Trump Is Pushing Jew-Haters Out of the "America First" Coalition

Joe Kent Didn’t Resign. He Was Undone By His Own Anti-Zionist Rot

by Bob Goldberg in The New Zionist Times, March 17th

Media outlets are framing Joe Kent’s resignation as the director of the National Counterterrorism Center because of principled opposition to the Trump Administration’s war on Iran. Principles had nothing to do with it.

He left (more likely shoved out), accusing the administration of entering war with Iran because of “pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby” (that’s AIPAC in case you missed the subtlety), while insisting Iran posed no imminent threat to the United States. There, in one tidy little package, was the full intellectual collapse of a part of the American right: not realism, not prudence, not restraint, but the old reflex that when events become complicated, blame the Jews.

This is how anti-interventionism curdles into something rancid. It begins with a sensible warning against quagmires and crusades. It ends with the suggestion that America has no enemies in the Middle East worth worrying about, only allies worth resenting. Iran’s aggression? Secondary. Its terror proxies? Background noise. Its imperial ambitions? Mere detail. The real culprit, we are told, is Israel, with its magical ability to make American officials forget where America’s interests lie.

That is not foreign-policy realism. It is your run-of-the-mill Blood Libel.

Kent matters because he is not your average groyper. He occupied one of the government’s top counterterrorism posts. Kent was supposed to be the serious face of “America First” discipline. Instead, on his way out the door, he sounded like a man who had absorbed too much of the Carlson catechism: every Middle East crisis is a trap, every ally a burden, every Jewish concern a manipulation.

And one cannot ignore the possibility that Kent’s departure was less an act of a lonely conscience than a politically convenient separation. Officially, he resigned over the war in Iran. Unofficially, he was not just an ally of Tucker Carlson; he was, in no small measure, a Carlson creation.

A quick public check turns up at least six Carlson appearances that are easy to verify in the public record—August 26, 2021; September 8, 2021; December 2, 2021; January 21, 2022; June 9, 2022; and April 8, 2023—and local coverage at the time described those bookings more broadly as “frequent appearances” that helped elevate Kent’s campaign.

Carlson did not treat Kent as just another guest. He showcased him as an “America First” candidate, giving him repeated prime-time exposure while Kent was running for Congress. Tucker praised his analysis so effusively that he told him, “the fact that you’re not in Congress tells you a lot about the forces you’re up against,” before wishing him “godspeed.” He later publicly grouped Kent among the candidates he was “standing behind.” (ManoWhisper)

Nor did it help Kent that he was so closely identified with Tucker Carlson, just as Carlson’s increasingly deferential posture toward Iran was coming under growing scrutiny.

Joe Kent and his J’Accuse Resignation Letter

And if that wasn't enough, Candace Owens cast Kent as the man bold enough to track down how (as Owens alleges) the Trump Family and the Mossad assassinated Charlie Kirk. Public reporting says Kent reviewed FBI files to examine possible foreign involvement, alarming FBI leadership, who feared interference with the criminal case against the accused shooter. That was enough to make him a hero to the conspiratorial right, which requires very little evidence and thrives on dark insinuation.

That is the pattern now. Every institution that resists these fantasies is corrupt. Every investigation that refuses to validate them is a cover-up. Every refusal to blame Israel is proof that Israel is to blame. This is not skepticism. It is the Protocols of the Elders of Zion-induced paranoia with a geopolitical vocabulary.

U.S., Israel, Iran, & Qatar: Leverage, Timing, and the Next Phase of Power

Analysts, Kenneth Abramowitz and Rev. Dumisani Washington on force-posture, mediation leverage, and the Iran horizon

The Washington–Qatar–Israel–Iran crisis is no longer a single storyline. It is a convergence of pressure points: Gaza’s unfinished war, Iran’s nuclear trajectory, Chinese-Iranian military ties, and the role of mediators whose influence shapes what Washington considers “realistic.”

Recent Pentagon movements complicate the simple narrative that the United States is hesitating. Reports indicate U.S. refueling aircraft have shifted from Qatar’s Al Udeid Air Base, while the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group has been positioned near Israel’s northern coast. Those moves can signal deterrence, strike preparation, force protection, or leverage in ongoing negotiations. They do not resemble abandonment.

That context matters when revisiting two DemoCast interviews that now feel prescient.

At the Republican Jewish Coalition Leadership Summit on November 2, 2025, geopolitical analyst Ken Abramowitz argued that ideological regimes rarely stop voluntarily. Negotiations may be attempted first, he said, but enforcement ultimately determines outcomes. 

VIDEO: Ken Abramowitz Interview (Nov. 2, 2025)

Two Power Blocs, One Strategic Reality

Mr. Abramowitz frames the Middle East as shaped by two dominant ideological blocs: an axis centered around Qatar and Turkey aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood, and Iran’s revolutionary regime. Whether one agrees with every descriptor, the structural observation stands. Both systems expand influence through proxy networks, financing channels, media ecosystems, and diplomatic positioning.

His strategic claim was blunt: in military affairs you need capability and willingness. Israel, he argues, clearly retains both.  The present question is whether the United States is pacing its use of capability — or withholding willingness.

Hostages, Mediation, and Leverage

Speaking with DemoCast at the NRB Convention in Nashville on Friday, February 20, 2026, Rev. Washington warned that frameworks relying on voluntary disarmament by Hamas were structurally unsound and that political loyalty should never override accountability. 

The hostage-first approach in Gaza inevitably created leverage for Hamas. If hostages are prioritized, the party holding them retains bargaining power. When bargaining power exists, mediators become indispensable.

This is where Qatar’s role becomes structurally significant. Mediation itself is not malign. But when a mediator becomes indispensable, mediation can turn into leverage. The party that controls access controls tempo.

Rev. Washington warned that expecting Hamas to voluntarily disarm misunderstands both its charter and its incentives.

VIDEO: Rev. Washington Interview (NRB Nashville, Feb. 20, 2026)

Rev. Washington believes that if enforcement mechanisms remain theoretical, peace frameworks risk becoming messaging frameworks.

China, Iran, and the Expanding Perimeter

The crisis is not limited to Gaza. Reports that Iran is nearing acquisition of Chinese-made anti-ship missile systems, alongside U.S. sanctions targeting supply chains feeding Iranian drone networks, reflect a widening strategic perimeter. This does not equate to a formal proxy war between Beijing and Washington. But it does indicate that Iran’s military ecosystem intersects with global procurement and partnership channels.

At the same time, homeland security assessments describe a dynamic domestic threat environment shaped by terrorism risks, espionage concerns, and potential retaliatory activation of aligned networks. Major military decisions are never taken in isolation from domestic vulnerability calculations.

Strategic Ambiguity or Strategic Leverage?

The emerging picture may not be surrender or retreat, but coercive diplomacy under guard — military assets positioned visibly enough to deter, negotiations extended long enough to test intentions, and strike capacity held in reserve.

If force posture adjustments are designed to pressure Iran into ceding enrichment capacity or accepting verifiable limits, then delay may function as leverage rather than hesitation.

The evidence suggests stated objectives remain intact: dismantling Hamas’s governing capacity and preventing a nuclear-armed Iran. What appears unsettled is method and sequence.

Major military decisions reflect multi-theater risk assessment: Iranian retaliation, proxy activation, maritime disruption, cyber escalation, and domestic security exposure all factor into the calculus. Strategic pacing may reflect layered risk calculation rather than reversal.

But pacing carries risk. Time can extract concessions — or strengthen the adversary’s depth. Deterrence does not fail when force is delayed. It fails when force is no longer believed possible.

The coming weeks will determine whether current ambiguity produces enforceable constraints — or forces confrontation under less favorable conditions.

Mr. Abramowitz’s warning about capability and will still stands.  Rev. Washington’s warning about confusing messaging for enforcement still stands. 

The difference now is that the chessboard has become visible. The question is not whether the United States is deciding. It is whether its adversaries believe it will.

How Hatred Enables Tyranny: Nazi German Techniques Re-applied

On this Holocaust Remembrance Day, which marks the 81st anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, it’s worth reflecting on a disturbing pattern: how propaganda has been used to vilify Jews in different eras. The lessons we thought we learned from World War II— about the dangers of hateful narratives—seem to be fading. Today, some of the same tactics used by the Nazis are being deployed by Islamist/ Marxist movements and their supporters to turn public opinion against Israel, with worrying consequences.

A copy Adolf Hitler’s sick autobiography, “Mein Kampf,” was found inside a child’s bedroom at a Hamas base in the
Gaza Strip, Israeli authorities said. The copy of the Nazi leader’s 1925 autobiography outlining his deadly journey into antisemitism and the genocide of millions of Jews and other ethnic minorities during the Holocaust included “annotations and highlights,”  The book was discovered among the personal belongs of one of the terrorists,” the IDF said in the online post. “Hamas embraces the ideology of Hitler, the one responsible for the annihilation of the Jewish People.” - NY Post 11/12/23

What Happened in Nazi Germany

The Nazis used propaganda to convince Germans that Jews were the root of society’s problems. Newspapers, posters, and films portrayed Jewish people as subhuman and dangerous, blaming them for economic woes and cultural decay. These messages played on centuries-old prejudices in Europe, where anti-Semitic stereotypes had taken root in Christian doctrine and culture. The propaganda worked. Ordinary Germans accepted these lies, enabling the persecution and eventual genocide of six million Jews. 

How It’s Happening Again

Fast forward to today, and we see a similar playbook being used by Hamas and its allies, including Qatar. Through modern media and social networks, they spread the message that Israel is an oppressor, responsible for all Palestinian suffering. Casualty figures from the Gaza Ministry of Health—controlled by Hamas—are often inflated or misleading, but they’re repeated by Western media without much scrutiny. Staged events and manipulated images also flood the internet, painting Israel as a brutal aggressor.

Phrases like “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” or “Free Palestine” have become rallying cries in protests worldwide. But few stop to question the implications—these slogans call for the elimination of Israel. Meanwhile, Israel’s side of the story, including its right to defend itself against rocket attacks and terrorism, is often ignored.

Why It Matters

Just as Nazi propaganda dehumanized Jews to justify their persecution, today’s anti-Israel narratives have made it acceptable to vilify and scapegoat Jewish people once again. In cities across the West, we’ve seen people tearing down posters of kidnapped Israelis, vandalizing Jewish schools and synagogues, and chanting slogans that call for Israel’s destruction.

This isn’t just about spreading lies and hatred; it’s about how those lies pave the way for authoritarian tyranny. The Islamo-Marxist scapegoating of the Jewish state echoes Nazi tactics: using propaganda to consolidate power by uniting people against a common enemy. In Nazi Germany, this propaganda enabled National Socialists to dominate Europe, suppress dissent, and commit atrocities not only against Jews but against all who opposed their rule. Today, Hamas and its allies exploit similar methods to justify their authoritarian agendas and silence diverse voices within their societies.

The Bigger Picture

What’s most alarming is how easily the media and the public have bought into this propaganda. On this solemn day of remembrance, we should ask ourselves: Have we really learned the lessons of the Holocaust? The Nazis taught the world that scapegoating Jews isn’t just dangerous for them—it’s a tool for tyranny that harms everyone. If we fail to recognize and challenge these tactics, we risk enabling the rise of new authoritarian movements that use hatred and division to manipulate society under absolute power.