Between the Dragon and His Wrath: A Tale of Two Kents

Joe Kent knew the lie. As the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, he would have known all this better than most. He knew the intelligence. He knew what it showed — and what it didn’t.

By Jeffrey Sterling

Once again, I am reminded that there is nothing, when it comes to human drama, that has not been addressed by Shakespeare. The recent resignation of Joe Kent, head of the National Counterterrorism Center, and the aftermath feels like a script pulled straight from the bard. When the news hit that Kent quit his position in the Trump administration because he came to the realization that he, “cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran,” I was not surprised. Having worked within the intelligence community, I know there can be many instances where you face difficulties rationalizing being part of questionable actions by your leaders. At some point, the “hideous rashness” of policy becomes too much to bear. The news of Kent took me back to those times.

But the story also immediately took me to Shakespeare’s King Lear, a cautionary tragedy of pride, vanity, and the consequence of foolishly valuing flattery over fact. The scene in question sees a loyal supporter of a king questioning that king’s questionable actions,

“Think’st thou that duty shall have dread to speak / When power to flattery bows? To plainness honor’s bound / When majesty falls to folly.” — (Act 1, Scene 1)

These words are spoken by, and I can’t ignore the similar names, the Earl of Kent, one of Lear’s most loyal and trusted noblemen. That Kent was trying to speak truth to power by pointing out decisions steeped in madness and reminding his king (and in some ways himself) that honesty and transparency are what matter. The reward for questioning the king was banishment.

In some ways, this modern-day Kent is trying to speak truth to power by walking away and criticizing the launch of “Operation Epic Fury,” a foolhardy and unjustified war with Iran. I share his sentiment that “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation…” During my time on the Iran Task Force at CIA, there was no, in my opinion, intelligence-supported basis for viewing Iran as capable of, or interested in, a direct attack on the United States, much less on the verge of doing so. Previous presidents understood the trap of an Iranian quagmire; yet Trump, in a truly Lear-like moment of “madness,” has stepped right into it.

Joe Kent knew the lie. As the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, he would have known all this better than most. He knew the intelligence. He knew what it showed — and what it didn’t.

But Joe Kent is no Earl of Kent.

Shakespeare’s Kent is noted for his loyalty and bluntness in efforts to protect his king from the “hideous rashness” of poor decisions which were leading to the dishonor of a leader and a divided country. Aspects of loyalty and bluntness are where the similarities end. Prior to his resignation, Joe Kent was loyal to Trump, to a fault. His far-right leanings and loyalty to MAGA were comfortable with Trump’s authoritarian policies that have trampled upon civil liberties, democratic norms, and the shameful treatment of vulnerable populations, and divided the nation. Unlike Shakespeare’s Kent, Joe Kent has been okay with a dishonorable leader pushing the country to division. Yet, going to war against Iran crossed an apparently bright line.

From my perspective, resigning is certainly blunt and brave but, where has this assertiveness on behalf of his country been in his tenure as a top counter-terrorism official? His letter of resignation is certainly revelatory, but will he have the courage to take it further and speak out against all the foolish decisions Trump has inflicted upon this nation? I rather think his resignation is a one-off or singular moment of clarity from a war-weary veteran who has come to the realization that his leader is a warmonger.

I do not and will never support politics that are bound to tear this nation apart, but I will support anyone who is brave enough to take a stand against unaccountability in government. Though his move is more likely about the preservation of an antagonistic ideology as opposed to standing up for the nation as a whole, Joe Kent has, in some ways, entered the realm of the whistleblower. As such, I fear he will face the same condemnation experienced by so many whistleblowers before him. Whistleblowers like me, John Kiriakou, Chelsea Manning, Tom Drake, and countless others are faced with character assassination and condemnation by the power they attempt to speak truth to. Attention will be drawn away from the truth that Joe Kent has tried to reveal, and he will be made an enemy of the state, by the state. The reprisal against Joe Kent has already started with news, as reported by Semafor, that he is being investigated by the FBI for leaking classified information. I would not be surprised to learn next that Joe Kent is being charged with violating the Espionage Act. Such can be the price for speaking truth to power.

King Lear warns Kent to “Come not between the dragon and his wrath”, and for good or otherwise intentions, Joe Kent has done just that. I imagine he was fully aware that there would be consequences and, with some reservation, I applaud his action. The nation needs more “Earl of Kent-like” confrontation upon a leader who is acting foolishly. Maybe Joe Kent is the beginning and inspiration for others to act similarly.

Jeffrey Sterling is a Whistleblower Advocate at RootsAction.org. He is a former CIA case officer who was at the Agency, including the Iran Task Force, for nearly a decade. He filed an employment discrimination suit against the CIA, but the case was dismissed as a threat to national security. He served two and a half years in prison after being convicted of violating the Espionage Act. No incriminating evidence was produced at trial and Sterling continues to profess his innocence. His memoir, “Unwanted Spy: The Persecution of an American Whistleblower,” was published in late 2019.