“I cannot in conscience support the ongoing war with Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we entered into this conflict under pressure from Israel and its powerful lobby in the United States. » The man who expresses himself like this is not just anyone. Joe Kent is Tulsi Gabbard’s right-hand man who heads all American intelligence. His role is equivalent to that of the head of the DGSE here. In his military career, he was deployed to theaters of war eleven times. His wife was killed in an attack by Daesh.
That someone with such a profile expresses himself in this way is an illustration that the war in Iran will have caused deep divisions, not only within the Trump administration, but even more perhaps within his Maga base to which Joe Kent belongs. We can even imagine that following this resignation, Tulsi Gabbard, herself known for her positions hostile to military interventions, is in turn wondering about her future in the Trump administration. Has she not just declared before the American Senate that “Iran has not tried to restart its nuclear enrichment activities since the US-Israeli attack of June 2025”thereby openly contradicting Donald Trump’s speech on the war objectives against Tehran?
The decision to go to war therefore appears in a new light. If, in fact, nuclear power had been put forward by Trump himself to justify it on February 28, the statements last Tuesday by a British observer present in the final hours of the negotiations created even more confusion. As an echo of the words of the Omani Minister of Foreign Affairs and mediator of the negotiations, Badr al-Busaidi, who had gone to the United States a few days before the start of the war to explain on the CBS News channel that an agreement was “within reach”. Jonathan Powell confirms that there was no “no imminent threat from Iran”. He further explains, in the columns of Guardianthat the possible deal with Iran would have been much better for Trump than the one obtained in his time by Barack Obama. The diplomat also reports that it was Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner who did everything to convince Trump to go to war.
In turn, former CIA chief General David Petraeus claims that the United States attacked Iran to cripple its ability to defend itself against a premeditated Israeli attack. His comments support those of Secretary of State Marco Rubio on the reasons for entering the war. Donald Trump had also named his son-in-law and his former real estate partner as those who had convinced him to go there during a press conference. And too bad if the American chief of staff, General Caine, had warned the White House that striking carried major military risks, emphasizing the lack of munitions, interceptors and support from allies. He further warned that this could put American forces in danger in the region. Premonitory.
Larijani’s disappearance leaves room for regime hardliners
On the ground, the operational tempo decreased for each of the adversaries. Iran demonstrates every day that it is still capable of reaching Israel. The latter continues its strikes and targeted assassinations, in parallel with American strikes, even if the two allies present strategies which increasingly diverge. Thus, with the elimination of Ali Larijani, the head of Iranian security, Israel has not only removed a formidable adversary coupled with an outstanding communicator, but also deprived Iran of the type of leader that Trump was looking for to replace the Guide and thus put an end to the operation. The American president remains convinced that he can renew the Maduro operation on a larger scale to regain stability in the region and seize Iranian oil, usually reserved for the Chinese.
The disappearance of Larijani leaves room for the hardliners of the regime and the military whose perspective is not negotiation but fighting to the end. The regime emerges weakened, but it becomes even more dangerous in the sense that almost no voice calls for restraint, for moderation, even less for negotiation. The Israelis are content with this because their objective is to reduce Iran’s nuisance capabilities as much as possible, to destroy its defenses and its ballistic capabilities, regardless of what remains afterwards and even if it means dividing the country. This is why they attacked, despite the negative opinion of the White House, certain oil installations as well as one of the largest gas fields in the country, Thursday in South Pars.
“This could be the start of the next cycle of escalation in the Persian Gulf, going beyond the closure of the Strait of Hormuz to attacks on oil and gas fields and energy infrastructure, which could only worsen the impact of the war on energy prices”estimates Vali Nasr, American-Iranian researcher, specialist in the Islamic world.
A 35% increase
Fearing Iranian reprisals on its own gas, Qatar immediately condemned this Israeli strike. Indeed, Doha shares this immense offshore gas field with Iran. The latter was quick to retaliate by destroying part of the Ras Laffan installations which exploit gas on the Qatar side. Results: 17% of the deposit’s production wiped out. Duration of repairs: five years, minimum.
Immediately realizing the consequences of targeting installations on long-term markets, Donald Trump threatened Iran, but he also ordered Israel to stop striking Iranian energy resources. Above all, contrary to what had been announced, he assured that the United States had not been informed of the Israeli strikes. Too late, it seems. The price of European gas has increased by 35%. The energy war has only just begun.
A source at the White House cited by the media Axios summarizes the differences between Americans and Israelis as follows: “Israel does not hate chaos. We do. We want stability. Netanyahu ? Not so much, especially in Iran. They hate the Iranian government much more than we do. »
