Did Israeli “lies” draw the U.S. into 2 wars? |
Joseph Kent, who was the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center in the Trump administration, resigned on Tuesday, March 17.
In his letter of resignation to President Trump, Mr. Kent asserts that “Israeli officials” orchestrated a “misinformation campaign” that “deceived” Mr. Trump “into believing that Iran posed an imminent threat” to the US Mr. Kent then asserts: “This was a lie and is the same tactic the Israelis used to draw us into the disastrous Iraq war[.]” And because the current Iran war is based on a “lie,” he feels compelled to resign.
Mr. Kent is a man with an admirable record of US military service, and also some very strange notions about Israel and the US.
Regarding the US war against Iraq in 2003: The truth is that Israel actually tried to convince then-President George W. Bush not to attack Iraq; this was confirmed by a senior official in Bush’s State Department. As early as 2002, Israel urged the US to concentrate its efforts in the Middle East on countering Iran and not Iraq. No Israeli “lies” caused the US to attack Iraq in 2003.
Turning to the current conflict with Iran, we should carefully note that Mr. Kent’s allegation is not that Israel deceitfully convinced the US that Iran is a threat, but rather that Israel deceitfully convinced the US that Iran is an imminent threat. What is the difference between “threat” and “imminent threat” in this context?
It’s undisputed that the Iranian regime endorsed chants of “Death to America;” it buried uranium enrichment facilities deep underground and enriched uranium to a level far above that needed for civilian purposes; it continued work on long-range missiles that might ultimately be able to reach North America; and it sponsored terrorism around the world. Therefore, Iran clearly presented, to some degree, a threat to the US.
But if Iran surely did pose a threat, why does Mr. Kent focus on whether Iran posed an imminent threat? The answer is that concept of “imminent threat” is crucial to determining whether, under principles of international law, one country is permitted to use force against a second country, even if the second country has not attacked the first country.
International law is generally understood to permit one country, acting in anticipatory self-defense, to attack a second country, if: (1) there is an imminent threat that the second country is about to attack the first country, and (2) the use of force by the first country is proportional to that imminent threat.
So, if Mr. Trump wanted assurance that a US attack on Iran would not violate international law, he obviously would consult lawyers, and his lawyers would assess whether Iran presented an imminent threat to the US. If Israeli lies caused Mr. Trump to mistakenly believe Iran presented an imminent threat, that means that Israeli lies caused Mr. Trump’s lawyers to mistakenly believe that Iran presented an imminent threat, because any US president would rely on US lawyers to provide that opinion.
Two questions immediately arise. The first: How likely is it that Mr. Trump’s decision to attack was based on lawyers’ opinions that an attack would or would not be permissible under international law? I believe that the likelihood is zero.
When he was asked when the US attack on Iran would end, Mr. Trump said: “When I feel it in my bones.” He certainly did not recite the correct international law answer: It will end when continuing would be disproportionate to the imminent threat Iran posed before the US attacked. For better or worse, Trump clearly acts without serious regard for international law.
The second question: Even assuming that Mr. Trump carefully considered international law, is it possible that Israeli lies convinced the US lawyers on whom Mr. Trump would rely that Iran presented an imminent threat to the US, when in fact there was no such imminent threat? Any answer to this question other than an emphatic “no” is simply ridiculous.
The whole world–everyone who has any access to news media–knows that, whatever the future might hold, Iran does not currently have nuclear weapons. Similarly, we all know that Iran does not currently have missiles that can reach North America. Everyone, including both Mr. Trump and the US lawyers with whom he might consult, knows these facts. So, if one accepts the international law framework, it is simply inconceivable that any Israeli “lies” could convince US lawyers, or anyone else, that Iran posed an imminent threat to the US in February of 2026.
Senator Mitch McConnell (R, KY), who will retire next year after 42 years in the Senate, has asserted that Mr. Kent’s letter of resignation exhibits “virulent anti-Semitism.” I think there is much more reason to believe Sen. McConnell’s assertion than there is to believe Mr. Kent’s claims about alleged Israeli lies.