Every war creates discord. Most people keep it to themselves. Some go quietly. Very few speak their mind clearly. Joe Kent did.
The director of the US National Counterterrorism Center did not hide behind bureaucratic language or talk about “policy disagreement.” He said Iran poses no imminent threat to the United States. He pointed out that the war is being waged under pressure from Israel and its lobby.
This goes beyond general policy disagreement.
Kent is not the least person. He served many combat assignments and lost his wife in the war. They are not immune to the consequences of these decisions. When such people step down and say that the next generation is being sent to fight for nothing, it carries weight.
The obvious question is how many others think the same and remain silent.
Washington is not short of information. There is a lack of people willing to act on it. Intelligence agencies provide careful assessments. Congressional briefings are described. This is not a guess.
And yet, the war continues.
The descriptions are familiar: deterrence, stability, security – the same language used in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. It appears early and lasts long after the effects become apparent.
Kent cut off that language by refusing to repeat it.
There is precedent for this type of warning.
In 1947, when the United States debated recognizing Israel, Secretary of State George C. Marshall opposed President Harry Truman’s position. Marshall was no outsider. He led the US military through World War II and helped shape postwar Europe. His concern was that recognizing Israel under those conditions would lead to prolonged instability and conflict.
He was overrun. Truman recognized Israel. At that point, the decision was framed as morally necessary. Marshall’s concerns were brushed aside.
Looking back, some of his warnings came to fruition.
Over time, what began as a diplomatic decision became a long-term strategic alignment. The United States doesn’t just support Israel; It often adapts its threat assessments and operates within that framework.
Kent’s resignation draws attention to the implications of that alignment.
The current war with Iran fits a pattern. Escalation occurs before the need is clearly established. Policy is shaped by coalition politics and domestic pressures. Disagreement is considered a problem rather than part of decision making.
Scholars such as Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer have argued for years that US policy in the Middle East is influenced by strategic calculations by domestic political forces and lobbying networks. Their work is often dismissed. It is hard to dismiss similar concerns when it comes to the national security system itself.
This leads to a more direct question.
Why is the United States at war with a country that its own intelligence does not consider an imminent threat?
There are several possible answers. Alliance commitments. Political pressure. Organizational momentum.
Or the deeper problem: a system that struggles to distinguish between its own interests and those of its allies.
There are more speculative claims about political vulnerability and hidden pressures. These are difficult to examine, and often distract from the more immediate issue, which is policy.
And the policy is quite clear.
Rise without a clear purpose. Military engagement without specific requirement. A long-term commitment without meaningful public debate.
The United States cannot be forced into this position. It is choosing to do so in a manner similar to past decisions that have led to prolonged conflict.
Kent recognized that pattern. That’s why he left.
But resigning on one’s own is rare. This needs to be followed by wider recognition and ultimately accountability. Otherwise, it becomes another moment that is noticed and then forgotten.
It is not a deep concern that the United States is at war. The question is why it no longer receives serious attention.
Marshall asked that question in 1947 and was ignored.
Kent has raised it again.
What matters now is whether anyone listens.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect the editorial position of Al Jazeera.
(tags to translate) Opinions
