The United States’ top counterterrorism official, Joe Kent, resigned Tuesday (March 17) citing his opposition to the ongoing Iran war — which he said was started under Israeli pressure.Kent, who was the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, wrote in his resignation letter, posted on X: “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”He blamed Israel for drawing the US not only into the current war but also the one in Iraq in 2003. He also mentioned his wife’s death in Syria, “in a war manufactured by Israel”.While Kent’s resignation is unprecedented for the Donald Trump administration, what has particularly caught the eye are these repeated references to Israel.The comments have raised concerns of anti-seminitism, with some alleging that they resort to the old trope of portraying Jewish people as manipulators. Indeed, Kent has previously pointed to conspiracy theories that pro-Israel forces were behind the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.But the resignation has also raised a foreign policy debate over Trump’s war with Iran and to what extent it was driven by Israel, with whom the US has a long-standing alliance. US President George W. Bush (right) and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon during a press conference in the Cross Hall of the White House on April 14, 2004. (Wikimedia Commons)So, was Israel really involved in the wars in Iraq and Syria, and if so, to what extent? To understand that, one must go back to 1996, when Benjamin Netanyahu first became the Israeli prime minister.Story continues below this adFirst, what has Kent said in his letter about Israel?Kent wrote in his letter that an Israeli lobby “deceived” Trump into believing that Iran posed an imminent threat to the US, and that there was a clear path to a swift victory if Washington struck immediately: “This was a lie and is the same tactic the Israelis used to draw us into the disastrous Iraq war that cost our nation the lives of thousands of our best men and women. We cannot make this mistake again.”Also in Explained | Iran war: Why Ras Laffan and South Pars attacks compound India’s worriesHe referred to the death of his first wife, Shannon Kent, a US Navy cryptologic technician, who was killed in Syria in 2019 in a suicide bombing.“As a veteran who deployed to combat 11 times and as a Gold Star husband who lost my beloved wife Shannon in a war manufactured by Israel, I cannot support sending the next generation off to fight and die in a war that serves no benefit to the American people nor justifies the cost of American lives,” he wrote. Gold Star families refer to the spouses, children, parents and siblings of a US military service member who died in the line of duty.Israel’ role in the Iraq warKent’s mention of the 2003 Iraq war appears to be a reference to the long-held belief among many that Israel’s security was the real, secret rationale for the war, beyond the disproven claims of the existence of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).Story continues below this adThe academics John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt argued in a 2006 paper, later expanded to a 2007 book titled The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, that Israel and the “Israel lobby” played a critical role in pushing the US into war against Iraq.They also argued that neoconservative figures ‘‘devoted to Israel’’ promoted the Iraq war out of a concern for Israel’s security as much as a concern for America’s security. They wrote: “As for so-called rogue states in the Middle East, they are not a dire threat to vital US interests, except inasmuch as they are a threat to Israel… The relationship with Israel actually makes it harder for the US to deal with these states.”Also in Explained | Before Iran, there was Iraq: What the 2003 US-led regime change left behindSome have disagreed with this. Academic Dov Waxman argued in a 2009 paper, From Jerusalem to Baghdad? Israel and the War in Iraq, that although American Jewish organizations and the Israeli government did largely support the Iraq war, they did not seek it or actively lobby for it. He wrote: “The regional transformation that neoconservatives hoped would be unleashed after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime was meant to serve American interests first and foremost.”Also, Israel was also not part of the US-led coalition that invaded Iraq.Story continues below this adMearsheimer and Walt, meanwhile, also argued that the centrepiece of the US policy in West Asia has been its relationship with Israel.And what about Syria?In 2011, amid the Arab Spring, peaceful protests broke out in Syria against the excesses of the Bashar al-Assad government. The government responded with a brutal crackdown, killing many demonstrators. Soon enough, these protests morphed into an armed conflict as defectors from the army turned rebels. And unlike the protests, the civil war reflected sectarian divisions.An expert explains | As the US moves Islamic State detainees out of Syria, understanding the surge of violenceThe governments of Shia-majority Iran and Iraq, and Lebanon-based Hezbollah, supported Assad. This provided the strategic justification for Israel to enter the war. It carried out air raids inside Syria, reportedly targeting Hezbollah and pro-government fighters and facilities.Israel’s thinking is perhaps best understood from comments made in July 2017 by its then defence minister Avigdor Liberman. “The rebels are not our friends, they are all versions of al-Qaeda… (but) Keeping Assad in power is not in our security interests. As long as he is in power, Iran and Hezbollah will be in Syria.”Story continues below this adBut this was not Israel’s only involvement. Remember, Kent claimed that Israel had “manufactured” the war. While it is unclear what exactly he was referring to, there is one controversial mission in Syria that Israel may have had a hand in.In 2013, then US President Barack Obama greenlit one of the costliest covert action programmes in the history of the CIA, codenamed Timber Sycamore. The mission aimed to arm and train Syrian rebels against the Bashar al-Assad regime but was hardly a success — some weapons reportedly ended up in the hands of al Qaeda affiliates. The mission saw more than $1 billion being spent over four years before being shut down by Trump in his first term.While Obama was initially reluctant to launch the programme, he changed his mind. A New York Times report from 2017 says that this “reversal came in part because of intense lobbying by foreign leaders, including King Abdullah II of Jordan and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, who argued that the United States should take a more active role in trying to end the conflict”.After the fall of the Assad regime in December 2024, Israel occupied the demilitarised buffer zone in southwestern Syria near Golan Heights.Story continues below this adBut what exactly explains Israel’s larger strategy in West Asia? To understand that, one must go further back to 1996.The ‘clean break’ that started it allThe roots of Israel’s actions in West Asia — from Lebanon to Iraq to Iran to Syria — can be traced back to a 1996 policy paper that essentially calls for it to fundamentally reshape the region. US President Barack Obama (left) walks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu across the tarmac at Ben Gurion International Airport in Tel Aviv, Israel, March 20, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)The document, “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”, was intended to be a blueprint for Benjamin Netanyahu, who had become Israel’s new prime minister. Published by an Israeli thinktank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, the document was the result of a discussion among a number of prominent American neoconservative figures.Some of these figures, such as Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, would go on to serve in prominent foreign policy roles in the George W Bush government.Story continues below this adThey proposed that Israel abandon the “land for peace” formula — under which Israel would withdraw from occupied territories in exchange for peace and recognition from Arab states — and instead reorder West Asia through military confrontations and regime change operations.It states: “We in Israel cannot play innocents abroad in a world that is not innocent. Peace depends on the character and behavior of our foes. We live in a dangerous neighborhood, with fragile states and bitter rivalries. Displaying moral ambivalence between the effort to build a Jewish state and the desire to annihilate it by trading ‘land for peace’ will not secure ‘peace now’.”The policy document outlines Israel’s targets: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Iran. It talked about “removing Saddam Hussein from power”, “striking” targets in Syria, and pulling Lebanon away from Iran.It says: “Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.”Story continues below this adThree decades on, the ‘clean break’ appears less like a strategy proposal more like a prediction. In September 2024, Netanyahu addressed the General Assembly with a map of West Asia divided between “Blessing” and “Curse”. The countries highlighted as a curse? Lebanon, Syria, Iraq — and Iran.