Iranian Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi and host Piers Morgan analyze a failed retaliatory drone attack on Israel, arguing the regime's desperation necessitates Western support for internal dissent rather than military escalation. While panelists Joe Walsh and Cenk Uygur warn that restraint is vital to avoid dragging the US into war, Emily Schrader contends strong deterrence prevents future aggression. The debate highlights a critical strategic divide: whether appeasement or robust sanctions can topple the dictatorship, ultimately questioning if current policies will stabilize the region or ignite full-scale conflict. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Escalation and the Regime's Gamble00:06:53
This weekend, Israel again found itself under attack.
Iran fired more than 300 drones and missiles in a revenge attack for Israel's bombing of an Iranian diplomatic compound in Syria.
After decades aspiring through proxies, assassinations and subterfuge, two titans of the Middle East are now on the brink of full warfare.
The region and the world is suddenly a much more dangerous and precarious place.
Israel says it will respond.
How and when it does could be the difference between stability and a full regional war.
We appreciate the U.S. standing alongside Israel, as well as the support of Britain, France, and many other countries.
We have determined a clear principle.
And whoever harms us, we will harm them.
I took some flack over the weekend for immediately urging Israel to show restraint.
In fact, one of the people who criticized me most vociferously will be on my panel debating exactly that point in a moment.
Many people have argued that Israel is the only country on earth that's expected to endure this kind of attack and respond with restraint, with caution.
But my response is to say that's exactly the point.
The whole reason Israel is such a vital ally to the West is because it's supposed to be the adult in the room, a Western-facing democratic, socially liberal bulwark in a neighborhood of trigger-happy fanatics.
If you don't want the United States to be dragged into another Middle Eastern bloodbath, you should agree that this is a time for its key ally in the region to prove its commitment to peace.
And let's face it, Iran is already a big loser here.
Yes, many Israelis would have died if this attack had been successful, but it wasn't.
It was an abject failure.
99% of the drones and missiles were swatted from the sky.
Western and Middle Eastern allies, including Jordan and Saudi Arabia, have rallied behind Israel after months of eroding their trust and patience with an increasingly brutal assault on Gaza.
Prime Minister Netanyahu has reclaimed at least a little of his reputation for security, which was dealt a terrible, permanent blow by October the 7th.
But for one side, I agree with President Biden.
Israel needs to take the win because it was a win.
These missiles did not land and cause damage.
The Middle East is simmering to the boil.
Hundreds of people are dying in Gaza every day as Israeli hostages remain captives of Hamas.
It's time to turn the temperature down, not pour fuel onto the fire.
In a few minutes, I'll be debating this with the young Turks founder, Jenk Yuga, former Congressman Joe Walsh, and Israeli journalist Emily Schrader.
But first, I'm joined by the exiled Crown Prince of Iran, Reza Pahlavi.
Crown Prince, it's great to have you back on Uncensored.
First of all, if I may get your reaction to the attack by Iran directly on Israel soil.
Well, you know, these are signs of a regime that is becoming more and more desperate and vulnerable.
At the same time, it's launching an attack against Israel.
It has been launching an attack at home on Iranian women and trying to, again, exercise its repression at home.
This is going to be an ongoing problem, and I think ultimately the world needs to realize that the root cause of many problems we see in the area, and not just this one instance, but in general, is the regime's nature and behavior.
It has not only affected Iranians or Israelis, it has also affected Syrians, Iraqis, Lebanese, and other immediate neighbors in the region.
Iran has operated through proxies for a number of years, obviously.
This is the first time they've directly attacked Israel in this manner.
How significant is this escalation?
Well, I think a lot of it is perhaps mostly for home consumption, to say we've done something.
One thing that was really Rendering it even more of a mockery is that despite launching so many different missiles and drones, none of them actually reached targets.
So, was it really an exercise for purposes of domestic consumption, or was it actually the intent to escalate?
I think this time, Khamenei took a huge gamble, assuming that probably there will be a lot of pressure to keep the Israelis from retaliating.
