Joe Kent, who resigned last week as director of the National Counterterrorism Center, stated on Wednesday that Israel “precipitated” this conflict.
Kent said that Israel forced President Donald Trump into a broader military confrontation despite what he described as the absence of an imminent Iranian threat.
Kent defended his decision to step down on “Rob Schmitt Tonight,” pointing to remarks by Secretary of State Marco Rubio as confirmation of his concerns. Rubio told reporters on March 2, the third day of Operation Epic Fury, that the U.S. acted preemptively because it anticipated an Israeli strike and an immediate Iranian retaliation against U.S. forces.
“We knew there would be an Israeli action,” Rubio said, adding that such a move would “precipitate an attack against American forces” and that if the U.S. “did not preemptively go after them … we would suffer higher casualties.”
Kent said those comments reinforced his view that the timeline of the conflict was driven by Israel’s planned offensive rather than a direct, imminent Iranian threat against the United States.
Kent’s resignation followed a public letter in which he argued that U.S. involvement in the conflict undermined the administration’s credibility and risked drawing the country into a prolonged war.
He expanded on that claim Wednesday, asserting that Iran had been operating within a predictable “escalatory ladder” and was engaged in negotiations with the U.S. before the latest strikes.
“Prior to this iteration, the Iranians had observed a very strict escalatory ladder, and they were very serious about being engaged in negotiations with us,” he said.
Kent argued that Israeli leaders viewed those negotiations as a threat to their strategic objectives and worked to shift U.S. policy.
“What we saw the Israelis do from the time President Trump came into office was move the red line,” he said.
“President Trump said no nuclear weapons,” he noted, “after which senior Israeli officials continued lobbying the administration” for stricter demands, including “zero enrichment for Iran,” which he stated “was not what President Trump had said.”
According to Kent, that effort extended beyond government channels.
“That was echoed by pro-Israeli media talking heads and people in think tanks, creating an echo chamber that moved the red line away from no nuclear weapons to zero enrichment to sabotage negotiations,” he added.
Kent asserted that after earlier U.S. actions—including strikes that limited Iran’s nuclear capabilities in June 2025—”we had no reason to go back to war with Iran.”
He said other demands, including over ballistic missiles, further escalated tensions.
Kent also disputed characterizations of Iran as uniquely irrational, arguing that its leadership has historically acted pragmatically.
“If we look at the data on how Iranians use the escalatory ladder, they are actually very pragmatic and realistic,” he said.
He added that Iranian proxy attacks had subsided after Trump returned to office.
Kent warned that a wider conflict risks strengthening Iran’s leadership rather than weakening it.
“If we wanted to actually take down this regime, the last thing we should have done is start killing off their leaders,” Kent stated. “That’s causing a rally-around-the-flag effect inside Iran.”
“There’s no one out on the street rioting against the regime,” he added, arguing that external attacks tend to unify populations even in repressive systems.
Kent contrasted the current approach with what he described as Trump’s earlier strategy of targeted strikes and economic pressure.
He cited the 2020 killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani as an example of limited action that avoided broader war.
“If you want to create more terrorists, you go in and do a massive regime change operation like we’re doing now with no real strategic end in sight,” he said.
Kent urged a return to negotiations and called for the U.S. to assert greater control over its allies.
“We have to restrain the Israelis, tell them they cannot go on offense and spoil any kind of negotiations,” he said. “We have to assert our role and dominance over the Israelis.”
He also alleged that Israeli influence on U.S. policy operates through multiple channels.
“They use the ecosystem of media and their access to government through advisers and donors to move the red line,” he added, noting such influence had been “very well-documented.”
