The danger lies not only in the development of technical means but in what this development implies ethically and humanly. When an algorithm reduces human life to a series of data, and suspicion becomes a numerical equation, the line between surveillance and killing grows narrower than ever. At that point, the questions arise: Who decides? How do they decide? And who is accountable when the machine errs—or when the decision is delegated under the guise of human oversight?

The machine approaches the decision to kill

From Gaza to Lebanon and on to Iran, one question rises to the forefront of modern Israeli warfare: Has artificial intelligence become a direct partner in the decision to kill, rather than merely an aid in gathering information? This question has gained renewed urgency following reports and accusations that Israel is using AI systems to select targets within Iran, amid growing concerns about a decline in actual human oversight over lethal decisions.

In Lebanon, this pattern became evident during the escalation of Israeli assassination policies in the 2024 war, which targeted prominent field and political leaders in Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Islamic Group, resulting in killings that disrupted the party’s leadership structures. Although available reports do not directly confirm that these operations were selected using artificial intelligence, linking them with the practices revealed in Gaza is no longer a distant hypothesis but a serious political and military possibility. In Iran, recent accusations suggest the same scenario on an even more dangerous scale. The issue now extends beyond the nature of the target to the mechanism of its selection, and whether artificial intelligence plays a decisive role in determining who is monitored, classified, and targeted. While Israel maintains that the final decision remains human, critics argue that this human oversight may serve merely as a formal cover, rather than a real safeguard.

At the core of this transformation, the issue extends beyond Israel or any single theater of conflict—it concerns the future of warfare itself. When algorithms become part of the assassination system, the danger surpasses mere technical advancement; it signals a shift toward a combat model where responsibility is diminished. This is precisely where the real peril lies: artificial intelligence moving from an analytical tool to an active partner in the decision to kill, in a region already teetering on the edge of perpetual instability.