But then again, I think we should look beyond the tit-for-tat argument.
I think the world needs to now really scratch their head and say, look, diplomacy has failed.
Our expectation of behavior change from this regime over decades is pointless.
The time has come to look for an ultimate solution to the problem.
If we indeed want to avoid escalation, we have to put an end to this regime, which is the ask of the Iranian people in the first place.
But the world needs to seriously consider that the only solution and alternative is regime change in Iran.
But how does the world affect regime change in Iran?
Well, two things.
Number one is to actually increase even more pressure on the regime economically by means of expanding the sanctions.
I think it is time that the G7 and the European countries join the U.S. in putting the IRGC on the terror list.
This would further put pressure on the regime to target the regime's officials individually on their personal assets, to expel their diplomats or elements associated with the regime that roam freely in European and American cities, and actually implement further oil sanctions, which, by the way, were not properly implemented, which simply gave the regime more money, which of course it spent on its proxies, whether the Houthis or Hamas and what have you.
That's on the external factor aspect.
Parallel to this needs to be a policy of maximum support.
That means support for the Iranian people in their struggle against this regime.
And that could come in many forms.
I think the most important one is to make sure that Iranians remain connected to the world and therefore internet access is key.
I've mentioned that many times before.
Elon Musk, with Starlink, have done their part.
I think we need more of that happening.
There are means of perhaps making exceptions to some of the current limitations of the inability for Iranians to, let's say, send money back home.
Because as you know, under the current sanctions, it's impossible to transfer money.
We are only limited to some digital currency.
That could be at least an exception to the rule to make it easier for us to support families at home, especially our working force, if they want to go on strike, not to remain completely impoverished and unable to actually do that.
And there are many other elements.
I know there are too many details to discuss in one short interview, but there are many ways to equal the playing field for the Iranians.
And that could be a dual element of pressure from the interior of the country, as well as external pressure.
Shifting Policy Beyond Appeasement00:04:55
This could be a recipe that could lead to a successful transition.
Obviously, a lot of speculation about what Israel's response will be to this unprecedented missile strike.
Do you think it would be a smart strategy for Israel to launch an attack directly into Iran, as some of the more right-wing members of the cabinet apparently want to do?
You know, I cannot speculate as to what would be the decision internally at the level of the cabinet and what's been decided.
And I know there's a lot of back and forth between different countries that are consulting with the Israeli government.
But I can tell you one thing.
At the end of the day, I think that Bibi Netanyahu, Mohammed bin Salman, and many others in the region know that we cannot only remain focused on, again, what can happen or not, and whether or not this could escalate beyond.
I think everybody in the region understands that so long as the regime and its nature is constantly creating havoc towards more extremism, more radicalism, more instability, more threats, we cannot contemplate any solution other than dealing only with the status quo.
We need to start strategically thinking beyond the status code.
These are the kind of discussions I had recently, at least last year when I was in Israel, visiting that country.
And what I've been talking about with foreign countries in Europe and the United States, whether legislators or in government, there has to be ultimately a fundamental shift in overall policy as they deal with the Islamic regime in Iran.
And that would mean that rather than staying only focused on how do we respond or what's proportional response and what are the collateral elements, because we know people are suffering, we know Iranians are suffering, Israelis are suffering, Palestinians are suffering, but all because of this regime.
So the only remedy ultimately, while we are looking at the immediate response, is a general shift in policy.
That is the only way we can get out of this mess and solve really a problem for the region in terms of stability and peace and of course beyond that what could rectify what the regime from its beginning has derailed, which is peace and stability in our region.
What is your message to President Biden?
Because clearly America's role in this will be absolutely crucial.
I think this administration needs to realize that what has happened in terms of appeasement, when you're releasing money to this regime, it only emboldens it to do even more of what it's done.
I wonder if this had not happened about a year ago as a continuation of attempt of reaching another nuclear deal with the Iranians or paying ransoms for release of their hostages.
But that factor did not directly contribute to the Hamas attack against Israel.
These are the kind of questions that needs to be really answered.
