Is it Worth the Shot? How Assassinations Effect on Politics and War

By
Share with your friends

Top Hezbollah and Hamas leaders were recently assassinated by Israel. Presidential nominee Donald Trump survived an assassination attempt at an election rally. Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan emerged stronger from these attempts on their lives. Even John F. Kennedy survived an assassination attempt before another assassin succeeded. Do assassinations or attempts to assassinate leaders change history?

In the immediate aftermath of the failed assassination attempt on Donald Trump, various political analysts declared that the race was effectively over: the Republicans’ Trump, the survivor, would win the next presidential election. A few weeks later, after Joe Biden withdrew from the race and was replaced by Kamala Harris and her pick for vice president, Tim Walz, the prediction is once again a statistical tie. The American electorate remains evenly divided. Trump survived, but successful political assassinations remain a recurring event in international politics. Sometimes, these assassinations are instigated by states with a grand scheme – such as the recent Israeli strikes against Hezbollah and Hamas. However, more often, they are carried out by disturbed individuals, like the latest attempt against Trump.

A Regional War Between Iran and Israel?

The recently deceased Fuad Shukr, a top Hezbollah commander and founding member, is believed to have been assassinated by Israel in Lebanon. Shukr’s death represents a significant blow to the Iran-backed group. Known as Al-Hajj Mohsin, Hezbollah’s Shukr was part of a generation of Lebanese Shi’ite Muslims inspired by Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, who mobilized in 1982 to resist the Israeli invasion.

Shukr’s killing was quickly followed by the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran. While Israel has not confirmed its responsibility, Iran immediately placed the blame on them. In response to Haniyeh’s violent demise, Hamas appointed Yahya Sinwar, its top official in Gaza who masterminded the 7 October attacks in southern Israel, as its new leader.

Iran raised a red flag over the Qom mosque after the killing of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran. The red flag is said to symbolize the blood spilled unjustly and as a call to avenge a person who is slain. A sign of an all-out war on Israel?

“We consider it our duty to take vengeance for the death of Ismail Haniyeh,” Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said in a statement following the assassination of the Hamas leader. A strike last month in Gaza killed Mohammed Deif, the head of Hamas’ military wing and another architect of the October 7 attacks. The Gaza peace talks between Hamas and Israel are now on hold. But will these killings escalate into a regional war between Iran and Israel? ​​

Caesar’s Murder Ended the Roman Republic

The reign of one of history’s greatest conquerors, Alexander the Great, began with the assassination of his father. Still, probably the first well-known historical political assassination was the murder of Julius Caesar in 44 BCE by Roman senators. It is often cited as a critical point leading to the end of the Roman Republic and the rise of the Roman Empire.
Another renowned European leader, Napoleon, faced between 20 and 30 assassination plots during his reign, any of which would possibly have changed French and European history. The successful assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914 triggered something monumental: World War I. The two decades between the world wars were turbulent, marred with numerous killings of political leaders, not to mention failed attempts.
A clash between empires was likely inevitable, but the alliances and thus the result may have differed had the igniting event been different. Nevertheless, a single act can and did plunge the world into prolonged conflict.
The first two decades after World War II were characterized by a limited number of political assassinations, the number of such attacks has risen dramatically since the early 1970s.

The Age of Assassination

In contrast to the relative calm of the eighteenth century, the nineteenth century experienced a resurgence of political assassinations reminiscent of the early modern period. In the late nineteenth century alone, nearly every major European ruler and head of state faced assassination attempts. These included Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria, Kaisers Wilhelm I, Friedrich III, and Wilhelm II of Germany, Tsars Alexander II, Alexander III, and Nicholas II of Russia, Kings Victor Emmanuel II, Umberto I, and Victor Emmanuel III of Italy, and various presidents of France, along with numerous prominent politicians. Queen Victoria famously survived seven assassination attempts during her long reign, while her husband, Prince Albert, and the future kings of England, Edward VII and George V, were also targeted. Austria’s Empress Elisabeth, also known as “Sisi” (not “Sissi”), was assassinated by an Italian anarchist at the end of the century.

