Dozens of Iran's most powerful Islamic jurists have signed a statement declaring that killing President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a religious obligation, a move that lands weeks after Washington and Tehran agreed to sit down and negotiate.
Approximately 63 of the 88 members of Iran's Assembly of Experts put their names to a 10-point document labeling both leaders "mahdour al-dam," an Islamic legal term meaning someone whose blood is considered forfeit, The Telegraph reported Tuesday. The statement called killing "the criminal American president" and "the wicked prime minister of the Zionist regime" a duty that anyone with the opportunity "must not" neglect.
The declaration stopped short of a formal fatwa. Under Shiite tradition, such rulings are issued by individual clerics, not by a body acting collectively. But the sheer number of signatories, roughly 72 percent of the Assembly, makes the statement something more than bluster from the fringes. These are the same jurists who, under Iran's constitution, appoint and supervise the supreme leader.
The statement described avenging the killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in February as "paramount." Khamenei was killed during the opening U.S.-Israeli strikes on February 28, part of what President Trump called Operation Epic Fury, a massive joint military offensive that also eliminated at least 48 senior Iranian officials.
Trump told ABC News at the time that the operation was so thorough it wiped out most of the candidates expected to succeed Khamenei.
"The attack was so successful it knocked out most of the candidates. It's not going to be anybody that we were thinking of because they are all dead. Second or third place is dead."
Four American servicemembers were killed during the operation.
In the aftermath, a provisional governing council, composed of President Masoud Pezeshkian, judiciary chief Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejei, and Ayatollah Ali Reza Arafi, guided Iran through a succession crisis that was only the second in the regime's history since the 1979 revolution. The Assembly of Experts ultimately selected Mojtaba Khamenei, the late supreme leader's son, as his successor.
The Assembly's statement did not arrive in isolation. On the same day, Iran's state-run newspaper Hamshahri featured Trump on its front page beneath the headline "Revenge Is Certain." The paper highlighted calls by senior clerics and lawmakers for retaliation over Khamenei's death and included a quotation attributed to Grand Ayatollah Abdullah Javadi Amoli urging the shedding of Trump's blood.
Hamshahri also described proposals from Iranian lawmakers to offer a 50 million euro reward for killing Trump. Whether that bounty has been formally enacted or remains a legislative proposal is unclear.
The Assembly of Experts' own secretariat distanced itself from the 10-point statement, even while acknowledging that roughly 63 members had signed it. What that distancing means in practice, whether it amounts to a formal disavowal or a bureaucratic hedge, remains an open question.
Iran's appetite for targeting American leaders is not new. In 2024, federal authorities charged a Pakistani man with ties to Iran in an alleged murder-for-hire scheme. Prosecutors said the plot was connected to Iranian efforts to retaliate for the 2020 U.S. drone strike that killed Revolutionary Guard Gen. Qassem Soleimani.
That earlier case established a clear precedent: Tehran's calls for vengeance are not merely rhetorical. They have, at least once, translated into an operational plot on American soil.
The latest declaration from the Assembly of Experts escalates the rhetoric further, and does so at a particularly awkward moment for those who argue diplomacy alone can contain the Iranian regime. Earlier this month, the United States and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding establishing a 60-day framework for negotiations aimed at reaching a broader agreement following the conflict.
So while American and Iranian diplomats are supposedly working toward a deal, nearly three-quarters of the clerical body that picks Iran's supreme leader just told the world that killing the American president is a sacred obligation.
The timing forces a question that Washington's foreign policy establishment would rather avoid: What does a memorandum of understanding mean when the other side's religious authorities are publicly calling for the assassination of the leader who signed it?
The Trump administration has weighed escalation options against Iran throughout the conflict, balancing military pressure with diplomatic openings. The February strikes demonstrated that the administration was willing to act with overwhelming force. The subsequent MOU suggested a willingness to negotiate from a position of strength.
But the Assembly of Experts statement complicates any narrative that Iran's leadership is moving toward accommodation. The secretariat's attempt to distance the institution from the statement rings hollow when the signatories represent a commanding majority of the body's membership.
Iran's retaliatory posture has remained aggressive throughout the post-Khamenei period. The regime threatened to unleash "hell" on U.S. bases after Trump ordered strikes over ceasefire violations, and the broader conflict has tested the boundaries of executive war powers at home, with the Senate rejecting a bid to curb Trump's Iran war authority after a heated GOP meeting shifted votes.
The Assembly of Experts is not a fringe body. It is the constitutional mechanism by which Iran selects its highest authority. When 63 of its 88 members sign a document calling for the assassination of a sitting American president and a sitting Israeli prime minister, that is not a rogue act. It is an institutional position, regardless of what the secretariat's press office says afterward.
The statement's careful avoidance of the word "fatwa" is a legal distinction, not a moral one. The signatories said killing Trump and Netanyahu was a religious duty. They said anyone with the opportunity must not neglect it. The absence of a formal fatwa label does not soften the substance.
Several questions remain unanswered. Which specific members signed the statement, and which refused? Did Mojtaba Khamenei, the new supreme leader selected by this same body, endorse or authorize the declaration? What is the current status of the 60-day negotiation framework, and does the administration view this statement as a breach of the diplomatic understanding?
None of those answers have surfaced yet. What has surfaced is a document signed by a supermajority of Iran's top clerical body, amplified by state-run media, and backed by a proposed 50 million euro bounty from Iranian lawmakers.
The foreign policy class has spent decades insisting that engagement with Iran can yield moderation. The Assembly of Experts just offered its rebuttal, in writing, with signatures, calling for the death of the American president as a matter of religious duty.
At some point, you have to take people at their word. Especially when 63 of them sign it.
