A Red Line has been Crossed: Navigating the Crossroads of Policy and Diplomacy
The Steady State | Charles A. Ray
U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities have ignited intense global debate in the media, with conflicting claims about the extent of destruction and its effect on Iran’s nuclear program. In the chaos of speculation and analysis, an unsettling narrative that the media has overlooked has emerged: the U.S. president’s cryptic remarks suggesting a possibility of regime change or even directly targeting Iran’s leader. The latter remark, whether intentional or rhetorical, warrants deeper examination for its policy implications and its broader consequences for international diplomacy.
The notion of assassination, as addressed by the president, is not just controversial; it is unequivocally prohibited under U.S. law. Since President Gerald Ford’s Executive Order 11905 in 1976, prohibiting ‘political assassination,’ this principle has guided U.S. foreign policy, emphasizing a moral stance against state-sanctioned killings. If the president’s remarks foreshadow a policy change, the ramifications are immense. Such a shift would undermine decades of diplomatic credibility and ethical position, marking a departure from norms that have largely insulated the United States from accusations of engaging in extrajudicial actions.
If, on the other hand, the remarks were a ploy to provoke Iran into negotiations, they highlight a troubling dimension of this administration’s diplomacy. Using threats that violate fundamental international principles as leverage undermines the trust-based mechanisms necessary for effective diplomatic dialogue. It risks casting the U.S. as an unreliable interlocutor and diminishing its capacity to build alliances or mediate future conflicts.
It's critical to unpack the context of these remarks. The American airstrikes, reportedly aimed at crippling Iran’s nuclear capabilities, have elicited diverse and polarized interpretations. While the administration claims the facilities were ‘totally obliterated,’ other sources, including leaked U.S. intelligence reports, suggest the damage merely sets the program back, perhaps by as little as a few months. Regardless of the assessments, the strikes were a significant escalation in the already tense Israeli-Iranian-U.S. triangle.
The president’s remarks inject an additional layer of unpredictability into this volatile scenario. By raising the subjects of regime change or assassination, the U.S. risks increasing Iran’s distrust, potentially compelling its leadership to double down on aggressive policies rather than seeking a diplomatic resolution. For Iran, the specter of losing its leader could galvanize anti-American sentiment, unify factions within the regime, and intensify support for retaliation, both regionally and globally.
The implications and consequences of these remarks extend far beyond Iran or even the Middle East. On the international stage, they signal a disturbing precedent that could embolden other nations to adopt similar aggressive postures. If the U.S. appears willing to forsake its longstanding policy against assassination, other states might feel justified in pursuing similar measures against adversaries. This erosion of norms could destabilize international relations, creating an environment where political violence becomes an accepted tool of statecraft.
Domestically, the remarks could cause significant backlash. American citizens and lawmakers might question whether such rhetoric aligns with the values and principles upon which the nation was founded. The specter of assassination as a policy tool undermines democratic ideals, raising ethical concerns and potential legal challenges that could reverberate through this administration and beyond.
Whether the president’s remarks were a genuine reflection of a planned policy change or a calculated ploy, there is an urgent need for clarity. If the administration intends to alter its stance on assassination, it must be transparent in articulating the rationale and be prepared to confront both domestic and international scrutiny. On the other hand, if the remarks were merely rhetorical, the administration must dispel ambiguity and reaffirm its commitment to established norms.
On a broader level, this episode highlights the delicate balance between power and principle in statecraft. As the U.S. navigates its role in the still-unresolved conflict, it must weigh its immediate objectives against the long-term consequences of undermining trust and credibility. The world is watching, and the choices made today will shape the environment for international diplomacy for years to come. The president’s remarks have opened Pandora’s Box; now the challenge is to close it before all of its contents have spilled out.
Charles A. Ray spent 20 years in the U.S. Army with two tours in Vietnam. He retired as a senior US diplomat, serving 30 years in the U.S. Foreign Service, with assignments as ambassador to the Kingdom of Cambodia and the Republic of Zimbabwe, and was the first American consul general in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. He also served in senior positions with the Department of Defense and is a member of The Steady State.
Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonpartisan, nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 290 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.