The attack on Otto von Bismarck in 1866.
The attack on Otto von Bismarck in 1866.

This Age of Assassination spread to the new continent, too. The most historically significant political assassination in the United States during the 19th century was the killing of Abraham Lincoln in 1865. Lincoln is remembered for his role as a defender of black rights. However, his death led to increased Southern resistance and prolonged racial discrimination. Lincoln’s successor, Andrew Johnson, was more lenient towards the former Confederate states and less supportive of civil rights for freed slaves. Johnson’s leniency allowed Southern states to implement Black Codes and later Jim Crow laws, which severely restricted the freedoms of African Americans and institutionalized racial segregation.
In response to Johnson’s policies, congress passed the Military Reconstruction Act of 1867, which divided the South into military districts and required states to ratify the 14th Amendment and provide voting rights to black men.
Three amendments to the Constitution were made after Lincoln’s death:

  • 13th Amendment: Abolished slavery in all of the United States.
  • 14th Amendment: Granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States and guaranteed equal protection under the law.
  • 15th Amendment: Prohibited states from denying the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Lincoln’s death initially caused concerns about U.S. stability, but the continued strength of the Union helped to reassure foreign powers. The U.S. government remained focused on expanding its influence, including through the purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867, known as Seward’s Folly.

The assignation of President James Garfield (1881) assassination led to the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883, which established that government jobs should be awarded based on merit rather than political affiliation. Garfield’s short time in office meant his foreign policy impact was limited. His assassination did not significantly alter the U.S. foreign policy trajectory at the time.

Killing McKinley Accelerated U.S. Imperialism

However, William McKinley’s (1901) assassination brought Theodore Roosevelt to the presidency, who pursued more progressive domestic policies and an assertive foreign policy. Roosevelt’s administration ushered in an era of progressivism, emphasizing reforms in business regulation, labor laws, and environmental conservation. McKinley’s assassination indirectly accelerated U.S. imperialism. Roosevelt was a proponent of the U.S. as a global power and continued policies that led to the construction of the Panama Canal and increased involvement in Latin America.
Roosevelt’s Big Stick diplomacy marked a shift towards a more aggressive and interventionist foreign policy, emphasizing U.S. power and readiness to use military force to influence other nations. Roosevelt mediated the end of the Russo-Japanese War, earning the Nobel Peace Prize and increasing U.S. influence in East Asia.
Roosevelt’s Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine stated that the U.S. would intervene in Latin American countries to maintain stability, further asserting U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere.

Did the Kennedy Killings Escalate and Prolong the Vietnam War?

President John F. Kennedy’s assassination in 1963 did not immediately alter the U.S. stance in the Cold War. However, it created an atmosphere of heightened tension and uncertainty. Lyndon B. Johnson inherited Kennedy’s policies in Vietnam and escalated U.S. involvement, significantly increasing troop deployments and military actions. Johnson also continued Kennedy’s policies of containment and support for anti-communist regimes worldwide. The U.S. maintained and intensified the economic embargo against Cuba that Kennedy had strengthened, further isolating Cuba under Fidel Castro.
Historian Fredrik Logevall suggests Kennedy might not have escalated the Vietnam War as Johnson did. In his book Choosing War: The Lost Chance for Peace and the Escalation of War in Vietnam, Logevall argues that Kennedy was skeptical about deepening U.S. involvement. Kennedy had initiated plans for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops by the end of 1963, contingent on the military situation improving. Unlike Johnson, who significantly escalated the war, Kennedy likely would have maintained a limited commitment through the 1964 election and avoided major escalation in 1965. ​

