Analyzing the Airstrike Through the Attack

Recently, shocking news emerged from the Middle East — Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was killed on Saturday, February 28, 2026, in an airstrike targeting his residence in Tehran. In fact, several of his family members — including his daughter, grandchildren, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law — also died in the strike.

The event may seem far removed from those of us living safely in Australia. Yet there is no doubt that countries around the world are genuinely concerned about Trump’s decision to launch such a large-scale strike. Even if some nations offered only relatively restrained criticism, Trump’s action undeniably destabilized Iran’s political future and reshaped the balance of power across the Middle East.

As immigrants, what should we worry about? How might the global situation after Trump’s military action against Iran affect us?

Actions and Consequences

It is well-known that Khamenei has been one of the most controversial political figures in Iran and internationally. Under his leadership, Iran pursued a clear and hardline regional strategy — supporting and funding multiple armed groups to expand its influence across the Middle East. These groups operate in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and the Palestinian territories, and have repeatedly clashed directly or indirectly with Israel and its allies. For supporters, this represents a “resistance axis” against Western dominance; for critics, it has been a key driver of long-term instability and conflict.

Additionally, Iran continued developing its nuclear program and ballistic missile technology during his rule. While Tehran claims these nuclear efforts are for peaceful purposes, Western countries and Israel have long suspected military intentions. This distrust has led to years of economic sanctions and increased the risk of a regional arms race.

Khamenei’s domestic rule was also heavily criticized. Large-scale protests were violently suppressed, dissenters were detained or executed, and issues such as press freedom and women’s rights repeatedly drew international attention. Human rights organizations have long accused the Iranian government of restricting freedom of speech and religious expression, causing many citizens to flee abroad.

In short, Khamenei’s policies combined external military expansion with internal authoritarian control. This made him a symbol of anti-Western sentiment to some supporters but a source of regional instability to others. Unfortunately, his notorious reputation also made him a target in this U.S.-led airstrike.

Trump’s Claims vs. Reality

Some people believe Trump’s statement that “Iran struck first, so the U.S. retaliated justly.” However, current international reports show otherwise.

The U.S. and Israel launched a large-scale, proactive military strike on Iran, hitting hundreds of targets, including Khamenei himself. According to U.S. internal intelligence briefings, there was no evidence that Iran was preparing an imminent attack against the United States prior to the strike. For example, the U.S. government did not publicly present any proof that Iran had deployed forces targeting U.S. bases or set a clear attack timeline. This operation was not based on direct evidence that “Iran was about to strike first,” but rather on a strategic choice by the U.S. and Israel to strike preemptively.

After the U.S.-Israeli strikes, Iran retaliated, launching missiles and drones against U.S. bases, allied facilities, and other regional targets. This pattern of action first, reaction later, is why observers around the world differ on how to interpret the “cause” of this conflict. If the perception that the opponent is about to attack can be created, preemptive strikes are easily justified. But the key question remains: is there evidence of an “imminent” attack?

Under international law, the right of self-defense generally requires proof that an attack has occurred or is unavoidable and imminent. Without clear and publicly available intelligence showing Iran was about to directly attack U.S. territory or military bases, the “strike first” strategy appears more like a calculated choice than a forced response. Undoubtedly, the U.S. airstrike — despite the satisfaction of eliminating Khamenei — is fundamentally illegal.

Politicians’ Silence

Despite the significant international law and sovereignty issues involved, many democratic politicians have hesitated to speak out against the U.S. and Israeli airstrike.

Former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi repeatedly emphasized that any major military action must comply with congressional authorization and international law, or it could undermine the U.S. constitutional system. Some Democratic lawmakers also noted that without clear evidence of an “imminent” attack, unilateral military strikes may violate the War Powers Resolution. Certain Democratic members publicly criticized the strike as an “unauthorized act of war,” questioning its legal basis and labeling it a “government-selected war” rather than necessary defense. Republicans who expressed support generally focused on curbing Iran, not defending the legal legitimacy of the strike. Yet a common factor remains: under political pressure and Trump’s scrutiny, few dare to explicitly call the action unconstitutional.

