Joe Kent’s Spurious Reasoning About Israel’s Role In Trump’s Iran Decisions |
Foreign Policy > Iran
Joe Kent’s Spurious Reasoning About Israel’s Role In Trump’s Iran Decisions
Kent, a former Bernie Bro who substitutes his military experience for wisdom, is entirely wrong about the imminent and very real threat Iran poses to America.
Jonathan Gault | March 24, 2026
Former Director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), Joe Kent, resigned, raising two issues. First, does Kent’s experience equal wisdom? In his case, no. And second, was he correct in his resignation letter that Israel is really why we’re at war? Again, the answer is no.
Kent, a former Democrat and Bernie Bro, shows an ideological flexibility that seems more grounded in opportunity than in conviction. Regardless of his position, he argues, implicitly and explicitly, that his military service—something he volunteered for— lends weight to his views. He implies that, having “been there,” he sees more clearly.
It turns out that the anti-Israel, anti-war crowd is flexible about whether experience matters. It turns out not to matter when someone experienced opposes their position. A glaring example occurred during an April 10, 2025, debate between Douglas Murray and Dave Smith on The Joe Rogan Experience, in which Smith made arguments similar to Kent’s. Smith’s anti-war, anti-Israel position carried weight because he is ostensibly “Jewish” (although it’s doubtful he’s very familiar with the Torah), while Murray’s firsthand experience in the Gaza War theatre (because of his pro-Israel views) was dismissed.
So, no. For the anti-Israel crowd, experience matters only if it supports their positions. That’s pure hypocrisy and should be discounted.
The next question is whether Israel forced the U.S. into war, and that’s a more serious question. Certainly, Israel has an interest in destroying Iran’s current governing system. Before Operation Epic Fury, Israel bore the full brunt of direct attacks from Iran and fought on its own against Iran and its proxies.
The October 7, 2023, attacks and previous ongoing missile barrages underscore the fact that Israel has always faced and continues to face persistent and immediate threats from Iran and its proxies. Only an ideologue with a sociopolitical axe to grind would argue otherwise. As early as 2001, former Iranian president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani spoke openly about the devastating impact a single nuclear strike could have on Israel. For Israel, the danger is not theoretical.
If you are gullible enough to believe that Iran’s nuclear program is for peaceful “civilian” use, you haven’t asked why Iran has simultaneously developed a broad and deep arsenal of ballistic missiles that are kept deep underground. Might these be history’s first peaceful ballistic missiles? These are the very ballistic missiles that are being fired at Israel and were just fired over 4,000 km at Diego Garcia. Israel is an easy target for a nuclear Iran.
Israel responds to reality with persistent vigilance, including with systems like David’s Sling and Iron Dome, designed to intercept incoming attacks. For decades, Israelis have lived under constant threat of rockets and missiles—something no other nation would be expected to tolerate indefinitely. Their experience reinforces a simple lesson: repeated threats, especially when paired with action, must be taken seriously.
But what about America?
Until this month, the only US involvement was on June 21–22, 2025, Operation Midnight Hammer, when the USAF carried out coordinated strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Israel might have done this itself, but it does not possess bomber aircraft with the capacity to deliver such ordnance. Only the US possesses the B-2.
So why did America step up? Does Iran pose an imminent threat to the United States? Kent’s apparent argument is that such a threat exists only when Iran possesses fully operational nuclear weapons, the capability to deliver them, and has launched them. This definition of “imminent” is deeply flawed. A threat does not become real only upon impact.
The concept of preemptive self-defense is not new. Even outside religious or philosophical frameworks, it is widely understood that waiting until an attack is underway can be too late. The question of imminence is not about the final moment before launch or impact, but about recognizing credible intent and capability before irreversible harm occurs. To argue otherwise risks reducing national security to reactive guesswork.
Historical context matters. Since the Islamic Republic’s founding—marked by the seizure of the US Embassy and the hostage crisis—America has been labeled the “Great Satan,” and chants of “Death to America” have been a consistent feature of the regime’s rhetoric. These are not isolated incidents but part of a longstanding posture.
Although Americans are unwilling to recognize it as reality, the Islamic Republic of Iran is and has been at war with the US (and Israel) since 1979. As with any totalitarian regime, it’s driven ostensibly by ideological and practically by the necessity of a scapegoat for its failures, political, military, and, in Iran’s case, ecological, for it has inadequately addressed a severe water crisis.
Kent’s reasoning, therefore, raises concerns. If an adversary’s hostility is clear, its capabilities are advancing, and its rhetoric consistent, then dismissing a known threat until the last moment is not caution—it is denial. The same logic has failed catastrophically in other historical contexts, including the events leading up to 9/11.
Another troubling aspect of this debate is the suggestion that Israel is simply a dependent actor, relying on the US for defense, or that its influence in American politics is uniquely disproportionate. This framing ignores both Israel’s demonstrated military independence and the broader reality of international influence.
Israel is not “just another country” in the regional or historical sense. It is the only liberal democracy in a volatile region and has repeatedly shown both its ability and the courage to defend itself. Its significance is not only geopolitical but also cultural and religious. The Holy Land holds deep meaning for billions of people worldwide. Reducing it to a passive beneficiary of US support strips away this complexity.
At the same time, discussions of influence focus disproportionately on pro-Israel lobbying while overlooking other sources of foreign funding and engagement. Wealthy states in the Middle East have invested heavily in Western institutions, particularly universities, for decades. These contributions, which total in the tens of billions, dwarf those of the pro-Israel lobbies and nefariously shape discourse in ways seldom scrutinized.
The broader point is not to single out one group or another, but to recognize that influence in modern societies is multifaceted. Simplistic narratives—whether about Israel, Iran, Arab oil states, or domestic politics—fail to capture the reality of competing interests and motivations. Read here about how Qatari money begets influence in Washington.
Ultimately, the debate surrounding Kent’s resignation highlights a deeper issue: the tension between perception and reality. It is easier to redefine threats than to confront them, easier to attribute motives than to analyze them, and easier to simplify than to attempt to understand.
But clarity matters. Misjudging threats—whether by exaggerating (“COVID-19”) or dismissing them (Iran)—carries real consequences. Wisdom = reason + knowledge + experience. The challenge is not merely to accumulate knowledge, but to augment it with experience, then apply reason to create the wisdom that will lead to the best action for each unique situation.
Image created using AI.
Jonathan Gault is a pseudonym.
SUPPORT AMERICAN THINKER
Now more than ever, the ability to speak our minds is crucial to the republic we cherish. If what you see on American Thinker resonates with you, please consider supporting our work with a donation of as much or as little as you can give. Every dollar contributed helps us pay our staff and keep our ideas heard and our voices strong. Thank you.