By: Abe Wertenheim

Israel’s defense establishment began planning the assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as early as November, months before the operation was ultimately carried out during the opening hours of a sweeping joint military campaign with the United States, according to remarks by Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz.

The revelation sheds new light on the strategic deliberations that preceded one of the most consequential events in modern Middle Eastern geopolitics: the killing of the head of the Iranian state through a targeted airstrike. As reported on Thursday by both Reuters and The Algemeiner, the operation marked the first known instance in which a nation’s top leader was assassinated via aerial bombardment, an extraordinary escalation in the evolving conflict between Israel and the Islamic Republic.

Speaking in an interview with Israel’s N12 television network on Thursday, Katz disclosed that the decision to eliminate Khamenei was taken during a confidential high-level meeting convened by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu late last year.

“Already in November we were convened with the prime minister in a very tight forum,” Katz said. According to the defense minister, Netanyahu laid out a strategic objective that would fundamentally reshape the trajectory of the confrontation with Iran: the elimination of the country’s supreme leader.

“The prime minister set the goal of eliminating Khamenei,” Katz explained in comments cited by Reuters and later referenced by The Algemeiner in its coverage of the interview.

The plan, according to Katz, was originally scheduled to be executed around mid-2026. However, evolving circumstances inside Iran prompted Israeli leaders to accelerate the timetable.

The assassination was ultimately carried out in the opening moments of the U.S.-Israeli air campaign that began last Saturday. That campaign, which has already entered its first week, unleashed an unprecedented wave of coordinated strikes against Iranian military infrastructure and government leadership.

The initial salvos of the operation reportedly killed multiple senior Iranian figures and struck key strategic installations. Among the most dramatic consequences was the death of Khamenei himself, who had ruled Iran as supreme leader for more than three decades.

According to reporting by Reuters, the airstrike targeted a compound in Tehran associated with Khamenei’s operations during the earliest hours of the joint campaign. The attack effectively decapitated Iran’s ruling structure at the moment the conflict escalated into open warfare.

The killing of a sitting supreme leader through an airstrike is widely viewed by analysts as a watershed moment in the history of modern conflict. While assassinations of political figures have occurred throughout history, the targeted killing of a head of state through a conventional military strike represents a rare and dramatic escalation.

The broader military operation in which the assassination occurred has triggered a rapidly expanding regional conflict. Iranian forces have launched retaliatory attacks against Israeli territory as well as against American and allied assets across the Middle East.

As Reuters has reported, missile and drone strikes linked to Iran have been detected in Israel, several Gulf states and Iraq since the campaign began. These attacks have been met with continued Israeli military action, including strikes against Hezbollah positions in Lebanon, reflecting the intricate network of alliances and proxy forces tied to Iran’s regional strategy.

The conflict has thus quickly evolved from a targeted military operation into a broader regional confrontation involving multiple theaters of engagement.

Katz’s comments also provided new insight into the internal debates that preceded the operation. According to the defense minister, Israeli leaders initially envisioned a longer preparation period before carrying out such a high-stakes mission.

The original plan anticipated approximately six months of additional preparation before executing the strike. However, developments inside Iran early this year prompted Israeli leaders to reconsider the timeline.

Katz said the plan was eventually shared with Washington and subsequently advanced around January, when widespread protests erupted across Iran. Those demonstrations reflected growing domestic dissatisfaction with the clerical regime and raised concerns within Israel’s leadership about the potential for instability inside the country.

According to Katz’s account, Israeli officials feared that Iran’s leadership—facing internal pressure from unrest—might attempt to redirect domestic anger outward through military aggression.

As The Algemeiner report noted in its analysis of the defense minister’s remarks, Israeli decision-makers worried that a beleaguered Iranian government might launch preemptive attacks against Israel or American interests in the region as a means of consolidating internal support.

Those concerns, Katz indicated, contributed to the decision to accelerate the assassination plan and incorporate it into the opening phase of the joint U.S.-Israeli military campaign.

The extent of American involvement in the decision-making process remains a subject of considerable scrutiny. Katz acknowledged that the plan was ultimately shared with Washington before the operation took place, suggesting a degree of coordination between the two allies.

The air campaign itself, which began last weekend, has involved extensive cooperation between Israeli and American military forces. According to reports cited by Reuters, the strikes targeted a wide range of Iranian military installations, including missile launch sites, command centers and weapons storage facilities.

Israeli officials have consistently framed the campaign as a necessary step to neutralize what they describe as existential threats posed by Iran’s nuclear program and its expanding ballistic missile arsenal.

Iran’s leadership, for its part, has long denied that its nuclear program is intended for military purposes, insisting that it is focused solely on civilian energy production. Nevertheless, Israel has repeatedly warned that Tehran’s nuclear activities represent a grave danger to regional stability.

As The Algemeiner has reported, Israeli leaders have also pointed to Iran’s extensive support for armed proxy groups across the Middle East, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and various militias in Syria and Iraq, as evidence of Tehran’s broader strategic ambitions.

By eliminating Khamenei and targeting Iran’s military infrastructure, Israel appears to be pursuing a dual objective: weakening Iran’s operational capabilities while simultaneously destabilizing the political structure that sustains them.

Katz openly acknowledged that the campaign carries a broader political dimension. Israel, he said, hopes not only to dismantle Iran’s strategic weapons programs but also to encourage internal political change within the country.

The ultimate goal, Israeli officials have indicated, is to remove what they view as an existential threat emanating from Iran’s ruling establishment.

Iran’s clerical leadership, however, has shown no indication of relinquishing power despite the unprecedented attack on its highest authority.

Since Khamenei’s death, Iran’s political system has entered a period of uncertainty as the country’s ruling elite attempt to maintain continuity amid wartime conditions. The supreme leader occupies a uniquely powerful role within Iran’s political structure, serving as both the highest religious authority and the ultimate decision-maker on matters of national security.

The sudden removal of such a central figure has therefore raised questions about the stability of Iran’s governing institutions.

According to the information provided in the Reuters report, Iranian officials have sought to project an image of resilience and continuity in the aftermath of the assassination, emphasizing that the country’s military and political apparatus remains intact.

At the same time, the regional ramifications of the killing continue to unfold. Iran’s allies across the Middle East have signaled their willingness to retaliate, raising concerns that the conflict could expand further beyond its current boundaries.

Israeli strikes against Hezbollah positions in Lebanon already suggest that the confrontation may spread across multiple fronts, particularly if proxy forces linked to Iran become more directly involved.

For Israel, the decision to assassinate Khamenei represents a calculated gamble in an already volatile geopolitical environment.

Supporters of the operation argue that removing the architect of Iran’s strategic posture could weaken the regime’s ability to coordinate regional aggression and accelerate internal pressure for reform.

Critics, however, warn that the assassination of a sitting national leader could set a dangerous precedent in international relations, potentially inviting retaliation or encouraging similar actions by other states.

As the conflict enters its second week, the consequences of the decision taken during that confidential November meeting in Jerusalem are now reverberating across the Middle East.

Whether the assassination ultimately reshapes Iran’s political landscape—or instead entrenches its leadership in defiance—remains uncertain.

For now, as Reuters and The Algemeiner have observed in their coverage of the unfolding crisis, the killing of Iran’s supreme leader has ushered the region into one of the most unpredictable and consequential chapters in its modern history.