News   Mar 27, 2026
 844     0 
News   Mar 27, 2026
 1.5K     3 
News   Mar 27, 2026
 576     0 

President Donald Trump's United States of America



Top U.S. counterterrorism official resigns over Iran war, says there was no imminent threat


WASHINGTON — Joe Kent, the director of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center, announced his resignation on Tuesday, citing his concerns about the justification for military strikes in Iran and saying he “cannot in good conscience” back the Trump administration’s war.

“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,” Kent said in a statement posted on social media, making claims U.S. President Donald Trump has denied.

Kent, a former Green Beret and political candidate with connections to right-wing extremists, was confirmed last July on a 52-44 vote. As head of the National Counterterrorism Center, he was in charge of an agency tasked with analyzing and detecting terrorist threats.

His resignation demonstrates that the unease about the war within Trump’s base extends to at least one senior member of his Republican administration.

The leadership change at one of the nation’s top counterterrorism offices comes at a time of heightened concern about terrorism following recent attacks at a Michigan synagogue and a Virginia university.

Kent’s decision came down to the reasoning behind the strikes on Iran, he wrote in his resignation letter.

Trump has offered shifting reasons for the strikes and has pushed back on claims that Israel forced the U.S. to act. House Speaker Mike Johnson has suggested the White House believed Israel was determined to strike on its own, leaving the Republican president with a “very difficult decision.”

Speaking with reporters in the Oval Office on Tuesday, Trump said he always thought Kent was “weak on security” and if someone in his administration did not believe Iran was a threat, “we don’t want those people.”

“They’re not smart people, or they’re not savvy people,” Trump said. “Iran was a tremendous threat.”

A year ago, in nominating Kent, Trump praised him as a man who had “hunted down terrorists and criminals his entire adult life.”

A spokesperson for Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard did not immediately respond to questions about Kent’s resignation or Gabbard’s views on the strikes.

Democrats strongly opposed Kent’s confirmation because of his past ties to far-right figures and conspiracy theories. But following his resignation, Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Kent’s concerns about the war in Iran were justified.

“I strongly disagree with many of the positions he has espoused over the years, particularly those that risk politicizing our intelligence community,” Warner said. “But on this point, he is right: There was no credible evidence of an imminent threat from Iran that would justify rushing the United States into another war of choice in the Middle East.”

Johnson, though, pushed back on Kent’s claims at a press conference on Tuesday.

“I got all the briefings. We all understood that there was clearly an imminent threat that Iran was very close to the enrichment of nuclear capability and they were building missiles at a pace no one in the region could keep up with,” Johnson said.

Johnson said he is convinced that if Trump had waited “we would have mass casualties of Americans, service members and others, and our installation would have been dramatically damaged.”
 
The Magasphere is going mad trying to discredit Kent.
 
1773844493170.png
 

Exclusive: US weighs military reinforcements as Iran war enters possible new phase​


  • Trump considers deploying troops to Middle East
  • Options include securing Strait of Hormuz and Kharg Island
  • Deployment of ground forces could anger parts of Trump's base
WASHINGTON, March 18 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's administration is considering deploying thousands of U.S. troops to reinforce its operation in the Middle East, as the U.S. military prepares for possible next steps in its campaign against Iran, said a U.S. official and three people familiar with the matter.
The deployments could help provide Trump with additional options as he weighs expanding U.S. operations, with the Iran war well into its third week.

Those options ‌include securing safe passage for oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, a mission that would be accomplished primarily through air and naval forces, the sources said. But securing the Strait could also mean deploying U.S. troops to Iran's shoreline, said four sources, including two U.S. officials.
Reuters granted the sources anonymity to speak about military planning.
The Trump administration has also discussed options to send ground forces to Iran's Kharg Island, the hub for 90% of Iran's oil exports, the three people familiar with the matter and three U.S. officials said. One of the officials said such an operation would be very risky. Iran has the ability to reach the island with missiles and drones.

The United States carried out strikes against military targets on the island on March 13 and Trump has threatened to also strike its critical oil infrastructure. However, given its vital role in Iran's economy, controlling the ⁠island would likely be viewed as a better option than destroying it, military experts say.
Any use of U.S. ground troops - even for a limited mission - could pose significant political risks for Trump, given low support among the American public for the Iran campaign and Trump's own campaign promises to avoid entangling the U.S. in new Middle East conflicts.
Trump administration officials have also discussed the possibility of deploying U.S. forces to secure Iran's stocks of highly enriched uranium, one of the people familiar with the matter said.
The sources did not believe a deployment of ground forces anywhere in Iran was imminent but declined to discuss specifics of U.S. operational planning. Experts say the task of securing Iran's uranium stockpiles would be highly complex and risky, even for U.S. special operations forces.

A White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said: "There has been no decision to send ground troops at this time, but President Trump wisely keeps all options at his disposal.
"The president is focused on achieving all of the defined objectives of Operation Epic Fury: destroy Iran's ballistic missile capacity, annihilate their navy, ensure their terrorist proxies cannot destabilize the region, and guarantee that Iran can never possess a nuclear weapon."
The Pentagon declined to comment.
The discussions come as the U.S. military continues to attack Iran's navy, its missile and drone stockpiles and its defense industry.
The U.S. has carried out more than 7,800 strikes since launching the war on ‌February 28 ⁠and damaged or destroyed more than 120 Iranian vessels so far, according to a factsheet released on Wednesday by the U.S. Central Command, which oversees the roughly 50,000 U.S. troops in the Middle East.