Robert F. Kennedy was a presidential candidate for just 82 days before his assassination in 1968. He was a vocal critic of the Vietnam War and advocated for a negotiated settlement. His assassination removed a significant political force that could have influenced a shift in U.S. policy towards de-escalation and withdrawal. The 1968 election led to the presidency of Richard Nixon, who pursued the policy of “Vietnamization” and eventually sought to end U.S. involvement in the war through peace talks and a phased withdrawal. Robert Kennedy was known for his strong support for Israel. His death did not alter U.S. policy towards Israel, but it removed a prominent advocate for Israeli interests at a critical time in Middle Eastern geopolitics.
Both Kennedys were proponents of the Alliance for Progress, a program aimed at establishing economic cooperation between the U.S. and Latin America. Robert’s death meant the loss of a key supporter of this initiative, which faced challenges and eventually diminished in influence.
Robert Kennedy’s commitment to civil rights and social justice had significant international resonance. His assassination diminished the perception of the U.S. as a progressive force for social change, impacting its moral authority in promoting democracy and human rights abroad. The civil movements protesting the Vietnam War fostered enduring anti-American sentiment, particularly in Europe, which may continue to influence attitudes even today.

Murdering the Oslo Peace Process

While successful assassinations can hasten the end of large-scale conflicts, they can also intensify smaller ones. For example, the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 is often seen as a significant setback for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, demonstrating how the death of a key leader can derail peace efforts and escalate tensions. President Bill Clinton, a key figure behind the Oslo peace process, speculated that peace could have been achieved within three years if Yitzhak Rabin had not been assassinated. Only a decade earlier, in 1985, Rabin’s counterpart in the peace negotiations and the leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization PLO, Yasser Arafat, avoided Israeli fighter plane bombs at his headquarters in Tunis. The bombing killed many, but Arafat survived, having stepped out for a morning jog.

During the Oslo peace process, Yasser Arafat’s stance was significantly influenced by the threat of assassination from extremist factions within the Palestinian community. According to Dennis Ross, a former special assistant to President Barack Obama, Arafat received numerous assassination threats from rejectionist Palestinian groups, which led to both Israeli and U.S. officials providing training for Arafat’s personal security guards. This pervasive threat influenced Arafat’s actions and his reluctance to confront groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad directly, instead often opting to divide them rather than engage in direct confrontation​.

Palme’s Murder Changed Sweden’s Direction

The assassination of Olof Palme, Sweden’s Prime Minister, on a cold February night in 1986, rattled the very core of Swedish society. Known for his bold and often controversial stances on international issues, Palme’s death not only left a void in Swedish politics but also prompted subtle yet significant shifts in Sweden’s foreign policy. The immediate successors of Palme adopted a more cautious stance in international affairs. The idealism that had characterized Palme’s tenure gave way to a more pragmatic and measured approach. This was partly due to a recognition of the limits of Sweden’s influence on the global stage and the practical need to safeguard national interests.

Also, Sweden increased its engagement with European integration. While Palme had been somewhat skeptical of the European Economic Community, his successors saw closer ties with Europe as a strategic necessity. This culminated in Sweden’s accession to the European Union in 1995, marking a significant pivot in its foreign policy, not to mention it becoming a NATO member in 2024.

There was also a renewed emphasis on multilateralism and working through international organizations such as the United Nations and the European Union. This shift was aimed at amplifying Sweden’s voice on the global stage through collective action rather than unilateral initiatives.

Despite these shifts, Sweden continued to champion human rights and global justice, albeit more restrained manner. The moral legacy of Palme’s foreign policy persisted, influencing Sweden’s active role in international peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts.
In 2003, Sweden was shocked again, as Foreign Minister Anna Lindh was knifed in a department store. Unlike the assassination of Olof Palme, which was deeply investigated for possible political conspiracies, Lindh’s attacker seemed more impulsive and less organized. There was no evidence of a broader political or ideological group backing his actions.

Luck and Randomness

For fans of counterfactual history, the fate of Adolf Hitler has been a favorite subject. Could the entire war have been avoided if someone had succeeded in killing him early enough? If one of the assassination attempts on his life during the war had succeeded, could the war have ended earlier, and countless lives have been saved? The survival of leaders due to minor, often random factors can have profound implications. In 1939, Hitler survived an assassination attempt due to his early departure from the Munich beer hall by just 13 minutes.

