Assassinations unleashed under Trump haunt Iran war endgame - Los Angeles Times 36%

By Michael Wilner0%

7/11/2026, 7:48:03 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 31 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Pessimism Bias, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 39.1% saturation with 508 hits. Analysis detected 2,922 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,300 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 43.1% and a BS Rank of 36% (14,041 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 64.20% of the article peer group.

(Majid Saeedi / Getty Images) 
Washington Bureau Chief Follow 
July 11, 2026 7:48 AM PT 
Click here to listen to this article 
This is read by an automated voice. 
Please report any issues or inconsistencies here . 
See more from the L.A. 
Times in Google Search. 
Set us as preferred 
The prospect of foreign assassination plots targeting U.S. leaders puts the United States in dangerous new territory. 
Experts fear the existential threat of assassination has pushed peace further out of reach. 
p]:text-cms-story-body-color-text" data-dateline data-subscriber-content> 
WASHINGTON  Shortly before President Trump ended a ceasefire with Iran this week, Israeli officials presented his team with intelligence indicating Tehran was hatching new plots to kill him. 
It was not the first such warning. 
U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies have tracked evidence for years of Iranian efforts to target the president, with signals only increasing since the start of the war. 
Their desire to target Trump and his top aides began six years ago, just outside Baghdad International Airport, when the president ordered a drone strike that killed Iran’s most powerful general. 
The assassination of Qassem Suleimani brought the two countries to the brink of war. 
Yet even as full-scale war was averted, top Iranian officials vowed revenge for the strike, authorizing attempts on the lives not just of the president, but of his secretary of State and national security advisor, among others, even after they had left office . 
The switch raised questions about the gifted jet that the U.S. spent $400 million to retrofit. 
Images of the plane show it lacks some of key security features. 
Now, calls for revenge have reached a sharper pitch in Tehran, after a joint U.S.-Israeli operation killed Iran’s supreme leader , Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, at the start of the war in February. 
At Khamenei’s funeral ceremonies this week, red flags of vengeance flew throughout the capital as protesters explicitly called on their government to “kill Trump.” 
His son, Mojtaba, the new supreme leader, was absent from the commemorations, fearing assassination himself. 
Mourners hold an anti-President Trump banner at the Imam Khomeini Grand Mosque during mass funeral prayers for Iran’s late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his family in Tehran on Sunday. 
(Morteza Nikoubazl / NurPhoto via Getty Images) 
The prospect of foreign assassination plots targeting U.S. leaders puts the United States in dangerous new territory, where its embrace of political killings could ultimately place its own officials at unprecedented risk. 
And experts fear the existential threat of assassination has pushed peace further out of reach: When both sides believe their survival is at stake, the trust required for diplomacy becomes far harder to achieve. 
Israeli news organizations have reported that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, cited Iranian attempts to kill Trump in recent years as part of his case to go to war in the first place. 
A U.S. official told The Times that a range of serious threats exist against the president, including from Iran, but that Israel’s intelligence pointed to a more specific plot. 
The official did not provide further details. 
Israeli officials did not respond to requests for comment. 
Iran’s president, Masoud Pezeshkian, has said in recent months that the government sees vengeance against U.S. officials as “its legitimate duty and right,” and “will fulfill this great responsibility and duty with all its might.” 
“The Suleimani killing accelerated a lifting of restraints on foreign assassinations  and the taboo on targeting and killing foreign leaders, with U.S. military assets, has been more or less lifted,” said Matt Dallek, a political professor at George Washington University. 
“If the United States sets the example of how to conduct international relations, and it is using assassination of foreign leaders as a political weapon, it’s only logical that other countries will be more inclined to also engage in assassinations,” Dallek added. 
“It does seem likely that Trump will have a bigger target on his back.” 
Returning from a NATO summit in Turkey on Wednesday, Trump was forced to switch back to an old model of Air Force One  equipped with specialized defensive technologies  from a new plane given as a gift by Qatar, after the Secret Service warned of potential threats to the aircraft from Iran. 
“They want to take out the U.S. leader  me,” Trump told reporters aboard the plane. 
“I’m on whatever list. 
I saw this morning I’m on every single one of their lists. 
And so far, I guess I’ve been a bit lucky, but maybe that doesn’t last very long.” 
The threat has remained on his mind in the days since. 
In an interview with the New York Post, Trump told the reporter, “I hope you’ll miss me,” adding that he has “been on their list for a long time.” 
And in a subsequent social media post Friday night, he warned of a catastrophic response he instructed the administration to pursue in the event Tehran succeeds. 
“1000 Missiles are Locked and Loaded and aimed at the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he wrote, “with thousands of more to immediately follow, should the Iranian Government act on its threat, pronounced in many corners of the Globe, to assassinate, or attempt to assassinate, the sitting President of the United States of America, in this case, ME!” 
The United States had a decades-old prohibition against assassinating foreign leaders before Trump’s presidency, codified in an executive order signed by President Ford in 1976 over concerns of a CIA plot to kill Fidel Castro. 
Iran has targeted American military sites in the gulf after the U.S. launched strikes on several places in Iran and reinstated sanctions on its oil sales. 
The policy was only strengthened further by subsequent administrations, fearing a new international standard for targeted killings could result in unintended consequences in the halls of Washington. 
Other administrations have been accused of targeting foreign leaders before. 
Under the Obama administration, an international coalition targeting the Libyan regime of Moammar Qadafi during the country’s 2011 civil war struck his fleeing convoy , leading to his capture and killing by rebel fighters. 
But experts say Trump’s explicit targeting of Suleimani and Khamenei  and his public celebration of their deaths  marks a new paradigm. 
“Through words and actions, President Trump has done more to normalize political violence than any other U.S. president, certainly in modern times,” said Robert Pape, a professor at the University of Chicago and author of “Our Own Worst Enemies: America in the Age of Violent Populism.” 
