The Assassination of Charlie Kirk: Between America’s Internal Fractures and Israel’s Leverage

The assassination of conservative American activist and Trump ally Charlie Kirk¹—killed instantly by a bullet while delivering a speech at the University of Utah—was a pivotal moment that dominated the political and media scenes. The incident triggered a storm of reactions on social media both inside and outside the United States, fueling speculations and analyses about its background, possible implications, and what it reveals about shifts in the American political landscape.

It also revived a long-standing debate about political assassination as a tool of conflict and elimination—one often associated with the Middle East in the global imagination, while the “Western camp” sought to project itself as a superior model supposedly immune to such logic, favoring dialogue and resorting to reason instead. This poses a fundamental question: How does Kirk’s assassination expose the fragility of the American democratic model, and what are its implications for regional balances and Israel’s role?

?Who Is Kirk

As a political–media figure, Kirk represents the rise of a new Christian–Evangelical populism.² He serves as a case study in how digital influence intersects with populist discourse to reshape the American right. His name is tied to Trumpism and the populist wave in U.S. politics. Despite not completing college, Kirk entered politics straight out of high school by founding Turning Point USA,³ which expanded to more than 850 campuses and became one of the most prominent right-wing youth platform. Its mission was to counter what he called “liberal dominance on campus.” This positioned him as a rare figure capable of influencing younger generations across traditional boundaries, skillfully leveraging the tools to mobilize them.

Kirk represents a case study of the rise of the new Christian–Evangelical populism in the United States

Kirk reinforced his presence through his radio program and The Charlie Kirk Show podcast,⁴ amassing millions of followers on social media. In 2020, he published The MAGA Doctrine: The Only Ideas That Will Win the Future, adopting Trump’s slogan Make America Great Again as the ideological framework for his political project—framing it as a path toward “self-governance” and resistance to what he saw as the “deviation of liberal elites.”⁵

Ideologically, Kirk was one of the most vocal proponents of the “Seven Mountains Mandate,” a radical Evangelical vision portraying politics as a spiritual battle between good and evil. This positioned him at the forefront of Evangelical leaders who blend religion with politics, advancing a hegemonic project that extends beyond theology into reshaping the American public sphere.

The Politician–Influencer: A Rising American Model

A Daily Beast correspondent described Kirk as wielding exceptional influence despite never holding public office.⁶ He embodied the new generation of conservatives who stepped out from behind the scenes to directly shape decision-making and the Republican Party itself. This reflects the rise of what can be termed “Political Christianity,” where Evangelical discourse merges with partisan dynamics to forge a new model of religious politics in the United States—one that actively reshapes Republican identity and strategic orientation.

Kirk reflects the rise of the trend of “Political Christianity,” which blends religion with politics to reshape Republican identity

Such influence earned Kirk a prominent seat at Trump’s inauguration, surpassing even many members of Congress. Senator Jim Banks of Indiana justified this by noting that Kirk had done more to secure Trump’s .path to the White House than numerous lawmakers themselves

A Dark and Long History of Assassinations

Historically, major assassinations at turning points have signaled systemic fragility rather than isolated crimes. From Julius Caesar’s murder in Rome, which altered the course of the Republic, to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, which ignited World War I, political killings often accompany rupture and transformation. Kirk’s assassination, too, can be interpreted as part of political violence deployed to reshape internal balances.

America’s own history is rife with political assassinations: Presidents Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy, civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., and more recently the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol. This year alone witnessed attempts on Donald Trump’s life during the election campaign, the June killing of Democratic Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, and ultimately Kirk’s assassination.

Studies report that more than 150 attacks have occurred since the beginning of this year.⁷ These incidents extend beyond assassinations alone, encompassing threats and hostile acts linked to political incitement and other forms of aggression.

Discussion about political violence has also intensified, accompanied by ongoing warnings about its effects and implications for the future of the United States.⁸ As Robert Pape, Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, notes in Foreign Affairs: “In less than a decade, violence has become a shockingly common feature of American political life.” He adds: “Support for political violence has become widespread… political trends do not follow a straight line, and predicting the future may be a fool’s errand.”⁹

Political violence has become a shocking feature of American life, placing democracy at a crossroads

Yet, it is clear that the United States faces a difficult path, with the possibility of escalating into more intense conflict or something resembling a civil war, placing the democratic system at a crossroads and raising serious questions about its resilience and sustainability in the face of these challenges.¹⁰

From this perspective, the assassination of Kirk takes on significance beyond the individual level, revealing fractures in American democracy, reflecting the return and entrenchment of political violence in daily life, and intensifying polarization and divisions. This trend signals the potential for the continuation of violence and its impact on the stability of the American political and social system.