In 1944, German Army officers General Friedrich Olbricht, Major General Henning von Tresckow, and Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg attempted to overthrow the Nazi regime. The plotters planned to take control of German cities, disarm the SS, and arrest Nazi leaders following the assassination of Hitler in the failed 20 July plot.
Claus von Stauffenberg attempted to assassinate Hitler by detonating a bomb hidden in a briefcase. However, the explosion only caused minor injuries to Hitler due to the bomb’s placement. The subsequent coup attempt failed, leading to a purge of the Wehrmacht. Between 1932 and 1944, there were as many as 42 plots to assassinate Hitler.

The Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, whom the Germans planned to assassinate alongside with Britain Winston Churchill and the US president F.D. Roosevelt in Yalta in 1943, successfully ordered the killing of millions of his fellow Soviet citizens, including one of the chief architects of the Russian Revolution and once the most likely successor to Lenin as the leader of the U.S.S.R., Lev Trotsky. In 1940, Trosky first survived an assassination attempt when men with machine guns fired into his home in Mexico City. Just three months later he was assassinated at his home with an ice axe by Jaime Ramón Mercader del Río, a Soviet secret agent.
Stalin made several attempts to eliminate his former ally, Yugoslav leader Josip Broz Tito. After a few failed assassination attempts, Tito wrote to Stalin: “Stop sending people to kill me. We’ve already captured five of them.” Born in 1892, Tito remained in power until 1980, maintaining Yugoslavia as a socialist state independent of Moscow’s control.

After Stalin’s death in 1953, significant power struggles erupted within the Soviet leadership. In the aftermath, Lavrentiy Beria, the main orchestrator of Stalin-era assassinations and the head of the Soviet secret police NKVD was accused of various crimes, including treason and terrorism. He was secretly tried and executed.

Failed Attempts Embolden Leaders

Donald Trump is certainly not the only politician, who has become emboldened after surviving an attempt to their lives. One of the most notable such politicians was Italy’s Benito Mussolini. In 1926 he was shot by a lady. The bullet only grazed his nose. Mussolini used this and other attempts to his advantage, portraying himself as a survivor and a symbol of Italian resilience. These incidents allowed him to justify the implementation of stricter security measures and further consolidate his power, thereby emboldening his regime.

In Spain, Catalan separatists attempted to kill Spain’s King Alfonso XIII in Barcelona in June 1925. The Catalans blamed King Alfonso for enabling the dictatorship of General Primo de Rivera and repressing Catalan national identity. The attempt failed and the Madrid regime used the plot to justify widespread crackdowns on Catalan separatist groups.

”The Darling of Reds” rises to power in Cuba. The Arizona Star, January 1st, 1959.

Cuban leader Fidel Castro became more and more defiant against the United States after surviving hundreds of attempts to his life by the American secret service. According to Castro’s former secret service chief, the Cuban leader survived more than 634 attempts on his life during his 49-year reign in power. The methods of error-prone assassination campaigns by the CIA varied from exploding cigars to femmes fatales and a radio station rigged with gaseous LSD to a poison syringe posing as an innocuous fountain pen. The dea was to destabilize Castro by exposing him to LSD during one of his public speeches. The CIA hoped that by causing him to behave erratically or incoherently in public, they could discredit him and undermine his authority. The plot was never executed, primarily due to practical challenges and the unpredictability of using a drug like LSD in such a manner.

Sometimes attempted killings do change the targeted politicians. In 1972, Alabama Governor George Wallace, an ardent segregationist once dubbed the “most dangerous racist in America” by Martin Luther King Jr., was vying for the Democratic presidential nomination. Echoing themes later used by Donald Trump, Wallace energized crowds by denouncing busing and the elite, appealing to the fears of “forgotten” white Americans. During a speech, Wallace was shot and survived but was left wheelchair-bound for life. Despite his injuries, he continued in state politics, eventually seeking forgiveness from the Black community for his role in promoting racial hatred and division during the civil rights era. Trump’s reaction to his assassination attempt is more kind to Castro’s than Wallace’s. He remains emboldened with his provocative campaign messaging.