“On the international front alone, the president routinely brags about killing Iranian leaders and seizing the leader of Venezuela, among others,” he added, “to the point that assassination is becoming the new normal in international politics.” 
Politics World & Nation Trump Administration Middle East 
Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. 
In your inbox twice per week. 
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service , which include arbitration and a class action waiver. 
You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads. 
Michael Wilner is the Washington bureau chief for the Los Angeles Times. 
He has spent more than a decade covering the federal government with a focus on the White House. 
Before joining The Times, Wilner was chief Washington correspondent for McClatchy, where his enterprise and international reporting was recognized with multiple awards. 
He previously covered foreign affairs in Washington and overseas for the Jerusalem Post. 
Wilner is a graduate of Claremont McKenna College and Columbia University and is a native of New York City. 
More From the Los Angeles Times 
Most Read in Politics 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.2%Michael Wilner: 4.8%Daily Pilot: 2.9%Confirmation Bias5.2%This article: 0.0%Michael Wilner: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.5%Michael Wilner: 6.0%Daily Pilot: 3.5%Availability Heuristic8.5%This article: 5.8%Michael Wilner: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic5.8%This article: 2.6%Michael Wilner: 3.1%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Hindsight Bias2.6%This article: 0.9%Michael Wilner: 2.7%Daily Pilot: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.9%This article: 0.9%Michael Wilner: 12.8%Daily Pilot: 7.5%Framing Effect0.9%This article: 0.0%Michael Wilner: 1.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.1%Michael Wilner: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Status Quo Bias2.1%This article: 2.7%Michael Wilner: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect2.7%This article: 0.0%Michael Wilner: 1.8%Daily Pilot: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 14.5%Michael Wilner: 4.3%Daily Pilot: 1.4%Pessimism Bias14.5%This article: 27.8%Michael Wilner: 13.9%Daily Pilot: 7.8%Negativity Bias27.8%This article: 0.0%Michael Wilner: 2.8%Daily Pilot: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 1.2%Michael Wilner: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error1.2%This article: 1.2%Michael Wilner: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias1.2%This article: 0.0%Michael Wilner: 2.2%Daily Pilot: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Wilner: 1.1%Daily Pilot: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Michael Wilner: 2.6%Daily Pilot: 5.1%Halo Effect3.2%This article: 0.0%Michael Wilner: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Wilner: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.8%Michael Wilner: 1.5%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Recency Bias5.8%This article: 0.0%Michael Wilner: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Wilner: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Wilner: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Wilner: 1.1%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 18.5%Michael Wilner: 5.7%Daily Pilot: 4.9%Appeal to Authority18.5%This article: 4.6%Michael Wilner: 1.9%Daily Pilot: 1.2%False Dilemma4.6%This article: 10.9%Michael Wilner: 3.0%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Slippery Slope10.9%This article: 3.2%Michael Wilner: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Circular Reasoning3.2%This article: 9.0%Michael Wilner: 8.2%Daily Pilot: 4.4%Hasty Generalization9.0%This article: 2.5%Michael Wilner: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Red Herring2.5%This article: 2.2%Michael Wilner: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Bandwagon2.2%This article: 11.2%Michael Wilner: 4.9%Daily Pilot: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion11.2%This article: 3.2%Michael Wilner: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Begging the Question3.2%This article: 12.8%Michael Wilner: 3.7%Daily Pilot: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.8%This article: 0.0%Michael Wilner: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.8%Michael Wilner: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.8%This article: 0.0%Michael Wilner: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Wilner: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.4%Michael Wilner: 2.7%Daily Pilot: 2.8%Anecdotal2.4%This article: 0.0%Michael Wilner: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.2%Michael Wilner: 1.6%Daily Pilot: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.2%This article: 0.0%Michael Wilner: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Wilner: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Wilner: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Wilner: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Wilner: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 39.1%Michael Wilner: 4.2%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Unattributed Quote39.1%This article: 9.8%Michael Wilner: 1.5%Daily Pilot: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection9.8%This article: 4.7%Michael Wilner: 7.1%Daily Pilot: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice4.7%This article: 0.0%Michael Wilner: 1.9%Daily Pilot: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Wilner: 1.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Wilner: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 6.5%Michael Wilner: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…6.5%

1300 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers29%attributed speech921writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageGetty Images • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageGetty Images • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageMasoud Pezeshkian • 35 words • 100.0% coverageMatt Dallek • 41 words • 100.0% coverageMatt Dallek • 42 words • 0.0% coverageMatt Dallek • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 53 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 16 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 4 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 12 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 57 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageRobert Pape • 46 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Pape • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageLos Angeles Times • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageLos Angeles Times • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Robert Pape

100%flagged-word coverage
82 attributed words22% of attributed speech91% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Unattributed Quote-2.2 ptsWriter: 46.1%Robert Pape: 43.9%43.9%Attempt to Sell a Product -9.2 ptsWriter: 9.2%Robert Pape: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-6.6 ptsWriter: 6.6%Robert Pape: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.