In a stunning resignation that has sent shockwaves through Washington, former National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent has exposed what many have long suspected but few have dared to state publicly — Israel is systematically undermining peace in the Middle East to serve its own expansionist agenda.

Joe Kent, a 20-year Army Special Forces veteran and Gold Star husband who lost his first wife in a Syria suicide bombing, didn’t mince words. His accusation is simple yet devastating: Israel is intentionally sabotaging diplomatic solutions because peace threatens its strategic objectives.

The most compelling evidence supporting Kent’s claim is the targeted assassination of Ali Larijani, Iran’s National Security Adviser and chief nuclear negotiator.

According to Kent, Larijani wasn’t just another Iranian official — he was actively engaged in negotiations that could have de-escalated regional tensions.

“Larijani was eager to get us a deal,” Kent revealed in an interview with Tucker Carlson.

But instead of pursuing diplomacy, US-Israeli strikes eliminated him, along with his son and several staff members. The message could not be clearer — anyone willing to negotiate for peace becomes a target.

This wasn’t just another military operation. Larijani represented the pragmatic wing of the Iranian establishment — someone capable of conducting the sorts of talks needed to end conflicts.

By eliminating him, Israel ensured that the path to negotiation was closed, leaving only the path of escalation.

Energy warfare masquerading as security
Kent’s second explosive claim involves energy infrastructure. He argues that strategic opportunities — particularly Qatar’s gas potential to stabilise global markets — have been deliberately targeted to increase tensions rather than reduce them .

The facts support him. On March 18, 2026, Israel launched a significant aerial assault on Iran’s South Pars gas field, which provides nearly 70 percent of Iran’s domestic gas. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu admitted Israel “acted alone” in this attack.

The result? Iran retaliated by striking Qatar’s Ras Laffan Industrial City — the world’s premier LNG hub — damaging approximately 17 percent of Qatar’s export capacity .

Global gas prices surged toward US$117 per barrel. The UK benchmark peaked at almost 183p per therm. Markets destabilised. And for what?

Here is the inconvenient truth, a stable energy market benefiting from Qatari and Iranian gas would reduce conflict incentives. By attacking this infrastructure, Israel ensured that economic interdependence — often the foundation of lasting peace — remains impossible.

Even President Trump distanced himself from the attack, stating the US “knew nothing about this particular strike” and describing it as Israel “violently lashing out”. When an American president feels compelled to publicly disavow his closest regional ally’s actions, something is fundamentally broken.

The ‘clean break’ strategy: 30 years of sabotage
Kent’s accusations didn’t emerge from nowhere. They reflect a consistent pattern dating back to 1996, when a group of neoconservatives — including figures who would later serve in the Bush administration — produced a policy paper titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”.

This document, prepared for Netanyahu, explicitly rejected the “land for peace” formula and proposed reordering the Middle East through military confrontations and regime change. It identified Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya and Iran as targets.

It called for “removing Saddam Hussein from power” and “weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria”.

Three decades later, we’re living the consequences. The Iraq war cost thousands of American lives. Syria descended into a catastrophic civil war. And now Iran faces sustained attacks. All while Israel’s security — not America’s — remained the central objective.

Kent’s resignation letter directly connected these dots: “It is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby . . .  This is the same tactic the Israelis used to draw us into the disastrous Iraq war”.

The human cost
Perhaps the most damning aspect of Kent’s accusation is personal. His wife, Navy cryptologist Shannon Kent, was killed in Syria in a suicide bombing. Kent now describes that conflict as “a war manufactured by Israel”.

Think about that. A Gold Star husband — someone who paid the ultimate price for American foreign policy — is telling us that his wife died in a war that served Israeli, not American, interests. If that doesn’t demand scrutiny, what does?

Why this matters now
Critics dismiss Kent as antisemitic or claim he is leaking classified information. But ad hominem attacks don’t address the substance.