?Israeli Reactions: A Fallen Friend or a Political Investment

Following the assassination, Israeli reactions highlighted Kirk’s alignment with their narrative of defending “Judeo-Christian civilization.” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu mourned him as a “friend of Israel,” noting that he had invited him to visit just two weeks earlier.¹¹ Far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir went further, framing Kirk’s life’s work as resistance to the “alliance between the global left and radical Islam”—which he described as humanity’s gravest threat.¹²

Yet speculation soon emerged about possible Mossad involvement, fueled by the operation’s professional execution, Israel’s immediate rhetorical use of the incident, and prior claims—reported by journalist Harrison Smith—that Kirk had feared being assassinated by Israel if he ever turned against it.

Israel eulogized Kirk as a “friend,” but is pragmatically exploiting his assassination in its regional strategies.

His willingness to host debates that occasionally amplified anti-Israel voices on U.S. campuses was viewed by critics as enabling rising pro-Palestinian sentiment among Generation Z. This, in turn, fed arguments that his killing was politically useful to Israel, recast within Zionist discourse as part of combating “extremism” and “anti-Semitism.”

Conclusion

It remains too early to fully grasp the consequences of assassinating one of the most visible faces of America’s new right. Yet it is evident that the event occurred amid escalating polarization and will likely prove a turning point in U.S. political history.

The central question is whether the American right can exploit this moment to consolidate its position against opponents, and whether it will serve as a pretext for broader confrontations abroad—including further Israeli military justifications. More broadly, the assassination reveals the intersection of two trajectories: America’s accelerating internal fractures, and Israel’s pragmatic use of international crises (such as assassination attempts on Hamas leaders in Qatar) as instruments to reengineer power balances.

1. Al-Mamlaka TV. “Trump: The Killing of American Right-Wing Activist Charlie Kirk after a Shooting.” September 10, 2025. Available at: ↩︎
2. BBC Arabic. “Who Is Charlie Kirk, Trump’s Ally Who Supported Gun Ownership?” September 11, 2025. Available at: ↩︎
3. France 24. “What Is the ‘Turning Point USA’ Organization That Charlie Kirk Launched to Support Donald Trump and the ‘MAGA’ Movement?” September 12, 2025. ↩︎
4. The Charlie Kirk Show. Apple Podcasts ↩︎
5. Al Jazeera Net. “The MAGA Movement: A Political Organization That Adopted Trump’s Campaign Slogan.” September 8, 2024 ↩︎
6. The New York Times. “Breaking News: Charlie Kirk Has Died after Being Shot While Speaking at a Utah College.” Posted on X, September 10, 2025. Available at: https://bitly.cx/tofQG ↩︎
7. Rachel Kleinfeld. “The Rise of Political Violence in the United States.” Journal of Democracy, October 4, 2021 ↩︎
8. Louis Jacobson and Amy Sherman. “‘Rough Road Ahead’: Charlie Kirk’s Assassination Highlights the Rise in US Political Violence.” PolitiFact, September 11, 2025. Available at: https://bitly.cx/8zZ9 ↩︎
9. Robert A. Pape. “Our Own Worst Enemies: The Violent Style in American Politics.” Foreign Affairs Newsletter, November/December 2024, published September 23, 2024. Available at: ↩︎
10. John Shiffman, Ned Parker, and Linda So. “Nation on Edge: Experts Warn of ‘Vicious Spiral’ in Political Violence after Kirk Killing.” Reuters, September 11, 2025. https://bitly.cx/PWxyb ↩︎
11. Benjamin Netanyahu. September 11, 2025. https://x.com/netanyahu/status/1965888327938158764 ↩︎
12. Itamar Ben-Gvir. September 11, 2025. https://x.com/itamarbengvir/status/1965896327167955394 ↩︎