President Donald Trump has revealed what he says should happen if an Iranian plot succeeds in killing him—and his answer was not diplomacy, restraint or a carefully measured response.

It was overwhelming retaliation.

In a striking interview with the New York Post, the 80-year-old president said he had left behind “instructions” directing the United States to launch attacks against Iran on a scale the country had never experienced.

“I’ve been on their list for a long time,” Trump said while discussing reported threats against his life.

He then delivered the warning that immediately intensified fears surrounding the already widening conflict: if anything happened to him, Iran should be bombed “at levels that they’ve never seen before.”

The remarks landed at an extraordinarily dangerous moment.

The war involving the United States and Iran has stretched into its fifth month, while diplomatic efforts have repeatedly appeared to advance and then collapse. Trump recently declared a fragile peace arrangement “over” after hostilities resumed, leaving negotiators struggling to find another path away from escalation.

Now the president has placed his own possible assassination at the center of that crisis.

Trump’s comments suggest that he wants Tehran to believe his death would not end the conflict. Instead, he argues, it would trigger an even more devastating American response carried out by whoever assumed power after him.

The message was unmistakable: killing Trump, he warned, would bring consequences long after he was gone.

The White House did not immediately explain whether the president was describing a formally approved military contingency or a broader political directive. It also did not clarify whether the instructions had changed since the latest phase of the war began.

Trump has made similar statements before.

In February 2025, shortly after returning to office, he told reporters that Iran would face destruction if it carried out an assassination against him. At the time, he insisted that he had already left instructions for retaliation.

But the situation surrounding those remarks is now far more volatile.

Iran-linked threats against Trump have been reported for years, particularly following the January 2020 American drone strike that killed Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani. Tehran repeatedly vowed revenge for Soleimani’s death, while U.S. authorities investigated alleged plots targeting Trump and former members of his administration.

The danger appeared to become more immediate during Trump’s visit to Turkey for a NATO summit this week.

Israeli intelligence reportedly warned American officials about a possible Iranian assassination plot targeting the president. Trump unexpectedly switched aircraft for his return journey, leaving aboard an older Air Force One rather than the newer plane he had used earlier. Officials familiar with the decision cited security concerns surrounding the newer aircraft’s protective capabilities.

Trump later described the flight as dangerous and blamed the situation on the hostile forces the United States was confronting.

The sudden aircraft change transformed what might otherwise have appeared to be routine presidential travel into a visible sign of the threat surrounding him.

Trump has repeatedly claimed that he is at the top of Iran’s list of enemies. During the NATO summit, he again referred to the alleged threats and portrayed himself as the principal target of Tehran’s anger.

His newest warning, however, went beyond acknowledging danger.

It introduced the possibility that a future American leader could inherit instructions for massive retaliation after Trump’s death.

That raises profound constitutional, military and diplomatic questions.

Presidents can establish contingency plans and communicate their intentions to national security officials. But any future military response would still depend on the circumstances, the available evidence and decisions made by surviving civilian and military leaders.

Trump’s words therefore function as both a personal warning and an attempt at deterrence.

He wants Iranian officials to believe that assassinating him would not produce victory. It would unleash consequences far greater than anything they hoped to achieve.

Yet deterrence through extreme public threats can carry risks of its own.

Iran could interpret the remarks as evidence that Washington has already decided upon a catastrophic response. American allies may fear being pulled into a rapidly escalating confrontation. And diplomatic negotiators may find their remaining room for compromise narrowing with every threat exchanged publicly.

Trump’s frustration with those negotiations has become increasingly visible.

Special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, have been involved in efforts to secure an agreement with Iran. Critics—including voices on conservative television—have argued that the pair have been spread across too many global crises and have failed to achieve durable results.

Trump has said they may continue talking to Iranian officials, but he has also dismissed those conversations as potentially pointless.

That contradiction now defines the administration’s posture.

Negotiators are still searching for peace while the president publicly describes unprecedented retaliation.

Trump’s supporters may view the threat as classic strength: an unmistakable warning intended to prevent Tehran from acting. His critics are likely to see something more dangerous—a deeply personal declaration that could tie the fate of millions to revenge for one man.

For now, Trump remains protected by one of the world’s most sophisticated security operations.

But the fact that he is publicly discussing what should happen after his assassination shows how far the crisis has moved beyond ordinary political confrontation.

The president says he has already written the ending.

The terrifying question is whether his threat will prevent that ending—or help bring it closer.