The Kent resignation: An opportunity for introspection

Jaideep Saikia

(Jaideep Saikia can be reached at jdpsaikia@gmail.com.)

One of the aspects that the Prussian General and the author of On War, Carl von Clausewitz, should have included in his concept of “Fog of War” was not only “incomplete intelligence”, “friction” and the “rapid pace of combat”, but also the manner in which a “fifth column” suddenly appears to take the sting out of an ongoing and virulent conflict.

Joseph Clay Kent, the Director of the US National Counterterrorism Center, resigned from his position on 17 March 2026. My analysis will not call him a fifth columnist, but I will certainly term and anoint him as a man of conscience. Why else would Kent resign from the Trump administration, protesting the US’ war against Iran, stating that the latter posed no imminent threat to the US, and also that the US was pressured into the war by Israel and its powerful lobby in the US?

Kent, a former “Green Beret” and a CIA paramilitary operative, was not only a staunch supporter of Trump but also a committed Republican. His letter of resignation to Trump was bold and conclusive. He wrote to Trump stating, “High-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media deployed a misinformation campaign that wholly undermined your America First platform and sowed pro-war sentiments to encourage a war with Iran. This echo chamber was used to deceive you into believing that Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States… This was a lie…” Incidentally, Clausewitz also includes misinformation as a component that determines the “Fog of War”. In any event, Trump, in his characteristic self-righteous behaviour reacted to the resignation by simply stating that Kent was “weak on security”. The reality is that Kent was too strong for an establishment that demanded blind loyalty over objective analysis. Kent’s resignation acted as a dynamic “firewall” for the rash acts that Trump was siring. But the administration refused to be drawn into the “truth of the moment,” prioritising political expediency over transparency and accountability. Instead, Trump termed his leaving as “it’s a good thing that he’s out.”

The resignation has to be viewed as an episode that was more than a mere bureaucratic exit. It was a weighty indictment of a foreign policy apparatus that has once again prioritised intangible geopolitical alignment over the safety of not only the American people but also the entire global order. To be sure, by electing to walk away, Kent has performed the ultimate service to the US. He has exposed the broadening gulf between the “America First” directive and the disastrous slide toward an avoidable conflict with Iran, one which will have far-reaching ramifications for the entire world.

The entry of the US into a war with Tehran represents a failure of institutional memory. Kent, a combat veteran who has lived through the “forever wars” in the most visceral manner, comprehended the familiar architecture of a mounting calamity. His departure signals that the intelligence—notwithstanding from where it emanated—was being used to justify a conflict that is being viewed through a distorted lens and was being manufactured to suit a pre-ordained conclusion.

By resigning, Kent refused to be the “America First” face for a “World First” one. He understood that to stay would be to provide a veneer of populist legitimacy to a conflict that is fundamentally at odds with the movement’s core tenets: non-interventionism and the preservation of American resources for American citizens.

Kent did the correct thing because he prioritised the truth over a title. In doing so, he has remained a reliable, unblemished voice for the millions of Americans who are weary of seeing their country’s strength hollowed out by conflicts that serve everyone but themselves. His resignation was not a retreat; it was a clarion call for a return to a foreign policy rooted in restraint, reality, and the genuine defence of the homeland.

There are certain key lessons for India from this high-profile exit. India must recognise that the current Trump administration’s “America First” doctrine is not a guarantee of isolationism or stability. Kent’s resignation highlights a sharp internal divide where even loyalists who initially supported concluding “never-ending wars” now find themselves at odds with a sudden shift toward major regional conflict. For New Delhi, this underscores the need to maintain strategic autonomy and not over-rely on a single administration’s expected behaviour.

I have been a critique of India’s intelligence, especially as it pertains not only to its failures to preempt terror strikes inside the country, but also to its inability to anticipate (and if possible, prevent!) anti-India upheavals in India’s near abroad. Intelligence has to not only have a sound basis (Kent’s threat assessment points exactly to such a failure) but also a character of its own—one that builds an institutional fortress that views and acts on long-term threats that can envisage (as I had written in The Sentinel, dated 21 November 2025, “Countering Pakistan’s Hostile Ecosystem”) a stratagem that is not simply a response to a “done-and-dusted act”, as was the case of Baisaran on 22 April 2025.

India, which maintains delicate ties with both Israel and Iran, should view the situation as a cautionary tale about how deeply embedded lobbies (read: Israel’s) can influence a superpower’s trajectory, potentially at the expense of its own stated national interests. India has witnessed diplomatic turbulence in the recent past—from an inimical neighbourhood to tariffs over energy procurement paths. In fact, the US-Israel war against Iran is the right time to war-game diplomacy and economy, especially as there are alarm bells sounding. In other words, India must accelerate its energy diversification and contingency planning for a prolonged West Asian crisis. A critical chokepoint for India’s energy supplies by way of the Strait of Hormuz has already been compromised by the war.

Finally, India’s own high-security institutions must reflect on the importance of internal “red-teaming” and the dangers of a system where hierarchies are chosen on the basis of submissive acquiescence and not professional competence. The top echelons of India’s strategic calculus must come to terms with the bitter truth that the Indian system often operates under a pyramidal edifice where challenging the “official line” can be career-limiting. Breaking such a trend is important for India’s development. Furthermore, the ability to comprehend “strategic intelligence” over “tactical noise” has to be uppermost.

India stands on the threshold of an era where a complete overhaul of almost all its superstructures has become an imperative for the country’s progress. Therefore, whether it is New Delhi’s Kashmir/Northeast policy, its near-abroad objectives, strategic alignments (including the expected “détente-in-construction” with China) and a “whole-of-government” approach, the watchword is refurbishment. This can be achieved by clearing the “stables of strategic stagnation” that has crept into the system. It is important that India looks toward the beckoning horizon that will prioritise strategic foresight over stale operational history that has straitjacketed its evolution as a regional superpower.