it reflects a genuine belief within the Iranian establishment that Trump actively sought to undermine their regime and destabilize the region to their detriment. The "maximum pressure" campaign aimed to choke Iran's economy, disrupt its regional influence, and potentially provoke internal unrest. For a regime that prides itself on resistance and resilience, such actions naturally breed intense resentment and a desire for payback. The targeting of Trump, therefore, is not merely about avenging Soleimani but also about striking at the symbol of a policy that inflicted immense hardship and humiliation upon Iran.

Proxy Warfare and Intelligence Operations: Iran's Modus Operandi

Iran has a well-documented history of utilizing proxy groups and sophisticated intelligence operations to achieve its objectives abroad, often denying direct involvement. As Netanyahu pointed out, Iran's assassination attempts are often conducted "through proxies" and "through their intel." This method allows Iran a degree of plausible deniability, making it harder for direct retaliation while still achieving its goals. The U.S. Justice Department has indeed "launched numerous investigations and prosecutions into such efforts, including into plots against former Trump politicians or officials — including perhaps Trump." This highlights a pattern of behavior that aligns with the current threats.

The use of proxies provides Iran with deniability and asymmetric warfare capabilities, allowing it to project power and exert influence without engaging in direct military confrontation with superior forces like the U.S. These proxies, often well-funded and trained, can operate covertly across continents, making them difficult to track and neutralize. This network makes the threats against Trump and other former officials credible, as Iran possesses the means and the established infrastructure to potentially carry out such operations, even if indirectly.

Unsubstantiated Accusations vs. Credible Threats: The Official Stance

While U.S. intelligence and officials consistently warn of credible threats, Iran has consistently denied trying to assassinate U.S. officials. In rejecting accusations of the plot, Iran’s mission to the U.N. stated, “these accusations are unsubstantiated and malicious.” According to Iranian state media, Iran's mission to the U.N. also said Iran had "chosen the legal path to bring Trump to justice, and that Trump was a criminal." This public stance suggests a dual strategy: deny direct involvement in assassination plots while simultaneously maintaining the narrative that Trump is a criminal who deserves justice, implying a form of accountability.

However, the U.S. government's assessment remains firm. U.S. officials received information about an Iranian threat to former President Donald Trump, prompting the Secret Service to increase security around him. This proactive measure by a primary security agency underscores the seriousness with which these threats are perceived, regardless of Iran's public denials. The disparity between Iran's public statements and U.S. intelligence assessments highlights the complex and often opaque nature of international espionage and state-sponsored activities.

The Legal Path vs. Direct Action

Iran's claim of pursuing a "legal path" to bring Trump to justice is a significant rhetorical move. It allows them to maintain a posture of adherence to international law while simultaneously fueling the narrative of Trump's culpability. This "legal path" often involves symbolic gestures, such as issuing arrest warrants through Interpol (which are largely ignored due to their political nature) or pursuing cases in international courts, though the jurisdiction for such cases against a former U.S. president is highly contentious. This approach provides a diplomatic veneer, even as the underlying threat of direct action persists. It's a way for Iran to keep the pressure on Trump and his associates, even if direct assassination attempts are denied.

Security Lapses and Heightened Alert: Protecting Former Officials

The gravity of the threats extends beyond Donald Trump himself, encompassing other key figures from his administration who were involved in the Soleimani operation or his broader Iran policy. Trump’s former national security adviser, Robert O’Brien, had a U.S. government security detail due to threats from Iran, "like Pompeo and other former Trump officials." This indicates a systematic targeting of individuals perceived to be responsible for actions against Iran. Although the warning of the heightened threat to the Trump campaign is new, it has "long been known that Iran is targeting former Trump administration officials involved in the killing of Iranian" leaders.

The Secret Service, responsible for protecting former presidents, has taken these threats seriously. Reports indicate that a "key intelligence input was overlooked by the US Secret Service," though it's clarified that "there is no Iranian hand in Trump's assassination attempt" related to that specific lapse. However, the input "did indicate that the country will seek to assassinate the former president." This suggests a constant state of vigilance and the need for enhanced security measures around Trump and his former aides. The "security lapses are being investigated," further emphasizing the ongoing nature of the threat assessment and mitigation efforts.

A Rogue Nation's Motive: Understanding Iran's Geopolitical Stance

The United States has consistently labeled Iran a "rogue nation," a designation that implies a state operating outside the norms of international law and engaging in destabilizing behavior. This label, while contentious, provides a framework for understanding Iran's potential motive to kill Trump. A "rogue nation" designation suggests that Iran "may have the motive to kill Trump" as a means of projecting power, deterring future aggression, or simply settling scores outside conventional diplomatic channels. For Iran, striking at a former U.S. president would be an unprecedented act, but one that, from their perspective, could serve multiple strategic purposes.

Firstly, it would be the ultimate act of revenge for Soleimani's death, fulfilling their public vows. Secondly, it would send a powerful message to any future U.S. administration considering aggressive actions against Iran, acting as a significant deterrent. Thirdly, it could boost the morale of Iran's regional proxies and demonstrate its resolve to its adversaries. While such an act would undoubtedly trigger massive international condemnation and potential retaliation, the perceived benefits within Iran's strategic calculations might outweigh the risks for some hardliners. This complex interplay of revenge, deterrence, and geopolitical positioning forms the core of *why Iran wants to kill Trump*.

The rhetoric from both sides remains charged. President Trump, on occasion, would not directly answer questions about whether the U.S. would attack Iran but urged the nation to "make a deal," stating, "I may do it, I may not do it." This volatile dynamic, characterized by threats, denials, and counter-threats, underscores the precarious state of U.S.-Iran relations and the ongoing danger posed by the unresolved grievances stemming from the Trump era.

Conclusion

The question of *why Iran wants to kill Trump* is rooted in a clear and publicly stated desire for vengeance following the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, compounded by the broader impact of Trump's "maximum pressure" policies. Despite Iran's official denials, U.S. intelligence and security agencies continue to assess these threats as credible and specific, leading to heightened security measures for the former president and his associates. The ongoing investigations into plots against former officials, coupled with explicit statements from figures like Benjamin Netanyahu, underscore the seriousness of the situation.

This geopolitical tension highlights the dangerous ripple effects of high-stakes military actions and confrontational foreign policy. The declared intent to target a former head of state represents an unprecedented level of animosity, one that continues to shape security concerns years after Trump left office. Understanding these complex motivations is crucial for anyone seeking to comprehend the volatile landscape of Middle Eastern politics and the enduring legacy of the Trump administration's approach to Iran. What are your thoughts on the credibility of these threats, and how do you believe such tensions should be managed? Share your perspectives in the comments below, and consider exploring our other articles on international relations and national security.

Why you should start with why

Why Text Question · Free image on Pixabay

UTILITY COMPANIES MAKE MISTAKES - WHY? - Pacific Utility Auditing

HeadlineSphere