And I haven't had any response to this question heard here in Washington.
It's not too late.
I mean, look at it.
The Abraham Accords was going on in a very positive way.
The regime very astutely tried to sabotage it and again cleverly using its proxies because it every times wants to take credit for it without being accountable for it.
This is the time to finally keep the regime accountable.
And I don't think that the policy of appeasement works.
It only emboldens the regime and the consequences is more suffering for the people.
There needs to be now strong leadership.
We need the same kind of leadership that we saw between Roosevelt and Churchill at the end of the Second World War.
We need to have the same result that Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher had to put an end to the Soviet communist system in Russia.
Today we need the same kind of strong leadership emanating from the free Western world in support of democracy and freedom and human rights in a country that could be the pivotal element in changing everything that this regime has done to divert us from that rail.
And I think Iran is going to be the most important strategic partner to key countries in the area, Israel, Saudi Arabia and others, to bring about that change.
And we need to work with one another.
And I hope that world leaders will finally decide to consider this issue very seriously.
And I stand ready to present to them our viewpoints on behalf of my compatriots of how they can best find a solution that is win-win, which is in the interest of the Iranian people, but also in their own interest, whether it's national security or even down the line economic interest.
Grand Prince Pallavi, really good to talk to you.
Thank you very much indeed for taking the time.
Thanks for having me again, Piers.
Uniting Arab Nations Against Iran00:14:49
Well, I'll go down to my panel to debate this, Jenkin Uger, Joe Walsh, and Emily Schrader.
Let me start with you, Joe Walsh, because you were giving me a bit of hammer on X, formerly Twitter yesterday, because I tweeted in reaction to what had happened that I wanted Israel to show restraint, and I feared that Netanyahu wouldn't do that.
Now, just to clarify what I meant, I didn't mean there should be no response.
I just wanted that response not to be just going all guns blazing into Iran, because I genuinely fear that might accelerate this into a much more catastrophic situation.
But you feel very strongly, don't you?
I could tell that you believe Israel is always the one when it gets attacked, that is urged to show restraint, and they shouldn't be told to do that.
Pierce, really good to be with you.
And I apologize if in my Twitter response to you, if I got personal, I apologize, I didn't mean it.
My beef wasn't with what you said that Israel should show restraint, because I actually agree with that.
My beef was the timing of that tweet and so many others.
Israel was under attack.
The missile, you know, the alarms were going off in Jerusalem.
Missiles were raining down on Israel.
And it just didn't seem, Pierce, like that was the proper time while Israel is being attacked to come out and say Israel needs to show restraint.
I agree with the sentiment of what you said.
I just didn't think it was the proper time until we knew, Pierce, how many of those missiles might have gotten through and or killed Israelis.
Right, fair enough.
Let me go to Jenk.
Jenkins, it's very complex situation, this.
In fact, the whole regional issues are very complex.
And we have, of course, at the same time, the situation in Gaza.
But Jenkin, when you see what Iran did to Israel, what do you think Israel's response should be?
Their response should be nothing.
They should leave well enough alone.
Joe Biden, with a rare victory here in being right about the situation, de-escalate right now.
Israel obviously started this.
And by that, I don't mean we can get into, oh, my God, their proxies and the Hamas, but then the occupation, and we can go all the way back to 1948.
What I mean specifically is they attack Iran basically on its home soil by attacking the consulate, killing their top general, et cetera.
It was an act of provocation.
It was meant to get Iran to retaliate.
Netanyahu, who has been dying for a war with Iran for about two decades now, he definitely started this.
It left Iran absolutely no choice but to respond.
And they responded in a way that basically showed their hand, which was, we don't want a war.
They gave 72-hour notice.
It took the drones several hours to get there.
If Iran wanted to do damage inside Israel, it would not have done this type of attack at all.
This was Iran basically saying, look, we have to appease our domestic audience here and tell them, oh, we were tough and struck Israel back.
But they knew they were going to get no casualties.
So we had a tit for tat.
We should leave it alone right now.
