In a stunning twist, Trump’s top counterterrorism chief, Joe Kent, denies that Iran was ever close to nuclearization
After resigning as director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Joseph Kent went on an interview with Tucker Carlson. The Trump administration had stated at the onset of the war that Iran was still pursuing nuclearization. Kent disputed the Trump administration’s claim.
“But here’s, from what I can tell, the central question: imminent threat,” Carlson prefaced in the interview. “Now, the president has said many times, to many people, including the public, ‘Iran can’t have nuclear weapons.'”
Carlson continued, “Was Iran on the verge of getting a nuclear weapon?”
“No, they weren’t,” Kent immediately dismissed. “Three weeks ago, when they started, and they weren’t in June, either.”
Kent’s response contradicts the Trump administration’s rationale for both the Iran war and the strikes on nuclear Iranian sites in June 2025.
“I mean, the Iranians have had a religious ruling—a fatwa—against developing a nuclear weapon since 2004,” Kent added to support his claim. The fatwa in question reaffirms Iran’s commitment against weapons of mass destruction. Nevertheless, it’s still important to note that a fatwa is not a legally binding commitment.
Kent continues, “But then we also had no intelligence to indicate that the fatwa was being disobeyed or it was on the cusp of being lifted.” He then proceeds to describe Iran’s nuclear strategy.
“The Iranian strategy, it’s actually pretty pragmatic. The Iranians are obviously aware of what’s taking place in their region, and their strategy was not to completely abandon their nuclear program because they saw what happened to Muammar Gaddafi.”
Carlson jokingly asked, “And we gave the Nobel Peace Prize?” presumably to Libya and their former dictator, Gaddafi.
Kent sighed, “Yeah, no, we regime-changed him, and he was, you know, executed by his own people in the most horrific way.”
No clear reason for the war in sight
In this analysis, Iran essentially had no choice but to continue the bluff. Nevertheless, Iran’s strawmanning has been used as a justification for Trump and his administration to attack—even if Kent says there is no imminent threat.
Kent’s claims, if true, also prove that the attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities in June 2025 had been largely unnecessary. In an official press release titled ‘Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Have Been Obliterated—and Suggestions Otherwise are Fake News,’ Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth offered a comment.
“Our bombing campaign obliterated Iran’s ability to create nuclear weapons,” he said last June. Disregarding the fact that a former intelligence community director disproved the existence of an imminent threat for a moment. If the bombing campaign had been successful, why would it be necessary for the United States to launch an offensive attack?
If Iran’s nuclear capabilities had been obliterated and the Trump administration still ruled to attack, there would be very few plausible reasons. Either they lied in June about Iran’s nuclear status, or they’re lying now. In their words, it would be ‘fake news’ to suggest that Iran still has nuclear weapons.
But if there is an ongoing war and Iran’s nuclear ambitions are still central to the campaign, then the White House contradicts itself. Perhaps the latter scenario is why the administration had been determined to use the terrorism argument to justify the Iran war. Either way, this is a scenario in which two truths can’t coexist.
So, which is the truth? It’s still unclear to the American public.
But Kent held a position that required a top-secret security clearance. It was his duty to analyze domestic and international terror threats to the United States. His resignation move definitely speaks volumes and is cause for alarm.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
