Between America and conscience, this U.S. senior official chose conscience

“I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war inside Iran.” This statement was made by Joseph Kent, the recently resigned director of the U.S. Counterterrorism Center.

Image source: BBC News screenshot

On March 17, local time, this veteran of special forces, who served 20 years in the U.S. military and completed 11 combat deployments, took an almost unprecedented step by nearly breaking with President Trump publicly.

Kent’s resignation letter was like a scalpel, tearing apart the illusion of White House unity and exposing deep divisions and conflicts.

Trump dismissively accused Kent of being “weak on security,” while Vice President Pence, when asked by the media about the U.S.-Israel-Iran conflict, “dodged the question”… This war, perceived by outsiders as “fought for Israel’s interests,” is causing a rift within the U.S. leadership between “conscience” and “politics,” with internal conflicts intensifying.

“This is not America’s war”

Kent’s resignation drew widespread attention not only because he was personally appointed by Trump as the top counterterrorism official but also because his background gave his criticism particular weight.

In his open letter to Trump, Kent did not use bureaucratic clichés but directly exposed the core justification for war—the “imminent threat.”

He candidly wrote: “Iran does not pose an imminent threat to the United States, and it is clear that this war is driven by pressure from Israel and its powerful lobbying groups in the U.S.”

He further stated that he could not support sending U.S. troops into a war that is “of no benefit to the American people and cannot justify sacrificing American lives.”

Kent is not just talking on paper.

According to BBC, as a long-time supporter of Trump, Kent also has another identity: a highly decorated American veteran.

The Hill reports that Kent has extensive combat experience, having served multiple times in Iraq and Afghanistan. This battlefield experience gives him a unique perspective during his tenure as head of the Counterterrorism Center.

Over the past year, he led efforts to shift the focus of the National Counterterrorism Center to align with the Trump administration’s priorities—targeting groups listed as “foreign terrorist organizations” by the White House.

What may make his words more persuasive is his personal tragedy.

The Daily Mirror reports that Kent’s wife is a victim of what he calls “a war manufactured by Israel.” This personal experience led Kent to warn that the U.S. is repeating history: “This is the same lie that dragged us into the disastrous Iraq War.”

He also criticized Trump’s close relationship with Israel and the dependence on Israel, repeatedly emphasizing that Israel’s lobbying activities “have involved the U.S. in unnecessary wars for years.”

After this letter was made public, it quickly triggered a chain reaction of shockwaves in Washington.

Trump responded to reporters at the White House: “I’ve always thought he was a good guy, but I’ve also always believed he was weak on security. His departure is a good thing.” White House Press Secretary strongly countered, asserting that the President has “solid and compelling evidence” that Iran planned to attack the U.S. first.

Perhaps the most awkward person is Kent’s immediate superior, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines. As a well-known anti-war advocate, she previously shared similar views with Kent, but during this controversy, she issued only a cautious statement that did not mention Kent at all. For Washington observers, this silence may itself be a stance.

“Creating a rift between me and the President”

If Kent’s resignation is considered an “open declaration of war,” then Vice President Pence’s silence is “a silent undercurrent.”

Photo: Pence.

Since the U.S.-Israel military action against Iran on February 28, Pence’s public statements have been extremely cautious, even sparking speculation about “where Pence is.”

A photo taken during the military strike period shows that at the Situation Room at Mar-a-Lago, Trump and Defense Secretary Hegseth, Secretary of State Risch, and other military and political officials are closely watching the screen, but Pence is nowhere to be seen.

The White House explained that Pence was in Washington attending another meeting and could not attend due to “security protocols.” However, foreign media widely believe this reveals Pence’s exclusion from core decision-making circles.

The Atlantic Monthly suggests that within the U.S. government, “the Vice President’s opinions are increasingly irrelevant.”

Analysts say that there is a clear split within Trump’s team: a minority supports Pence and opposes the war; most, represented by Risch, advocate for military action.

Trump himself has not hidden his disagreements with Pence. He told the media that Pence has “some differences in views on Iran” and “may not be as enthusiastic.”

When asked whether he fully supports the war, Pence’s response was telling.

He avoided his previous anti-war stance and somewhat resentfully told reporters: “I know what you’re trying to do. You want to create a rift between me and the President.” He emphasized that he believes in the “smart” Trump President who will not repeat the mistakes of past administrations.

This language of “trusting the President” rather than “supporting the war” is interpreted by foreign media as a carefully crafted dodge.

More subtly, during Trump’s first press conference after the escalation of the U.S.-Israel-Iran conflict, he praised Risch for his hawkish stance and did not mention Pence at all. Meanwhile, Risch’s support in the 2028 Republican presidential primary polls has surged.

The flames of war in the Middle East are reshaping the power dynamics within the Republican Party.

Who will be the next to leave?

Trump once rallied supporters under the banners of “America First” and “No New Wars,” but now the Iran conflict is causing the once solid “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) camp to fracture.

Photo: Trump.

According to U.S. media, grassroots voters still support Trump, but key opinion leaders are defecting.

Besides Kent’s resignation, former Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, a prominent “America First” figure, has publicly opposed the war.

Conservative commentator Tucker Carlson bluntly stated that the Iran war was long-planned by Israel and supported his friend Kent: “He’s one of the bravest people I know. Someone is trying to destroy him now, but he understands that, and still did it.”

Former Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene also sharply criticized. She publicly questioned “Where is Pence?” due to his silence and directly accused Trump of breaking his promise of “no more foreign wars,” calling it a “lie.”

Analysts believe that Greene and Pence are seen as strong contenders for the 2028 U.S. presidential election. Their political “cut” from the hawks at this moment suggests they recognize that while the MAGA base currently supports the war, prolonged conflict and rising oil prices could quickly revive anti-war sentiments.

This internal conflict—“Establishment vs. Isolationists,” “Israel First vs. America First”—is intensifying within the Trump administration.

On one side are the hawks like the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State, pushing for escalation; on the other are the traditional anti-war factions, disappointed and resigning.

Senior researcher at the Brookings Institution succinctly summarized: Trump has broken his campaign promise to the MAGA base, creating a huge political dilemma for himself—“the longer the war lasts, the more difficult it will be for him.”

Kent has left. Who will be next?

Is it the awkward Director of Intelligence Avril Haines, the absent Vice President Pence, or perhaps, as U.S. media speculate—the real focus is elsewhere. Trump is using this war as a chessboard, testing loyalty between Pence and Risch, subtly shaping the Republican Party’s future.

A resignation in the name of “conscience” has deepened the cracks within the U.S. itself. Amid cabinet fractures, a fundamental question remains unanswered: Whose war is this? And for whose peace?