Former US Counterterrorism Chief Slams Israel Over Iran War

Coincidentally, Kent is currently being investigated over mishandling of confidential information. The probe began months before his resignation.

By United with Israel Staff

Just a day after stepping down as director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Joe Kent used a lengthy interview to expand on the reasoning behind his resignation, arguing that the war with Iran is being driven not by an urgent threat, but by flawed intelligence assessments and pressure tied to Israel.

Speaking Wednesday with Tucker Carlson, Kent focused heavily on what he described as a misreading of Iran’s capabilities, particularly when it comes to its nuclear program.

“There was no intelligence that said the Iranians are going to launch this big sneak attack,” Kent said.

He also rejected the notion that Iran was close to obtaining a nuclear weapon.

“They weren’t on the verge of getting a nuclear weapon,” he said.

Building on that premise, Kent argued that the conflict itself stems from external influence rather than necessity.

“In this case, the Israelis drove the decision to take this action,” he said. “There was a lobby pushing for us to go to war.”

Kent had already outlined that position in his resignation letter to Donald Trump, prompting a sharp response from the president, who dismissed the claims and called Kent “very weak on security,” insisting Iran “was a threat to all countries.”

In the interview, however, Kent went further, describing what he portrayed as a pattern in which Israel shapes events on the ground while the United States is left responding.

“The Israelis felt emboldened that no matter what they did, they could go ahead and take this action and we would just have to react,” he said.

He argued that Israel is not only shaping the conflict, but actively deepening American involvement.

“It’s in the Israelis’ interest to get us more and more entrenched in this,” Kent said. “That’s exactly what they’re doing right now.”

At several points, Kent returned to the same central claim: that Israel is effectively in control of the war’s trajectory.

“There’s no reins on the Israelis,” he said. “They are driving this entire war.”

“At the end of the day, the Israelis couldn’t do any of this without us,” he added.

Kent also accused Israeli officials of influencing U.S. policymakers outside traditional intelligence channels.

“Israeli officials will come to U.S. government officials and say things that we know from our intelligence simply isn’t true,” he said, suggesting those claims helped shape decisions in Washington.

At one point in the interview, Kent shifted from describing what he sees as Israel’s role in the war to outlining what he believes the United States must do next.

After repeatedly arguing that Israel is dictating the course of the conflict, Kent said the only way to stop further escalation would be for Washington to directly confront Jerusalem and impose clear limits on its actions.

“The main issue is what the Israelis are doing,” Kent said, framing Israel not as a secondary player but as the central driver of the war.

He then described, in blunt terms, the message he believes Donald Trump should deliver to Israeli leadership.

“You’re done. We will defend you, we will make sure that ballistic missiles aren’t rained down upon you. However, you are done going on the offense, because this is our war.”

Kent argued that the United States is bearing the primary burden of the conflict and should therefore dictate its limits.

“We’re paying for it. We’re bleeding for it. This is not your war,” he continued. “If you choose to continue this offensive operation, we’re out. We will start withdrawing features of your defense system. So you will be on your own.”

Israelis ‘Out of Control’

In Kent’s view, anything short of that kind of ultimatum would fail to change the trajectory of the conflict.

“If we don’t address our relationship with the Israelis, even if we come up with a temporary ceasefire, we’ll be right back in the same situation,” he said.

He described Israel as “out of control” and again placed responsibility for the war squarely on its actions.

“The main issue is how the Israelis are out of control,” Kent said. “They are driving this entire war.”

Kent also tied Israeli military actions to the erosion of potential diplomacy with Iran, pointing to the reported killing of figures such as Ali Larijani.

“We just killed Ali Larijani, who was a negotiator, who was eager to get us a deal,” Kent said.

“When the Israelis killed Larijani, you’re not getting to a moderate next,” he added, arguing such strikes strengthen hardline elements inside Iran.

He further claimed that some operations were designed to block negotiations entirely.

“It’s very obvious to me that some of these strikes were conducted with the intent of making a negotiated settlement impossible,” he said.

In one of the interview’s most controversial segments, Kent also raised questions about the killing of Charlie Kirk, suggesting there were unresolved leads involving a possible foreign connection.

“There were more stones for us to overturn,” Kent said. “We were blocked from doing that.”

He said investigators had identified “data points” that warranted further examination, while acknowledging no definitive conclusion had been reached.

Kent also emphasized Kirk’s opposition to the war, noting that he “advocated heavily against a war with Iran” and had urged efforts to prevent escalation.

In Kent’s framing, Israel is not a partner under threat, but the central problem to be confronted and restrained.

His remarks repeatedly cast Israel as the force prolonging the war, while largely dismissing Iran’s role in fueling the conflict through its nuclear ambitions, regional proxies, and direct attacks.

The interview ultimately presented a stark inversion of the traditional U.S.–Israel alliance, with Kent arguing not for deeper coordination, but for pressure, ultimatums, and even the potential withdrawal of defensive support.

By placing responsibility for the war primarily on Israel and calling for Washington to “rein in” its closest ally, Kent’s comments are likely to deepen concerns among supporters of Israel that key voices in Washington are shifting blame away from Tehran and toward Jerusalem at a critical moment in the conflict.

Coincidentally, Kent is currently being investigated over alleged mishandling of confidential information. The probe began months before his resignation.