Western media is busy salivating over the decapitation of leaders in the Middle East

Western media’s reporting of the Anglo-American-Zionist strategy of decapitation of leaders in the Middle East is so prolific that one might think they don’t see a problem with it.

As ever, a central element of settler colonialism and imperialism is cognitive dissonance. After all, imagine the absolute uproar in the West if a political leader was beheaded. But for leaders from the Global South, suddenly beheading is a genius military manoeuvre ripe with incisive intelligence operations.

Western media salivates

Greg Miller of the Washington Post, describing what amounts to state terrorism by Israel, uses words like “tactics,” “honed,” and “capable.”

How Israel tracks and targets Iran’s leaders – with an expanding role from AI. A story from Tel Aviv. https://t.co/tGSd54V9CU

— Greg Miller (@gregpmiller) March 30, 2026

He says:

Israel’s targeted killing tactics — bombs planted months before being detonated, drones capable of slipping into apartment windows and supersonic missiles fired from stealth fighter jets — have been honed by years of conflict in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran.

“Years of conflict” is a funny way of saying ‘belligerent invasions from a rogue state,’ but okay Greg.

The assassination of Khamenei is described a “singular intelligence breakthrough.”

Even when Miller offers criticism, it is not of the terrorism or extrajudicial killings, but because the goals of the decapitation strategy are “elusive” or the AI is not “foolproof.”

There are many such cases.

‘A whiff’

The FT asks whether the killing of a sovereign state’s leader can ever be justified.

When, if ever, is it an appropriate tactic of war or foreign policy to engage in a ‘decapitation strike’ — the intentional targeted killing of the leaders of another state?

Martin Sandbu reports: https://t.co/wGDMLpIRlh pic.twitter.com/YQOcSCgzWW

— Financial Times (@FT) March 28, 2026

To the FT’s defence, at least it concludes that there is “more than a whiff of racism or imperialism” about this strategy. We’d call it an unbearable, rancid stench – but there we are.

Sandbu says:

And it is not a coincidence that when heads of state or government have been targeted, it has usually been in what used to be known as the third world. There is more than a whiff of racism or imperialism in the selective respect the norm enjoyed in the first place, of the same type as has been called out in the International Criminal Court for tending to pursue the leaders of poor countries.

The whole essay, nevertheless, is an ice-cold bucket of imperialism. The essay worries about “what we lose when we lose the norm.” The “we” is unmistakably Western.

And, the framing Iran’s ability to survive decapitation is also replete with racist innuendos.

The hydra at the core of Iran’s regime built to survive decapitation https://t.co/AT708WPILP

— The Times and The Sunday Times (@thetimes) March 27, 2026

The Times, for instance, somehow calls Iran’s government a hydra. Calling a sovereign government a mythical beast strips it of legitimacy before the analysis even starts. It frames Iran not as a country with people, laws, and a history, but as a monster that needs killing.

State terrorism

Across Western media, the killing of leaders is often framed as a strategy.

Iran’s UN ambassador, Amir Saeid Iravani, in a letter to the Security Council, called the US-Israeli policy of “assassination lists” as state terrorism.

He said the promotion of such lists is no different from the terrorist actions that have deliberately bombed and killed hundreds of schoolchildren, targeted hospitals, and destroyed cultural heritage sites.

The Wall Street Journal has reported that Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Iran’s Speaker of Parliament Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf were on the US-Israeli assassination target lists.

Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and the head of the Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani, are among those killed by US and Israeli strikes.

Norman Finkelstein said in a recent interview that the assassination of Khamenei on February 28 was “the most brazen, flagrant, outrageous breach of the UN Charter ever.” He specifically pointed to Article 2 and Article 51 of the UN Charter.

He pointed to Article 2 of the UN Charter, which requires states to exhaust diplomatic means before resorting to war. The Omanis were mediating between the US and Iran. Oman confirmed that talks were moving forward.

Secondly, he pointed to Article 51, which allows self-defence only in the event of an armed attack.

Finkelstein explained that there is a narrow exception for a preemptive strike, like if missiles were already in the air or planes were on route and couldn’t be turned back. “None of those applied in this situation,” he said.

So let’s ask Western media: why is state terrorism called “strategy,” and why are UN violations treated as a “dilemma”?

Featured image via the Canary