A new flashpoint is rolling into the uneasy ceasefire between the United States and Iran. The Wall Street Journal reported on the 9th local time that Israel had detected a new Iranian plan to assassinate U.S. President Donald Trump and shared the related intelligence with the United States. Citing people familiar with the matter, the paper did not disclose the specific stage of the plot or how the intelligence was obtained.
Trump appears to have already been aware of the threat. Speaking to reporters after the NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey, on the 8th, he said, “They want to eliminate me, the leader of the United States,” adding, “I checked this morning, and I was on their list. I’ve been lucky so far, but that luck may not last long.”
His actions pointed in the same direction as his words. Trump boarded the older Air Force One for the return trip from Ankara, then switched to a newer aircraft at a British air base before heading to the White House. Observers viewed this as a security precaution. Those involved have been tight-lipped. The Israeli Embassy in Washington declined to comment, and Iran’s mission to the United Nations did not respond. The White House simply referred reporters to Trump’s remarks from the previous day.
On the 9th, the day the report emerged, Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held a phone call and agreed to continue coordination between the two countries across the Middle East. According to the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office, Trump also briefed Netanyahu on recent U.S. military movements in the Gulf. Communications between the two leaders, which had cooled, appear to be resuming through the sharing of intelligence.
The danger of this intelligence lies in its timing rather than its contents. The United States and Iran signed a ceasefire memorandum of understanding last month, but the agreement is now being shaken by the largest exchange of airstrikes since the truce began.
When intelligence about an alleged plot against a president is made public at such a delicate moment, it narrows the political space for negotiations even before the facts are verified. It is difficult for a leader facing an assassination threat to sign a peace document with the other side.
There is also Israel’s calculation to consider. Trump and Netanyahu have been growing more divided over how to respond to Iran. Netanyahu has pushed for broader military action, while Trump is reportedly seeking an exit strategy, concerned about the impact of a prolonged war on the global economy.
In that context, intelligence about an Iranian assassination threat could help restore Washington’s sense of danger and serve as leverage to rebuild joint action against Iran. The fact that government intelligence was quietly leaked to the media may itself be part of the message.
The temperature inside Iran also lends some plausibility to the report. At the funeral for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the former supreme leader who died on February 28 in attacks by the United States and Israel, a banner reading “We will kill Trump” appeared. Iran has also spent years threatening retaliation for the death of Qasem Soleimani, the Revolutionary Guard’s Quds Force commander who was killed in a U.S. airstrike in 2020. Following the unprecedented killing of its top leader, revenge sentiment has become a driving force within the regime.
WSJ noted that if the intelligence is confirmed to be true, it could deepen the conflict between the United States and Iran even further. With airstrikes continuing even after the ceasefire, an alleged attempt on the president’s life could push U.S. response options toward military measures.
But there is also considerable caution. The execution stage of the alleged plot and the source of the intelligence have not been disclosed, and Iran has issued no response. Some diplomats argue that unverified intelligence should not be used as justification for escalation.
Given that the report surfaced at a time when differences between Israel and the United States were already visible, some see the possibility that it may be politically instrumentalized. Trump himself said he was aware of the threat but added, “I’m doing my job, so I don’t really pay much attention to it,” which can also be read as a sign that he does not intend to use this immediately as a pretext for retaliation.
This incident shows that the Middle East ceasefire rests not on a document, but on the personal security of one man. If a state-to-state agreement can be overturned by a single threat against a leader, then a ceasefire is little more than a temporary pause button that can be rewound at any time.
As the deaths of Khamenei and Soleimani show, once leadership elimination becomes a tool of war, the cycle in which retaliation targets even heads of state has already begun.
The global economy is not immune. Trump’s own search for an exit reflects the economic shock of a prolonged war. If tensions rise again, shipping risks in the Strait of Hormuz and oil-price volatility will increase, and energy-importing countries like South Korea, which depends heavily on Middle Eastern oil, will feel the impact first.
This episode also teaches that information warfare has become a tool for shaking the negotiating table. Once intelligence is made public, it moves public opinion and policy regardless of whether it is verified. In other words, the era in which the decisive variable between peace and escalation may be not battlefield fire, but a single line of information in the press, has become reality.
The most urgent task is to verify the intelligence. If the United States moves to take military action before confirming the facts, a single piece of intelligence could become the trigger for renewed war.
The White House needs an internal rule that requires cross-checking by intelligence agencies and keeps response options restrained until the results are in. Intelligence sharing with Israel should also be tied to a joint verification process to reduce the chance that intelligence is used as a political tool among allies.
Restoring broken lines of communication is another priority. The United States and Iran are effectively cut off from direct dialogue and are communicating only through airstrikes and statements. Reviving a standing hotline through mediating Gulf states is the minimum safeguard needed to prevent miscalculation and accidental clashes, and to give the ceasefire a chance to hold.
The South Korean government and companies also need scenario-based planning. The government should review plans for releasing strategic oil reserves and activating alternative supply routes in the event of a disruption to navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, while shipping and refining firms need to prepare logistics plans in advance for surging insurance costs and route diversions. The gunfire in the Middle East may be far away, but the bill always arrives close to home.