Before the conflict with Iran escalated, former National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent claimed that President Donald Trump was “ready” to secure a more favorable deal than the one established under President Barack Obama. In a recent post on X, Kent suggested that Trump was prepared to negotiate a better agreement than the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, known as the JCPOA.
Kent remarked that the Iranian populace had a level of fear and respect for Trump that they didn’t have for Obama. He noted Trump’s decision to eliminate terrorist leader Qasem Soleimani but also remarked that Trump was careful not to get involved in a complicated military scenario in the Middle East that would benefit Iran and empower hardliners.
He went on to say that once Trump regained office in January 2025, Iran halted its proxy attacks and began negotiations almost immediately.
Kent, who resigned from his position in March due to his opposition to the Iran war, maintained in a recent statement that Trump can still steer the U.S. back toward a peaceful solution. He advised that breaking the deadlock is crucial and suggested that Trump should restrain Israel’s military actions and use the possibility of sanctions relief to create a new agreement regarding nuclear issues.
In response, White House Press Secretary Davis Engle criticized Kent’s remarks, claiming they were filled with inaccuracies. Engle insisted that Iran, a leading state sponsor of terrorism, posed an imminent threat to the U.S. and that Trump acted decisively to protect American interests.
During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Gen. Brad Cooper, commander of U.S. Central Command, indicated that Iran and its proxies attacked U.S. personnel and diplomats around 350 times leading up to Operation Epic Fury, suggesting a significant threat was present at that time.
However, Kent countered that such attacks were primarily a result of the current administration rather than during Trump’s term, insisting that peace was achieved when Trump returned to power. He argued that Iran’s restraint during those months showed that they recognized the potential for conflict if push came to shove.
He concluded that Iran’s control over its proxies indicated that Trump’s previous strategies were effective and warned that allowing Israel to influence U.S. decisions could jeopardize this progress.