This pressure is not limited to the U.S. Australia’s Prime Minister Albanese government quickly expressed understanding and support for U.S. and Israeli action, emphasizing that Iran’s nuclear program poses regional stability risks, while maintaining a cautious and vague stance on the strike’s international law basis. The government’s position suggests that it is safer to provide diplomatic language of support rather than openly question the action.

This does not mean there is no concern. The U.K. Defense Secretary stated that the U.S. needs to provide a “legal justification” for the strike, showing lingering doubts over legitimacy. However, once politicians openly question the strike, they risk political backlash — being labeled as “supporting Khamenei” or “not on the side of the so-called free world.” Fear for reputation and votes often leads them to stay silent or follow the herd, rather than clearly pointing out legal and consequence issues.

What This Means for Us

Even if the target is only Khamenei, what signal does it send if a country can destroy the highest leader of another sovereign nation without clear international authorization?

If such actions are tolerated, the international order could gradually shift from “rules-based” to “power-based.” Today it is Iran; tomorrow, it could be any other country in serious conflict with the U.S. Theoretically, China has massive military and nuclear capabilities, but history has shown that decapitation strikes are not intended for immediate occupation, but rather to create power vacuums and political shocks.

Australia has a mature democratic system, and its constitutional framework can continue functioning even if the Prime Minister steps down. In countries with highly centralized power, however, removing core leadership could trigger internal power struggles, military takeovers, or even civil war. Such instability would inevitably impact the global economy, energy markets, and geopolitical balance, and Australia cannot remain unaffected.

Some may argue, “This was just targeting Iran’s leadership, unrelated to civilians.” The problem is that war narratives often extend beyond military operations. When a country is labeled an “enemy regime,” people from that country or sharing its cultural background often face increased social pressure. History shows that in Western societies, during heightened tensions, ethnic communities may experience increased surveillance, stricter visa reviews, or social discrimination.

Today’s target is Iran’s leader, but if conflict expands to other countries, could stricter immigration policies emerge? Could certain communities’ safety be affected due to geopolitical relations? These are not alarmist claims but strategic realities.

Moral Justice vs. International Law

King Xuan of Qi asked Mencius, “Is it true that Tang of Shang exiled Jie of Xia, or that King Wu of Zhou attacked King Zhou of Shang?”

Mencius replied, “Historical records do indeed show this.”

The king asked again, “If a minister kills his own ruler, is that acceptable?”

Mencius said, “If a ruler loses benevolence and righteousness, he is no longer a true sovereign, but a ‘tyrant harming the people.’ Someone who harms both morality and the people is called a ‘selfish tyrant.’ Executing such a person is not regicide but punishment of a tyrant.”

This fable from Mencius essentially conveys that when a ruler loses ‘benevolence’ and ‘righteousness,’ he is no longer a legitimate king, but merely a tyrant. Punishing him is not regicide, but justice against tyranny. It represents a political philosophy where moral legitimacy outweighs rank or title: if a ruler is corrupt, overthrowing him can be seen as a righteous act.

However, this concept of “moral judgment” as a basis for action is not a value accepted in the contemporary Western international system. Modern Western nations operate under international law, national sovereignty, and procedural legitimacy. Even if a leader is seen as authoritarian or oppressive, it does not allow other countries to unilaterally determine that he “loses legitimacy” and carry out military assassination.

This fundamental difference in values is at the heart of many contemporary international conflicts. Overthrowing a corrupt ruler was considered just in ancient thought; in today’s international system, moral reasoning alone cannot replace law and procedure. Even if a leader is considered oppressive or tyrannical, other countries cannot unilaterally take lethal action against him.

As the saying goes, “A gentleman is careful even when alone.” Even facing tyranny, one cannot act arbitrarily. Trump’s unilateral decision over the life and death of another country’s leader, much like a lawless tyrant, ultimately brings unpredictable risks to the world.