Reuters reported that strikes by Israel and the United States on February 28 were carried out to coincide with a meeting of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and his closest advisers. U.S. officials told the news agency they detected the gathering and that air and maritime operations were launched after confirmations of Khamenei’s presence at a secure location.
Two Iranian sources told Reuters that Khamenei met that morning with Defence Council secretary Ali Shamkhani and national security chief Ali Larijani at a secure site. British broadcaster Sky News and Iranian state media later said Khamenei was killed at his workplace that same morning, and Tehran announced a 40‑day national mourning period beginning March 1.
U.S. sources quoted by Reuters said Israel and the United States coordinated the timing of the strikes and moved when intelligence indicated the leadership meeting was taking place earlier in the day than expected. An anonymous U.S. official described the decision as opportunistic: Israeli intelligence reportedly detected the assembly, prompting an earlier-than-planned operation to exploit the target’s temporary concentration of senior figures.
If confirmed, the death of Khamenei would be an extraordinary and destabilising event. As Iran’s supreme leader since 1989, Khamenei held the final say on foreign and security policy and commanded the loyalty of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the wider clerical establishment; his removal would create an immediate succession contest and a profound test of Tehran’s command structure.
The immediate risks are manifold: a drive for swift vengeance by Iran’s security apparatus and affiliated militias across the region, a spike in missile and proxy attacks against U.S., Israeli and Gulf targets, and a political scramble in Tehran as hardline and moderate factions jockey for influence. Washington and Jerusalem would face intense scrutiny over their roles and the decision calculus that produced a strike timed to a leadership meeting.
Beyond immediate retaliation, the incident would reshape strategic calculations across the Middle East. States that have been cautiously recalibrating ties with Iran or balancing against it—such as Gulf monarchies and regional proxies—would be forced to reassess security postures. International diplomatic efforts to contain escalation, including backchannel communications and UN engagement, will become urgent if Iran’s leadership transition and command continuity are in doubt.
Initial reporting in fast-moving crises can be incomplete or contested. Independent confirmation of the circumstances and perpetrators of the strikes, and of Khamenei’s fate, will be essential. Still, even the credible suggestion that U.S. and Israeli forces targeted Iran’s top leadership at a moment when he and senior advisers were gathered marks a severe escalation with long-term strategic consequences for regional stability and global security.