If Israel goes back and hits Iran again, then there's going to be no end to this.
Then Iran is going to have to respond.
And this time it's going to be real.
And people are going to die in Israel.
It's a terrible, disastrous idea.
They should definitely stop right now.
Okay, Emily Schrader, I can see you, well, I would say not entirely agreeing with what you just heard.
Yes, I strongly disagree, as you can imagine.
I think the entire premise of asking Israel to exercise restraint rather than deterrence is a fundamental part of the problem here.
I mean, as the Crown Prince mentioned, the Islamic Republic has been doing this for many, many years.
It's a fundamental premise of the regime since 1979.
They have been sworn to Israel's destruction.
They have been sworn to America's destruction.
This is a fundamental value of the Islamic Republic.
And not only that, but I find it very interesting what Tchenk is saying right now, because the majority of the Iranian people, both inside and outside of Iran, disagree with him.
In fact, there are thousands and thousands of Iranians who wish that Israel will assist the people of Iran in bringing down this regime.
We are not going to see a better future in the Middle East for the Arab Muslims, for the Iranians, or for the Israelis in the Middle East until there is regime change in Iran.
And to say that Israel started this is preposterous.
It's not Israel that has a countdown to the destruction of Israel in the center of their largest city.
That's Iran.
It's Iran who has made hating Israel a fundamental premise of the regime, an obsessive hatred, an obsessive, irrational hatred that they have taken money from the people of Iran and poured hundreds of millions of dollars into terrorist proxy organizations on the borders of Israel in order to ultimately destruct and destroy the state of Israel.
I also want to add one more thing about the consulate that's important to note that it was not, in fact, a consulate.
It was an annex of the consulate.
And even if it was a consulate under international law, it is permissible to strike when it's being used as a military headquarters to plan and conduct terrorist operations.
Israel is in a state of war.
We're in a state of war with the proxy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hamas, and that is what that commander who was killed in that strike was doing there.
So this is a legitimate target, even though Israel hasn't officially claimed responsibility.
Okay, I'm going to bring Joe in in a moment.
I just want to get, check, you were laughing at one stage there.
What were you laughing at?
Yeah.
Yeah, I mean, look, a lot of absurd things were said there.
Like, any mention of the Crown Prince, I mean, the guy's the son of a former dictator of Iran.
He has zero credibility with the Iranian people.
Look, the Iranian regime is a disaster.
He is the most popular figure of any Iranians.
Are you Iranian?
Ask the Iranians yourselves.
It's very, very clear.
While there are some people who don't support him, the vast majority of them, the vast majority of them do support the Shah.
Is she just going to talk over me?
Because we can keep doing this all day long.
Let me answer the question.
So, first of all, the idea that they want their dictator back is hilarious.
Second of all, but the thing that I laughed out loud at is she's like, oh, the Iranian people want Israel to bomb them.
Do they?
Do they?
That's the most preposterous thing I have ever seen.
I said the Iranian people want.
It's actually not.
There are multiple polls that show that.
I personally think it's crazy.
Multiple polls that show that they're not.
There have been that they support Israeli strikes, that they support Israeli strikes on regime, IRGC, and regime sites exclusively on IRGC sites.
Yes, the majority of the Iranian people support regime change.
The majority of the Iranian people support regime change.
I find it disgraceful that you are laughing at the suffering of 81 million people who live under an Islamist dictatorship.
No.
There are women who are being dragged away by the morality police.
As the Crown Prince mentioned, there is a second front of this war, and it is against the Iranian people internally.
Is that funny to you?
Let me get it.
Is it funny to you that women are being kidnapped by the regime?
19% of the time?
Is she just going to talk 90% of the time?
Is that funny?
Let me just respond real quick.
Do you find it funny that women, that Iranians are being oppressed by the Spanish?
All right, whatever.
All right.
So, listen, the Iranian regime is terrible.
I don't want Muslim fundamentalists in charge of Iran, and the people of Iran don't want Muslim fundamentalists in charge of Iran.
So, saying that they're against the regime is obvious.