Destabilizing Effects and the Gandhi Curse

Understanding the conditions under which assassinations lead to democratization or increased conflict can inform policy decisions and strategies for promoting political stability – or instability if that is the aim.
As an example, after one failed attempt, the successful assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan in 2007 underscored the volatility of the political environment and the potential for such acts to destabilize a nation further. Ensuring the safety of political figures, particularly in transitional democracies, is crucial for maintaining political stability and preventing the escalation of violence.

In neighboring India, the assassinations of three Gandhis – Mahatma (1948), Indira (1984), and Rajiv (1991) – had a violent impact on the society. The first known attempt on Gandhi’s life in India – by an Englishman – was already in 1917. Earlier in South Africa, he had been assaulted many times. An unknown person threw a grenade at Gandhi in 1934 in Poona, India. Failed attempts for his life were made in 1944 (twice) and in 1948, only ten days before the successful shooting of three bullets into Gandhi’s chest from point-blank range.

The assassination of Mahatma Gandhi did not directly cause the mass killings and unrest between Hindus and Muslims. The religious conflicts in India had been brewing for centuries, with significant violence occurring during the partition of India in 1947, well before Gandhi’s assassination. This period saw large-scale massacres, forced migrations, and immense suffering as millions of people crossed borders to join their chosen nations, leading to communal strife that persisted post-independence.
Gandhi was a staunch advocate for Hindu-Muslim unity and worked tirelessly to ease communal tensions. His assassination by a Hindu extremist was, in part, due to his efforts to reconcile these communities, which some saw as too conciliatory toward Muslims. However, the underlying communal tensions would likely have led to violence irrespective of his assassination.

While Gandhi’s assassination did lead to immediate violence, including suppressing opposition and other attacks on members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and other right-wing groups, which were implicated in the conspiracy, this was part of a broader pattern of communal unrest that had been ongoing.

The assassination led to a consolidation of secular principles in the nascent Indian state under Jawaharlal Nehru. Later, Prime Minister Nehru survived several attempts on his life, mainly by Indian players, but also by the CIA in 1955.

Indira Gandhi, Nehru’s daughter, was the prime minister between 1966 to 1977 and 1980 to 1984. Her assassination sent shockwaves through the nation, unleashing some of the most vicious communal violence India has ever seen. In just about three days, approximately 3,350 Sikhs were massacred, 2,800 in the national capital itself.

The former Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi, the son of Indira Gandhi, was killed in 1991 by a suicide bomber Thenmozhi “Gayatri” Rajaratnam, representing Sri Lankan Tamil separatist organization LTTE. The assassination was meant to avenge Gandhi’s decision to send the Indian Peace Keeping Force to intervene in the country between 1987 and 1990 during its three-decade-long civil war. Gandi was believed to be on a comeback trail to power.

As heir to the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, Rajiv Gandhi became India’s Prime Minister in 1984, just hours after his mother was assassinated by two of her own bodyguards. Rajiv’s killing, India’s Tamil minority, living all over India in towns and cities, was persecuted. They were hunted, and several of them, particularly in the Bangalore area, were surrounded and there would be shootouts, and a number of them would be killed. They were basically chased away from the major cities. Tamils were not welcome in India at that point, nor have they been since.

Gandhi’s widow Sonia became the president of the Congress Party in 1998 and led the party to victory in the 2004 and 2009 parliament elections. There have been no verified attempts to assassinate Sonia Gandhi.

