UMVA has learned that a key figure in the Trump administration is questioning the decision to go to war with Iran, citing a previously unreported opportunity for a better deal.
According to sources, former National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent has come forward with claims that President Donald Trump was poised to strike a better deal with the Iranian regime than the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, a deal negotiated under President Barack Obama.
Kent asserts that Trump's approach was more effective in deterring attacks from Iranian proxies, as evidenced by the abrupt halt in attacks when Trump returned to office in January 2025.
Industry experts say that the Iranian regime feared and respected Trump in a way they never did with Obama, who was seen as more soft on Iran.
Kent argues that the Trump administration's "max pressure" campaign and targeted strikes were working, as evidenced by the protests against the regime in January and the regime's decision to hold back its proxies.
However, in a statement, the White House dismissed Kent's claims, labeling them as "lies" and "self-aggrandizing." The statement also asserted that Trump's decision to go to war was based on strong evidence showing an imminent threat from Iran.
Central Command Commander Adm. Brad Cooper testified that Iran and its proxies had been attacking U.S. service members and diplomats about 350 times over 30 months prior to the start of Operation Epic Fury, but Kent disputes this, claiming that the attacks stopped when Trump returned to office.
UMVA has uncovered details about Kent's claims and the White House's response, providing a rare glimpse into the behind-the-scenes politics surrounding the Iran war.
As the situation continues to unfold, Kent's message is clear: the Trump administration had a chance to strike a better deal with Iran, but it was ultimately derailed by Israeli influences.
