{"id":58262,"date":"2026-03-19T16:52:48","date_gmt":"2026-03-20T00:52:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/?p=58262"},"modified":"2026-03-19T16:52:48","modified_gmt":"2026-03-20T00:52:48","slug":"william-astore-on-joe-kents-principled-resignation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2026\/03\/19\/william-astore-on-joe-kents-principled-resignation\/","title":{"rendered":"William Astore on Joe Kent’s Principled Resignation"},"content":{"rendered":"

Reprinted from Bracing Views<\/a> with the author\u2019s permission.<\/i><\/p>\n

Joe Kent\u2019s principled resignation letter<\/a>, in which he calls out the influence of Israel and AIPAC on President Trump\u2019s decision to go to war with Iran, illustrates the nature of power and dissent in government circles.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The main response is denunciation. Leading the way was Trump, whose response to the news was basically good riddance even as he claimed that Kent, a former Green Beret with extensive combat experience, was \u201cweak on security.\u201d Organizations like the Jewish Anti-Defamation League and AIPAC suggested that Kent was trafficking in age-old anti-semitic tropes (apparently it\u2019s \u201canti-semitic\u201d to suggest that Israel and AIPAC have influence over the President and Congress).<\/p>\n

In the age of social media, denunciation is nearly instantaneous \u2014 and often unhinged. I\u2019ve even seen calls to have Kent investigated under the espionage act!<\/p>\n

The method to the madness is obvious: discredit Kent by smears, attack him as disloyal, even as such efforts are designed to intimidate others from airing their legitimate concerns.<\/p>\n

Kent deserves a lot of credit for going on the record because he surely knew he\u2019d be denounced.<\/p>\n

Not quite denouncing him, but showing (so far) conformity that\u2019s more than disappointing is Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and Kent\u2019s former boss. Previously, Tulsi was on the record as being strongly against regime-change wars and especially against war with Iran. She\u2019s often made speeches in the name of her \u201cbrothers and sisters in uniform.\u201d Yet so far she has quietly abetted Trump\u2019s policies and actions in his foolish and illegal war against Iran.<\/p>\n

I fear Tulsi\u2019s \u201cbrothers and sisters\u201d will pay a high price for her complicity.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s her message posted yesterday at X\/Twitter:<\/p>\n

Donald Trump was overwhelmingly elected<\/strong> by the American people to be our President and Commander in Chief. As our Commander in Chief, he is responsible for determining what is and is not an imminent threat, and whether or not to take action he deems necessary to protect the safety and security of our troops, the American people and our country.<\/p>\n

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence is responsible for helping coordinate and integrate all intelligence to provide the President and Commander in Chief with the best information available to inform his decisions.<\/p>\n

After carefully reviewing<\/strong> all the information before him, President Trump concluded that the terrorist Islamist<\/strong> regime in Iran posed an imminent threat<\/strong> and he took action based on that conclusion.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is carefully-worded nonsense, designed to satisfy Trump and his handlers. I bolded a few obvious BS phrases. First, Trump wasn\u2019t \u201coverwhelmingly\u201d elected president, though Trump loves to think he was. Second, anyone who knows how Trump operates can\u2019t imagine him \u201ccarefully reviewing\u201d all the intelligence, but perhaps Tulsi is being cute here, since she adds the intel \u201cbefore him.\u201d (I truly wonder how much of the DNI\u2019s intel actually reached Trump, how much he truly read and reviewed; not much, I\u2019d wager.)<\/p>\n

Finally, there\u2019s the notion of an \u201cimminent threat,\u201d which Iran truly didn\u2019t pose to U.S. national security, not before the Israeli\/U.S. attacks. And the usual dismissal of Iran as \u201cterrorist Islamist,\u201d i.e. \u201cbad people\u201d we don\u2019t like.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve been a Tulsi supporter<\/a> for many years and I wrote<\/a> that she\u2019d make a fine DNI. Recent events are proving me wrong. Her message on X in response to Kent\u2019s resignation was more than disappointing. I\u2019m hoping she also resigns for cause, but perhaps she thinks she can do more as an insider to restrain the worst impulses of Trump, his toadies, and those who have always spoiled for a war against Iran. Her resignation, I think, would be more powerful than her restraining influence (assuming she has any influence).<\/p>\n

Of course, if she does resign for cause, she will be smeared and denounced, and not<\/a> for the first time.<\/p>\n

Readers, what do you make of all this?<\/p>\n

Addendum<\/strong>: Perhaps I should add that I don\u2019t agree with everything in Kent\u2019s resignation letter, nor would I be likely to vote for him, assuming he runs for office again. His resignation letter is useful exactly because he was a strong Trump loyalist whose military record earns him respect among those who are otherwise unlikely to question Trump and the official narrative. In short, for me this isn\u2019t about Kent and his character, It\u2019s about his recognition that there wasn\u2019t an imminent threat from Iran and his willingness to highlight the roles played by Israel and AIPAC in U.S. politics and foreign policy. As a Trump insider, his words carry persuasive weight. They could also indicate a fracturing of support for Trump\u2019s disastrous war with Iran.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Reprinted from Bracing Views with the author\u2019s permission. Joe Kent\u2019s principled resignation letter, in which he calls out the influence of Israel and AIPAC on President Trump\u2019s decision to go to war with Iran, illustrates the nature of power and dissent in government circles. The main response is denunciation. Leading the way was Trump, whose […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":290,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"none","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"coauthors":[758],"class_list":["post-58262","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"meta_box":{"disable_donate_message":"0","custom_donate_message":"","subtitle":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58262","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/290"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=58262"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58262\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":58266,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58262\/revisions\/58266"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58262"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58262"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58262"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=58262"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}