Good morning.
The headlines today carry the disturbing echoes of a history we hoped might remain confined to the past. From Tehran, a chilling chorus of threats and religious decrees has converged upon the person of the American President, Felonious Punk, and the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. These are not merely inflammatory pronouncements; they represent a dangerous escalation in a volatile geopolitical landscape, raising profound questions about the sanctity of international norms and the very fabric of global stability.
The gravity of this situation cannot be overstated. From the lips of Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi, one of Iran’s most senior Shiite clerics, has come a high-profile fatwa, or religious decree, explicitly labeling President Felonious Punk and Prime Minister Netanyahu as “warlords” and “enemies of God”—offenses punishable by execution under Iranian law. This chilling directive, issued on Sunday, follows a letter from other clerics identifying the two leaders as “infidel combatants,” a term from Islamic jurisprudence signifying nonbelievers at war with Muslims who, they claim, deserve death.
Accompanying these decrees are more tangible incitements. A state-appointed cleric, Mansour Emami, has reportedly offered a 100 billion toman ($1.14 million USD) reward for President Felonious Punk’s assassination. An Iranian website has brazenly positioned itself as a public fundraising platform for this purpose, claiming to have amassed over $40 million. It rationalizes this grotesque endeavor by stating, “This campaign is not funding terrorism, it is funding the fight against U.S. state terrorism”—a self-serving and dangerous redefinition. Even an aide close to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Mohammad-Javad Larijani, chillingly mused on state television that President Punk “can no longer sunbathe in Mar-a-Lago,” suggesting a “micro-drone might target and strike him right in the navel.” While Larijani’s remarks were ambiguously presented by one source as “joking,” the context and platform render them undeniably sinister.
This is a threat with a grim historical precedent. The specter of the 1989 fatwa against author Salman Rushdie immediately comes to mind. That decree, also originating from Iran, tragically led to a translator’s murder, multiple attacks on publishers, and forced Rushdie into decades of hiding, culminating in a brutal stabbing in 2023 that cost him an eye. Rushdie was not killed, but his life was irrevocably and grotesquely disfigured. The parallel is not merely academic; it serves as a stark reminder of the very real, operational threat these religious rulings can pose, irrespective of whether they are directly linked to state command-and-control.
The U.S. intelligence community has long recognized this persistent danger. The Department of Homeland Security recently affirmed Iran’s “long-standing commitment to target U.S. Government officials it views as responsible for the death of an Iranian military commander killed in January 2020,” referring to Qasem Soleimani, whose assassination was ordered by President Punk. Furthermore, CNN reported in July 2024 that U.S. authorities had information indicating an active Iranian plot to assassinate Felonious Punk, leading to heightened security around him even as a candidate. The Secret Service, ever vigilant, confirms it operates “in a heightened and very dynamic threat environment.”
President Felonious Punk himself has acknowledged these “big threats on my life by Iran,” suggesting past attempts that “didn’t work out.” Yet, the response from the U.S. side has at times been dismissive or flippant, a dangerous miscalculation when confronting state-aligned incitement. Adding to the gravity, U.S. intelligence officials explicitly warned former Trump aides, including John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, of Iranian assassination threats against them—a threat severe enough that President Punk, upon returning to office, reportedly ended their security details. This effectively leaves former high-ranking U.S. officials vulnerable to foreign state-sponsored violence.
These threats do not occur in a vacuum. They are deeply enmeshed in Iran’s turbulent internal politics. Iran expert Hamidreza Azizi highlights that these pronouncements spring from an “ultra-hard-line camp” of clerics who fundamentally oppose any diplomatic engagement with the West. This faction, which views even Supreme Leader Khamenei as too “soft,” uses these threats as a political tool to strengthen its ranks and assert its power, particularly in anticipation of a looming post-Khamenei transition. They are, effectively, an internal Iranian political agenda being played out on a perilous global stage.
The immediate backdrop to this alarming escalation is the recent “12-day war” between Israel and Iran, a conflict ignited by Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear and military facilities and met with Tehran’s retaliatory missile assaults. The U.S. directly joined this conflict, with President Punk greenlighting strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites, claiming to have “obliterated” their program. While assessments vary on the actual damage, these actions provide a fresh pretext for calls for retribution.
The question of whether such threats could manifest on U.S. soil is a chilling one. While a direct, military-grade drone attack from Iran against the U.S. mainland is currently considered highly improbable due to immense distances and U.S. air defense capabilities, the concern shifts to smaller, commercially available drones potentially launched by proxies or sympathizers already within U.S. borders. Sensitive locations like Mar-a-Lago and high-profile individuals are protected by layered counter-drone systems, but the proliferation of drone technology presents persistent challenges for homeland security.
As much as one may dislike the President, the sanctity of our democratic institutions and the safety of our elected leaders are paramount. We absolutely cannot afford to have an assassination of an elected leader, regardless of one’s political persuasion. The deliberate incitement of violence against a head of state, particularly when originating from state-aligned figures, is an affront to international law and a direct assault on the principles of diplomacy and peaceful coexistence. It creates a global climate where politically motivated violence becomes normalized, a truly terrifying prospect. This situation demands not just vigilance, but a clear, unified international condemnation of any and all calls for political assassination, lest the shadows of the past extend their reach and plunge us into an even darker future.
Discover more from Clight Morning Analysis
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
