Recent remarks in the Iranian daily Kayhan, specifically in its “Goft-o-Shenoud” column, sparked significant controversy by explicitly suggesting that U.S. President Donald Trump would be assassinated in retaliation for the killing of General Qassem Soleimani. The column stated, “Trump has been making excessive threats against multiple countries, including allies of the U.S. such as Canada, Europe, and Japan. He deserves a bullet in his empty head in revenge for Soleimani’s blood.”
These inflammatory comments have drawn substantial international attention, particularly from Fox News, which highlighted Kayhan’s explicit threats in detail, quoting directly from the column. Fox News emphasized Kayhan’s provocative wording and suggested the remarks could further strain U.S.-Iran relations.
Domestically, the remarks drew sharp criticism even from figures typically aligned with Kayhan. Political analyst Abdollah Ganji described the column as a “subconscious error,” noting Kayhan’s previous stance that issues with the U.S. are systemic rather than tied to any single individual, questioning why Kayhan would imply that removing Trump would solve deeper problems. Similarly, Abdolreza Davari criticized Kayhan for echoing the narratives propagated by Israeli-linked accounts, accusing the newspaper of inadvertently playing into Israel’s hands and using the hashtag “#infiltration.”
Despite domestic and international backlash, Kayhan aggressively defended its statements, reiterating its hostile stance towards critics by accusing them of fearfulness and aligning with U.S. interests. The paper further mocked critics, saying they had “heads as empty as Trump’s.”
The Iranian Press Supervisory Board responded by emphasizing the official stance of the Iranian government on seeking justice through international legal means regarding Soleimani’s assassination, rather than through violence. It issued an official warning to Kayhan based on Iranian press law, which explicitly prohibits publishing material harmful to Iran’s security, dignity, or national interests.
Iranian reformist daily Ham-Mihan strongly condemned Kayhan’s actions, arguing that such reckless rhetoric severely undermines national interests. It questioned the muted response by Iran’s Press Supervisory Board, suggesting the board’s mild “official warning,” which notably did not explicitly name Kayhan or its editor-in-chief, was insufficient. The newspaper further demanded clarity from governmental bodies regarding Kayhan’s precise affiliation and its representational legitimacy.
Government spokesperson Fatemeh Mohajerani described Kayhan’s rhetoric as inflammatory and contrary to Iran’s official stance of peace and legal justice. She emphasized that inflammatory statements contradict the government’s declared policy of pursuing justice for Soleimani’s assassination through legal international channels and reiterated the importance of responsible journalism in serving national interests.
Prominent journalist Ahmad Zeidabadi called for transparency regarding Kayhan’s official status, questioning if its positions officially reflect government policy or merely personal opinions of its editors. Zeidabadi emphasized that the ambiguity surrounding Kayhan’s status complicates diplomatic interactions, as foreign diplomats frequently interpret its statements as reflective of official Iranian policy. The controversy has reignited debate regarding the extent of press freedom in Iran, the responsibilities of media toward national security, and the clear delineation—or lack thereof—between official government positions and media outlets closely associated with political establishments.