FBI opens investigation into counterterror chief who resigned over Iran war
The FBI has opened an investigation into a senior US counterterrorism official who recently quit in protest at the war on Iran, for allegedly leaking classified information.
Joseph Kent resigned from his position as director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) on Tuesday, announcing in a letter to US President Donald Trump posted on X that he “cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran”.
“Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby,” the 45-year-old veteran and former special forces member wrote.
His claims directly contradict the justification for the war provided by Trump, who announced in a video on his Truth Social platform on 28 February that he was launching Operation Epic Fury as a defensive project to eliminate the imminent nuclear threat allegedly posed by Iran.
Trump also previously told The Washington Post that the goal of the bombing campaign, which has so far killed nearly 1,500 civilians, including more than 200 children, was “freedom” for the Iranian people.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
The FBI investigation into Kent allegedly predated his departure, according to multiple unnamed sources cited by CBS News and The New York Times.
One source told Semafor that the investigation was “months-long”, although the FBI have so far declined to comment on the allegations.
Kent is the highest-ranking official to quit over the Trump administration’s decision to wage war on Iran together with its Israeli ally.
‘No intelligence’ that Iran posed a threat
As head of counterterrorism, Kent was in charge of analysing and detecting terrorist threats to the US, overseen by US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.
In a statement posted on X following the resignation of Kent, Gabbard said it was up to Trump – and Trump alone – to decide if Iran posed a threat, but commentators pointed out that at no point did she actually contest Kent’s claims that Iran posed no imminent threat or point to any contrary intelligence.
In fact, Gabbard testified to the Senate intelligence committee on Wednesday that her department had seen “no efforts” by Iran to rebuild its nuclear enrichment programme after it was targeted by US strikes in June last year.
In an interview on Wednesday with American rightwing commentator Tucker Carlson, Kent revealed that “a good deal of key decision makers were not allowed to come and express their opinion to the president”, adding that “there wasn’t a robust debate”.
Kent reiterated the claims he made in his resignation letter that there was “no intelligence” that Iran posed “an imminent threat” to the US, saying instead that “the Israelis drove the decision to take this action”.
He said that Iran was not on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon, and called its strategy to not completely abandon its nuclear programme “pragmatic”, given the history of US intervention in the region which led to the downfall of leaders like Muammar Gaddafi in Libya and Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
According to Kent, intelligence assessments suggested the Iranians were always “several months, a year, two years” away from having the nuclear capabilities to attack, but there was “no intelligence” to indicate they were in the process of actually developing these capabilities.
The decision to launch strikes on Iran spoke to the influence of the Israel “lobby” on dictating US foreign policy, Kent told Carlson, particularly in terms of changing the “red line” in negotiations with Iran when it came to prohibiting the enrichment of uranium used to make nuclear fuel, rather than just the development of nuclear weapons themselves.
Kent cited remarks made by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who told reporters on 2 March that the US military attacked Iran because “we knew that there was going to be an Israeli action” and so the US wanted to strike “pre-emptively” ahead of an Iranian reaction which might threaten American lives.
“That takes away the argument that there was an imminent threat, as in Iran was planning to attack us immediately – that simply did not exist,” Kent told Carlson.
“A lot of times [the US and Israel] have the same agenda,” Kent said. But in this situation, he added, while the US is reluctant to pursue regime change because it is unlikely to succeed, “the Israelis are not shying away from regime change”.
However, they “don’t seem to have a plan for what comes next”, he said.
Middle East Eye delivers independent and unrivalled coverage and analysis of the Middle East, North Africa and beyond. To learn more about republishing this content and the associated fees, please fill out this form. More about MEE can be found here.