States Do It, Too

States, especially superpowers have used political assassinations as tools for maintaining or expanding their influence, both domestically and internationally.
The CIA-backed coup that resulted in President Salvador Allende’s death was aimed at preventing the spread of socialism in Latin America, bolstering U.S. influence, and promoting a friendly regime. CIA was allegedly involved in Patrice Lumumba’s killing in Congo, in 1961. In addition to hundreds of failed attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro, the Americans also tried to kill Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, even bombing him in 1986.  While U.S. achieved short-term geopolitical objectives, it also led to long-term resentment and anti-American sentiment.
The British Empire used the assassination tool, too. In 1931, Bhagat Singh was killed in India, to suppress independence movements. In other British colonies, numerous attempts were made to assassinate leaders of independence movements, often unsuccessful but contributing to long-term resistance against colonial rule.
France did succeed to get rid of Félix Moumié of Cameroon, in 1960. He was poisoned in Geneva by French agents. During the Algerian War of Independence, various failed attempts on Frantz Fanon were reported. Fanon was one of the most influential anticolonial thinkers of his time.
China has maintained control over the regions of Xinjiang and Tibet by numerous targeted killings of activists and dissidents. There have been multiple reported attempts to target dissidents living overseas, often thwarted by host nations’ security services.

Russian Tradition Revived

While Putin’s Russia has openly tried to get rid of the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the main targets of the modern Russian assassination attempts have been Putin’s Russian political opponents, like Alexander Litvinenko, who was poisoned in 2006 with polonium in London.  Boris Nemtsov, a vocal opponent of Putin, was shot near the Kremlin in 2015. Alexei Navalny, opposition leader, anti-corruption activist, and a political prisoner was found dead in 2024.

However, Russians have a long tradition of politically motivated assassinations, which extends beyond the last turbulent tsarist and bloody Stalinist decades. The Soviet Union’s involvement in Afghanistan is one of the most notable examples. In April 1978, a coup led by the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) resulted in the assassination of President Mohammed Daoud Khan and his family. The Soviets supported this coup to establish a pro-Soviet government. Subsequently, when Hafizullah Amin, a PDPA leader, executed his rival Noor Taraki in 1979, the Soviets saw Amin’s increasing unpredictability as a threat. In December 1979, Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan, assassinated Amin, and installed Babrak Karmal as the new leader​.
In the 1920s, the Soviets intervened in Mongolia, supporting the Mongolian People’s Party against the White Army commander Roman von Ungern-Sternberg. The intervention included the assassination of Sternberg, which helped establish a Soviet-aligned government in Mongolia​.
These assassinations helped the Soviet Union establish strategic control over key regions, ensuring that neighboring countries aligned with Soviet interests. Installing pro-Soviet governments helped spread communist ideology and solidify Soviet influence during the Cold War.
The invasion and assassinations in Afghanistan drew widespread condemnation and led to diplomatic isolation. The most symbolic form of this protest was the boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics when numerous Western countries did not participate in the games. The conflict itself was prolonged. The mujahideen, supported by the U.S., waged a decade-long insurgency that ultimately forced the Soviet withdrawal. The intervention drained Soviet resources and led to significant loss of life, contributing to the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union.

Russian Roulette on Democracy: Killing Autocrats May Pay Off

In their Northwestern Kellogg University article Hit or Miss? The Effect of Assassinations on Institutions and War, Benjamin Jones and Benjamin Olken utilized a data set of assassination attempts from 1875 to 2004 to analyze the institutional changes following these events. They found that successful assassinations of autocrats tend to lead to democratic transitions, whereas attempts at democratic leaders do not have the same effect. Specifically, the study revealed a 13-percentage point increase in the likelihood of democratization following the assassination of an autocrat compared to a failed attempt.

Moreover, their analysis found that successful assassinations can exacerbate small-scale conflicts but potentially hasten the end of large-scale wars. This duality suggests that the impact of assassinations on conflict is context-dependent, varying significantly with the existing political and social environment.

