This piece lays out the clash over how the United States handled Iran before and after the latest conflict, centering on former National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent’s claim that President Trump had a stronger negotiating position than the Obama-era nuclear deal, the sharp White House rebuttal, and the broader debate about who drove America into the current military standoff.
Joe Kent argues that before the war with Iran, President Trump was in a position to secure a deal superior to the JCPOA. He made that point bluntly in public posts, insisting a different outcome was possible if the administration had resisted outside pressure. “Prior to letting the Israelis lead us into this war, President Trump was actually poised to cut a better deal than the JCPOA (aka the Obama Iran deal),” Kent .
Kent doubled down on why he believed Trump had leverage, pointing to the decisive strike that killed Qasem Soleimani and to the way Tehran reportedly viewed the Trump presidency. His argument is that respect and deterrence matter in Tehran’s calculations. “The Iranians feared and respected Trump in a way they never respected Obama—he took out the terror mastermind Qasem Soleimani, yet was prudent enough not to get sucked into the quicksand of another Middle Eastern quagmire that would only favor Iran and strengthen its hardliners,” he continued.
https://x.com/joekent16jan19/status/2054724762245411328
He also claims a rapid shift in Iranian behavior once Trump returned to office in 2025, saying Tehran paused proxy attacks and opened a window for diplomacy. That sequence, Kent says, showed the power of a firm stance combined with targeted actions. “That’s why, as soon as he returned to office in January 2025, the Iranians stopped their proxies from attacking us and were immediately open to negotiations,” Kent added.
Kent resigned his counterterrorism post in March, citing his opposition to the path the country took into the Iran war, and he urged the president to change course. He urged an exit from the military standoff, restraint on Israeli influence, and the use of sanctions relief as leverage to secure maritime freedom and a new nuclear agreement. “President Trump can still correct course, but he has to break the current stalemate cycle we are in: Get us out of the military standoff. Restrain the Israelis. Leverage the potential of sanctions relief to open the Strait of Hormuz and secure a new deal on the nuclear issue,” he advised.
The White House responded forcefully through spokesman Davis Ingle, painting Kent’s claims as misleading and insisting Trump acted on credible threats. Ingle’s statement challenged Kent’s premise and defended the administration’s decision-making on security grounds. “Joe Kent’s self-aggrandizing resignation letter and recent comments are riddled with lies. Most egregious are Kent’s false claims that the largest state sponsor of terrorism somehow did not pose a threat to the United States and that Israel forced the President into launching Operation Epic Fury. As Commander-in-Chief, President Trump took decisive action based on strong evidence which showed that the terrorist Iranian regime posed an imminent threat and was preparing to strike Americans first. President Trump’s number one priority has always been ensuring the safety and security of the American people,” Ingle said in the statement.
At a Senate hearing, U.S. Central Command leadership described a steady drumbeat of attacks on U.S. personnel in the run-up to the operation, framing the military moves as a response to sustained Iranian aggression. That testimony underpins the administration’s position that action was necessary to protect American lives. During the 30 months prior to when Operation Epic Fury began, “Iran and its proxies had been attacking U.S. service members and diplomats about 350 times … about every third day.”
Kent pushed back on that timeline in a follow-up on X, saying the escalation he cited took place under the prior administration and stopped once Trump returned. He framed the pause as proof that deterrence works and as evidence that a negotiated deal was within reach. “Iran’s proxies attacked our troops & diplomats under Biden, NOT under this Trump admin prior to Epic Fury, hence the 30 months time frame. When Trump returned to office in January of 2025 those attacks stopped.”
Further comments from Kent argue that Israeli aims pushed the U.S. into a larger conflict at the expense of a diplomatic opening, a point that remains fiercely disputed in political circles. He claimed Iran pulled back its proxies because they feared Trump’s retaliation and wanted to negotiate directly with him. “Iran stoped [sic] its proxies from attacking us b/c they knew Trump would hit back & they wanted to reach a deal w/Trump. A deal was in the works, that deal would have thwarted Israel’s goal of getting us committed to a war against Iran, so Israel did everything they could to get us into a war with Iran,” he added.
Kent closed by arguing that Trump’s pressure campaign achieved results until strategic decisions shifted, a charge that questions the broader choice to pursue an intensified military response. He framed the situation as a missed chance to leverage tangible gains into a durable agreement. “Iran holding back its proxies & the protests against the regime in January show that Trump’s max pressure & strategic targeted strike campaign was working, tragically this success was squandered by letting the Israelis drive our decision making,” Kent claimed.