Did Israel target a negotiator actively seeking peace? Yes. Did Israel attack energy infrastructure knowing it would destabilise global markets? Yes. Does Israel have a documented 30-year strategy of military confrontation over diplomacy? Yes.

The situation in Gaza further illustrates the pattern. As one analysis noted, Netanyahu’s “ceasefire” effectively granted Israel breathing space to consolidate political control while evading accountability. Within days, Israel’s Parliament passed a bill paving the way for West Bank annexation. This isn’t peace — it’s a pause for rearmament.

The parasite metaphor
A parasite feeds on its host, weakening it while appearing inseparable from it. Israel’s relationship with American foreign policy fits this description uncomfortably well.

American blood and treasure fund Israeli objectives. American credibility suffers when allies act unilaterally. American interests in stable energy markets get sacrificed for Israeli security concerns.

Joe Kent’s accusations deserve more than reflexive dismissal. They deserve investigation. Because if a Gold Star husband and former counterterrorism chief is correct — if Israel is indeed sabotaging peace for its own ends — then Americans have a right to know why their soldiers are dying and their markets are destabilised for another nation’s strategic objectives.

The description of Israel as a parasite may be harsh. But sometimes harsh truths are the only ones that break through comfortable lies.

Israel has positioned itself as America’s indispensable ally. Kent’s resignation suggests it may actually be the parasite draining American power while sabotaging any chance of Middle Eastern peace.

Marcus Alexander is an independent writer in Doha and contributor to Channel Media Network.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Indonesian government appears to be at a loss about how to quell the struggle of the Free Papua Organisation (OPM) with its plan to designate Papuan independence organisations as “terrorist” groups.

Democracy Alliance for Papua (ADP) director Latifah Anum Siregar says that the Counter Terrorism Agency (BNPT) should rethink its proposal to apply the Anti-Terrorism Law before the government makes a decision which will add to tensions in Papua.

“Actually, I think, sorry yeah but perhaps the government is at a loss as to how to handle the TPN [West Papua National Liberation Army] and the OPM,” said Siregar.

“It’s not certain this will bring things under control, it’s not certain that it will make the situation better. So I think that the government has to be more careful in looking at this.

“If the government gives them this definition, it will increase tensions.”

Siregar said there were contradictions in the Anti-Terrorism Law itself.

For example, Article 5 reads, “Terrorist crimes regulated under this law must be considered not to be political crimes”. Meanwhile, what the OPM is doing is fighting for independence politically, not through terrorism.

Amnesty also opposed
Speaking in a similar vein, Amnesty International Indonesia executive director Usman Hamid also opposes the discourse being promoted by BNPT chief Boy Rafli Amar.

According to Hamid, this will not stop human rights violations in Papua.

“Classifying armed groups which are affiliated with the OPM as terrorist organisations will not end the human rights violations being suffered by the Papuan people,” he said in a media release.

“Many of these [violations] are being committed by state security forces, it would be better to continue with a legal approach.”

Hamid is also concerned that giving such groups the “terrorist” label would be used as a pretext to further restrict Papuan’s freedom of expression and assembly through the Anti-Terrorism Law.

Earlier, BNPT chief Boy Rafli Amar said that they would hold discussions with ministries and other agencies on the naming of armed criminal groups (KKB) in Papua.

‘Reasonable’ category
According to Amar, it was reasonable to categorise the activities of these groups as terrorist acts.

“Whether or not they can be categorised as a terrorist organisation because earlier it was conveyed that it is actually appropriate for the KKB’s crimes to be categorised as or to be on par with terrorist acts,” Amar said during a hearing with the House of Representatives (DPR) on March 22.

Amar also said that aside from ministries and other agencies, the BNPT would be holding discussions with the National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM) and DPR representatives.

According to Amar, the discussions would be held to reach an “objective understanding” about these groups.

Translated by James Balowski for IndoLeft News. The original title of the article was “Wacana OPM Masuk Kategori Teroris, Aktivis: Akan Meningkatkan Ketegangan”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz