Somewhat surprised no one mentioned the thing that stuck out to me the most. Yes, these are all valid criticisms, but the thing about this blurb I'm getting is that the whole conspiracy is set up as a sort of mid-book twist. You go in expecting a typical cop thriller, pick apart the clues, culminating in a plot to sabotage potential Middle East peace.
The problem is that, as others said, is that I'm not really getting that this is meant to be anything other than a standard action thriller, in which case you definitely do want to get right to the action. Start big to show the conflict and the stakes, then work down to how the protagonist relates to solving the conflict. Unless the protagonist is the one triggering the wider conflict, avoid starting a blurb like this with them. And even then, try to avoid talking about the MC's issues and focus on what the overarching conflict is.
He's lost his job and his wife is possibly dying? Okay, that's a good story set up... for a dark slice of life personal drama. There's a police cover-up and you can potentially prove your innocence? My mind is like one of those old-school scales with the arrow still quivering next to "Personal Drama". This is a story that sounds like it can be resolved with anything from high-impact explosive ordinance all the way to accidentally finding some binned paperwork. Except from what I'm reading in between the lines, if I saw this book on a bookshelf or while scrolling on Amazon, just from that sentence I'd assume it was a personal drama.
The inclusive of the very personal 'wife dying of cancer' because why on earth would that be a major plot point in a thriller unless it's going full Osmosis Jones? If it's labeled 'thriller', I wouldn't get a very clear idea of why it was labeled such until I read it.
C. Gold's blurb, on the other hand? Now how else are you going to resolve such a plot except with high-impact explosive ordinance? Even if it weren't labeled 'thriller', I'd sooner expect that this man would come in guns blazing or via professional espionage before I'd guess that it were something like a geopolitical speaker drama.
Blurb 2, as another one mentioned, reads more like a mystery-crime story instead of a thriller.
Blurb 3, again, puts too much focus on the stakes being James Winter's life.
As mentioned early on, it makes no sense to claim that the stakes involve his life being in jeopardy. In just about any action story, unless there's a damn good reason otherwise, a MC's potential death should never be the biggest thing at stake. It's already a given that his life is in danger because this is an action story.
You can almost think of it in video game terms. Are you going to beat the final boss because if you don't, you'll die? Or is it because you've got to save the world or rescue the princess or take control of the city or win the championship or kill the invaders or whathaveyou? If you die, you just restart from a respawn point. Now I have played a video game where the MC's life was the big thing at stake. It was a very good game. And it worked because having his life being the stakes for resolving the conflict made sense since the conflict was (basically) whether or not he could prove himself worthy to come back to life. And if you ever died in gameplay, there was always a sense was that you genuinely failed the game and your MC's story was a complete tragedy.
A geopolitical James Bond spy/action thriller? Having "—or die trying!" is a neat badass quote to add to a blurb, but it's an addition that's very rarely necessary.
Tl;dr: All three mini-blurbs are unfocused. They'd work only as bit lines in much longer blurbs, but if they were complete blurbs, they're all pretty mediocre and misrepresent the genre of the story.