The transition to democracy following the assassination of an autocrat is particularly noteworthy. The fall of a dictator often leaves a power vacuum that can be filled by democratic forces, especially if the underlying societal conditions favor such a transition – like in South Korea, where the assassination of General Park Chung-hee in 1979 paved the way for the country’s eventual democratization. However, the study by Jones and Olken also indicated that failed assassination attempts could have modest effects in the opposite direction, slightly reducing the likelihood of democratic change and possibly leading to increased repression by the surviving autocrat.
All future assassins, whether state-sponsored, rebellious, or private actors, should keep in mind that the risks of assassination are extremely high: failure is harshly punished, and even success rarely leads to the desired outcome.

Unsuccessful Political Assassinations

Afghanistan

  • Sibghatullah Mojadeddi, president of the senate (2006)

Argentina

  • Isabel Perón, president (1974)
  • Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, vice president (2022)

Australia

  • Arthur Calwell, leader of the Labor Party (1965)

Brazil

  • Pedro II, emperor (1889)
  • Artur da Costa e Silva, minister of War of Brazil and candidate for the presidency (1966)

Canada

  • Sir John A. Macdonald, premier (1880s)
  • Sir Wilfrid Laurier, prime minister (1897)
  • Jean Chretien, prime minister (1995)

China

  • Zhu Houcong, Emperor of China’s Ming dynasty (The Imperial Concubines’ Uprising, 1542)
  • Mao Zedong, chairman (1971)

Denmark

  • J.B.S. Estrup, council president (1885)
  • Christian X, king (1920)

Ecuador

  • Fernando Villavicencio, presidential candidate (2023)

England/Great Britain

  • Edward I (Edward Longshanks), King of England (1272)
  • Edward II, king of England (Murder by Magic in 1324)
  • King James I, king of England (1605)
  • William III and II of England, Scotland and Ireland (1696)
  • Anne, Queen of England (1708)
  • George III, King of the United Kingdom (1800)
  • Robert Jenkinson, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (1820)
  • Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom (1882, 1887)
  • David Lloyd George, chancellor of the Exchequer (1913)
  • John Ernest Buttery Hotson, acting Governor of Bombay (1931)
  • Gerry Adams, leader of Sinn Fein (1984)
  • Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (1984)
  • Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom (1981)
  • John Major, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (1991)

Egypt

  • Anwar Sadat, president (1980)
  • Hosni Mubarak, president (1995, 1999)

Ethiopia

  • Mengistu Haile Mariam, former president (1995)

Finland

  • Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim, marshal (1918, 1919, 1920, 1943)
  • Urho Kekkonen, president (1957)

France

  • Gaspard de Coligny, Leader of the Huguenots (1572)
  • Napoleon Bonaparte,  First Consul and Emperor (several, 1800)
  • Alexandre Millerand, president of (1922)
  • François Mitterrand, later president (1959)
  • Charles de Gaulle, president of France (1962)

Germany

  • Otto von Bismarck, chancellor (1866, 1874) – Kaiser Wilhelm I (1878)
  • Adolf Hitler, leader of Nazi Germany (42 attempts between 1932 to 1944)
  • Konrad Adenauer, chancellor (1952)
  • Wolfgang Schäuble, minister of finance (1990) Oskar Lafontaine, West German opposition leader, the Left party (1990)
  • Angela Merkel, chancellor (2016)

Greece

  • Eleftherios Venizelos, revolutionary and statesman (1920)

Holland/Dutch Republic

  • William of Orange, leader of the United Provinces (1582)

India

  • Mahatma Gandhi (1917, 1934, 1944, 1948)
  • Jawaharlal Nehru, prime minister (1947, 1953, 1955, 1955, 1956, 1961)
  • Rajiv Gandhi, Prime Minister (1985, 1985, 1985, 1985, 1986, 1986, 1987)
  • Narendra Modi, chief minister of Gujarat and the prime ministerial candidate for the 2014 Indian general election, later prime minister (2013)

Italy

  • Benito Mussolini, Prime Minister of Italy (3 attempts in Bologna, and Rome in 1926)
  • Umberto of Savoy, prince of Piedmont, king (1929)
  • Silvio Berlusconi, prime minister (2009)

