(TJV NEWS) In a revelation that could further escalate tensions in an already volatile region, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz confirmed in an interview with Channel 13 that Israel had considered the targeted assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. According to Katz, the plan was not carried out simply because “no operational opportunity” ever materialized.

“If he had been in our sights, we would have taken him out,” Katz stated bluntly. “We wanted to eliminate Khamenei, but there was no operational opportunity.”

As reported by The Times of Israel on Thursday, Katz’s comments offer a rare glimpse into the most sensitive echelon of Israeli strategic planning and suggest just how seriously Israel has contemplated toppling Iran’s leadership amid deepening hostilities over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions and regional military entrenchment.

The statement by Katz, a key figure in Israel’s national security cabinet and a veteran of Likud politics, marks one of the most explicit acknowledgments by an Israeli official of a desire to assassinate a foreign head of state—particularly one as consequential as Khamenei, the ideological linchpin of the Islamic Republic.

While Israel’s targeted assassination policy has long been focused on operatives and senior military figures in Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran’s Quds Force, such as Qassem Soleimani, Katz’s disclosure widens the aperture dramatically. As The Times of Israel report observed, it is extremely rare for an Israeli cabinet minister to openly discuss such high-level intentions, especially concerning a state actor with whom Israel is not formally at war.

Though Katz insisted that no request for American permission was made, the strategic implications of such a move would likely have reverberated throughout Washington. “We don’t need permission for these things,” he added, a statement that draws attention to   Israel’s long-standing doctrine of strategic autonomy—particularly when it comes to existential threats.

The question of whether Israel would actually carry out such a high-risk assassination is not merely hypothetical. Ayatollah Khamenei is not just Iran’s political leader, but also the supreme religious authority and ultimate commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). His removal would be seen not only as a direct military provocation, but potentially as a decapitation strike against the Islamic Republic itself.

The Times of Israel report noted in its coverage of Katz’s comments that such an operation—had it been executed—would have represented a radical departure from Israel’s more calibrated strikes against nuclear facilities and proxy leaders. It would likely have drawn an immediate, perhaps uncontrollable, military response from Tehran and its regional affiliates, raising the specter of full-scale war.

Yet the statement reflects a hardening of Israeli strategic doctrine in the face of what it sees as an emboldened Iran. Following the October 7 Hamas attacks and Tehran’s alleged involvement in stoking proxy violence across the region—from Hezbollah in Lebanon to Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria—Israeli policymakers appear increasingly willing to entertain bolder and riskier moves to restore deterrence.

While Iran has yet to issue a formal response to Katz’s disclosure, the implications for regional security are substantial. Ayatollah Khamenei remains a deeply polarizing figure in both Iranian politics and across the Shiite crescent. A strike against him would almost certainly trigger a crisis that would draw in not only Iran’s military assets but also the full breadth of its proxy network.

As The Times of Israel report pointed out, Iran’s doctrine of asymmetric warfare—long designed around indirect confrontation with Israel via groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis—has thus far kept both nations from direct war. A targeted killing of Iran’s top leader, however, could obliterate that red line.

U.S. intelligence agencies would almost certainly view such a scenario with alarm. Though Katz dismissed the notion that Israel would seek American approval, any operation of this magnitude would have massive repercussions for U.S. troops stationed throughout the Middle East, as well as for regional diplomatic stability.

The timing of Katz’s remarks also raises questions. Coming amid renewed discussions about a broader U.S.-Israeli plan to remove Hamas from power and expand the Abraham Accords—as previously reported by Israel Hayom and echoed in the The Times of Israel report, the defense minister’s comments may be aimed at reinforcing Israel’s uncompromising posture toward Iran at a critical diplomatic juncture.

Some observers suggest that Katz’s statement may be as much psychological warfare as policy disclosure—part of Israel’s broader effort to rattle the Iranian regime, especially as international attention turns toward the postwar governance of Gaza and normalization talks with Arab states.

But as The Times of Israel report indicated, words from sitting defense officials are rarely idle. Katz’s assertion will not be dismissed lightly in Tehran, nor among U.S. and European policymakers attempting to contain a regional powder keg.

Israel’s contemplation of an assassination plot against Ayatollah Khamenei, as confirmed by Defense Minister Israel Katz, represents a watershed moment in the evolution of Israeli-Iranian hostilities. It reveals both the depth of mistrust and the extent to which Israel sees the Iranian leadership as an existential threat—one that, in Katz’s words, could have been removed “if he had been in our sights.”

Whether this was a missed opportunity or a deliberate restraint, the message is clear: Israel is no longer content with tactical containment. As The Times of Israel report noted, Katz’s comments may have changed the strategic conversation—not only in Jerusalem and Tehran, but across a region already teetering on the brink.