U.S. CASUALTIES​

Trump has said his goals go beyond degrading Iran's military capabilities and could include securing safe passage through the Strait and preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
Ground forces could help broaden his options to address those goals, but carry significant risk. Even without any direct conflict in Iran, 13 U.S. troops have been killed so far in the war and about 200 have been wounded, although the vast majority of the injuries have been minor, the U.S. military says.

For years, Trump has railed against his predecessors for getting involved in conflicts and has vowed to keep ⁠the United States out of foreign wars. But more recently he has refused to rule out the possibility of "boots on the ground" in Iran.
A senior White House official told Reuters that Trump has various options for acquiring Iran's nuclear material but has not decided how to proceed. "Certainly there are ways in which it could be acquired," the official said, adding: "He hasn't made a decision yet."
In written testimony to lawmakers on Wednesday, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said Iran's nuclear enrichment program had been obliterated by strikes ⁠in June and the entrances to those underground facilities had been "buried and shuttered with cement."
The sources said the discussions on U.S. reinforcements go beyond the arrival of an Amphibious Ready Group next week in the Middle East, with an attached Marine Expeditionary Unit that includes more than 2,000 Marines.
But one of the sources noted that the U.S. military was losing a significant number of forces with the decision to send the USS Gerald R Ford aircraft carrier to Greece for ⁠maintenance after a fire on board the vessel.
Trump has also oscillated on whether the U.S. should secure the Strait of Hormuz.
After initially saying the U.S. Navy could escort vessels, he called on other countries to help open the key water way. With little interest from allies, Trump on Wednesday mused about simply leaving.
"I wonder what would happen if we 'finished off' what's left of the Iranian Terror State, and let the Countries that use it, we don't, be responsible for the so called 'Strait?,'" Trump posted on Truth Social.
 
“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,” Kent said in a statement posted on social media, making claims U.S. President Donald Trump has denied.
I wonder if this is playing into antisemitic tropes, but I do hope we one day will see the end of Israel's influence in Washington.
Paywall free: https://archive.is/RNWUL

It's nonsensical that a small nation of about 10 million people (of which 75% are Jewish), located nearly 10,000 km away gets some much leverage over US domestic and foreign policy.

The U.S. provides nearly $4 billion per year in non-repayable aid to Israel, almost entirely in weapons. Imagine if that went to education or healthcare in the U.S.
 
Last edited:
The spin-offs will be felt throughout the economy. A poster on another forum is a farmer/rancher from out west. His fertilizer costs last year were about $850/ton. He has been informed that it will be around $1800/ton this season.
 
I wonder if this is playing into antisemitic tropes, but I do hope we one day will see the end of Israel's influence in Washington.

Considering how much obfuscation of their donations goes on these days (see the recent IL-07/IL-09 primaries), AIPAC knows they're cooked. To what extent has yet to be seen, they know their name is toxic amongst the general public.

It's nonsensical that a small nation of about 10 million people (of which 75% are Jewish), located nearly 10,000 km away gets some much leverage over US domestic and foreign policy.

It's not just Israel though, there are supportive Jews in the US, and while I don't agree with AIPACs goals (and this is totally splitting hairs), it is as much an organization of the interests of a set of Americans as it is an Israeli propaganda arm. There are obviously a lot of US citizens putting money into AIPAC and they're playing by the rules, however f-ed up those rules may be (see; Citizens United).

There are also American Christian Nationalists heavily engrained in promoting Israel–who are otherwise anti-Semitic–because it falls into their Rapture checklist.

The U.S. provides nearly $4 billion per year in non-repayable aid to Israel, almost entirely in weapons. Imagine if that went to education or healthcare in the U.S.

The billions already spent in Iran (and it's soon to be subsequent costs on the US economy) could do wonders for social programs. Or for that matter, soft-power initiatives that could truly help Iranians break free of the current hegemony, if that were truly the goal.

But ultimately, it's about keeping the military-industrial complex chugging along at it's current speed.
 
hose options ‌include securing safe passage for oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz,
Almost impossible to achieve successfully even with boots on the ground. US would have to get it right 100% of the time. Islamic Republic would only have to get it right once. IRGC would just need to hit one tanker and all other crossings would stop once again.

options to send ground forces to Iran's Kharg Island, the hub for 90% of Iran's oil exports
Islamic Republic already threatened to destroy oil infrastructure on Kharg if US deploys troops there. So far they have been consistent with following up on their threats and successfully calling their shots. If they destroy Kharg - hello $200/barrel oil prices.

Add to that the inevitable accompanying US marine casualties, and you've got quite a fiasco on your hands.

Trump has been able to quickly whip his MAGA base into supporting the war (80%+ approval last I heard). The rest of republican voters will likely fall in line by midterms too. But the rest of the voters - good luck with them! This is what will finally do Trump in.
 
That was cringe. And it bears thinking that the reason a desperate Japan attacked Pearl Harbour was that the US was starving Japan of fuel while trying to force the country into a humiliating acquiescence to US foreign policy demands. Japan knew they didn’t have much of a chance, but saw no option. Iran likely feels the same, and I expect we’ll see a seemingly suicidal move by that regime soon. I would not plan on attending FIFA or any large gathering in the US until this is over.

Next Trump will mention Godzilla.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top