Iran

  • Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, Shah of Iran (1949, 1955)
  • Ayatollah Khomeini, Supreme Leader (1982)
  • Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, former president (2024)

Iraq

  • Tariq Aziz, deputy prime minister (1980)
  • Adil Abdul-Mahdi, vice president (2007)
  • Mustafa Al-Kadhimi, prime minister (2021)

Israel

  • Golda Meir, prime minister (1973)
  • Benjamin Netanyahu (2014)

Japan

  • Hirohito, emperor of Japan (1923, 1925, 1932)
  • Fumio Kishida, prime minister (2023)

Jordan

  • Hussein bin Talal, 2nd in line to the throne, king (1951)

Libya

  • Muammar Gaddafi, Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution (1984, 1986)

Malta

  • Manuel Pinto da Fonseca, grand master (1749)

Mexico

  • Andrés Manuel López Obrador, President (2020)

Norway

  • Haakon VII, king (1940)

Pakistan

  • Benazir Bhutto, prime minister (2007)
  • Imran Khan, former prime minister (2022)

Portugal

  • Jaoão Chagas, prime minister-designate (1915)

Russia/Soviet Union

  • Alexander II, emperor of Russia (1867, 1879, 1880, 1881)
  • Nicholas II, emperor of Russia (1891)
  • Vladimir Lenin, leader of the Soviet Union (1918, 1918, 1918)
  • Joseph Stalin, General Secretary of the CPSU (1943)
  • Leonid Brezhnev, General Secretary of the CPSU (1969)
  • Mikhail Gorbachev, General Secretary of the CPSU (1990)
  • Vladimir Putin, president (2000, 2002)
  • Anatoly Chubais, former prime minister (2005)
  • Ramzan Kadyrov, head of the Chechen Republic (2006)
  • Alexei Navalny, opposition politician (2020)

Slovakia

  • Robert Fico, prime minister (2024)

South Africa

  • Nelson Mandela, opposition leader, future president (1985)

South Korea

  • Lee Jae-myung, MP and leader of the Democratic Party of Korea (2024)

Spain

  • Alfonso XIII, king (1925)
  • Francisco Franco, Generalissimo of Spain (1964) José María Aznar, head of the People’s Party and future prime minister (1995) – Juan Carlos, king (1995)

Sudan

  • Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, head of military and president (2024)

Taiwan

  • Anette Lu, Vice President of the Republic of China (2004)

Turkey/Ottoman Empire

  • Abdul Hamid II, Sultan of the Ottoman Empire (1905)
  • Turgut Özal, prime minister (1988)
  • Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, prime minister (2003, 2005, 2011, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2021

United States

  • William H. Seward, secretary of state (1865)
  • William Howard Taft (1909, 1910)
  • Theodore Roosevelt, presidential candidate, and former two-term president (1912)
  • Herbert Hoover, president (1928)
  • Franklin Roosevelt, president-elect (1933, 1943)
  • Harry Truman, president (1947, 1950)
  • George Wallace, presidential candidate (1972)
  • Richard Nixon, president (1972, 1974)
  • Gerald Ford, president (1974, 1975, 1975)
  • Jimmy Carter, president (1979)
  • Ronald Reagan, president (1981)
  • George H.W. Bush, president (1993)
  • Bill Clinton, president (1994, 1994, 1994, 1996, 2018)
  • George W. Bush (2005, 2022)
  • Barack Obama, president (2008, 2009, 2011, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2013, 2018)
  • Donald Trump, president, presidential candidate (2017, 2017, 2024)
  • Joe Biden, president (2023)

Ukraine

  • Viktor Yushchenko, former prime minister, and candidate for president (2004)
  • Volodymyr Zelenskyy, president (2022, 2023, 2024, 2024)

Vatican

  • John Paul II, pope (1981)

Venezuela

  • Nicolas Maduro, president of Venezuela (2018)
Read More:

Must Read