That's not the point.
Question is, what are you going to do about it?
If you said hey, there's an internal revolution and they're disgusted by the way that the Iranian regime is treating women or its own citizens and not giving them freedom, I totally agree.
But if you claim that they want Israel to bomb Iran in order to effectuate regime change, you sound.
I mean you sound.
It's not even.
You don't even sound like a lunatic.
You sound like you're a comic or something.
You're trying to make a joke.
That's why I'm laughing.
No, the Iranian people do not want to be bombarded.
But furthermore, all right, let me, let me bring in Joe.
Joe's been waiting very patiently.
Joe's my question for you about this.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist by nature, but let me just put an idea out there about what may be really going on here.
It doesn't seem to me to be a coincidence that it that October the 7th happened when it did, or that Iran chooses this moment to attack Israel directly, and that it may all be linked to the Abraham Accords, to the normalization of relations between Israel and many of the Middle Eastern countries, to the fact that Saudi Arabia was on the verge of joining, that normalization of relations with Israel and that, for Iran, this is the ultimate nightmare,
and that through their proxy tentacles in Gaza and Hamas, they facilitated what happened on October the 7th, to cause, and maybe deliberately provoke, Israel into what they would see as an overreaction, which would then lose global support.
And it may be that what they've done with this missile strike directly into Israel is part of the same process, deliberately goading Israel into potentially overreacting, which may ultimately play into Iran's hands.
Pierce, I think you are spot on, my friend.
Look, it's it's silly to engage in who started this first.
Let's not do that.
We all three of us agree that Iran's ruling regime is an evil regime.
The Iranian people deserve to live in freedom.
Pierce, you're exactly right.
Look, the answer is, the only way we get to peace in this region is when Israel can partner with the moderate Arab countries and isolate isolate Iran, isolate Iran's proxies and all the other Islamists not Muslims, Islamists who want to destroy Israel, Pierce.
Which is why I agree with Chenk on what Israel should do to what happened over the weekend, do nothing, ignore Iran, finish the job in Gaza, work with the moderate Arab world to rebuild Gaza and completely ignore Iran, isolate Iran.
That's the only way we're going to get to peace, Emily.
I mean, do you agree with that?
Did you not see the danger Emily, that if Israel does now launch a massive counter-strike into Iran, that it could actually be doing exactly what Iran wants it to do?
Of course, that's a distinct possibility.
I think there are a lot of options on the table when it comes to any kind of response.
I know there's already been some discussion this morning about a cyber attack.
There are a number of different options that have been put forward to the cabinet, and it remains to be seen what they will do about it.
I don't know if a military option is the best option for a regime change in Iran.
I've advocated for many years now that I think that the Western governments have an obligation and a duty to assist the people of Iran.
What the Crown Prince was mentioning about maximum support is incredibly important.
The people of Iran want this regime to fall, and I do believe that there is a way to do it peacefully, but it does require a lot of effort on the part of the West.
And it does require enforcement of sanctions, not just putting on the books, enforcement of sanctions, adding additional sanctions, choking this regime out until they fall, and also empowering the people.
We had multiple uprisings that have been quashed violently by the Islamic Republic.
The people are ready.
We need to support them.
And we haven't seen that from the Western world.
We haven't seen that from Europe with their failure to designate the IRGC.
We haven't seen that with the enforcement of sanctions.
We haven't seen that with a very, very weak Iran policy from the Biden administration.
That is something that allows this regime to continue.
Not to mention, of course, releasing billions of dollars in assets that is then going to terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East that disproportionately harm and kill Arab Muslims in the region.
So really, Israel and the Arab world are on the same page.
As you mentioned about the Abraham Accords, this is a major threat to the Islamic Republic.
This is what they're seeking to destroy.
They are an anti-peace entity.
And so I think that the democratic Western world needs to push back against that.
And they need to empower the people of Iran, increase the pressure on the regime, increase support for the people, and see if that can get us to where we need to go with this regime falling.
Okay, Jenk, I mean, I was struck by the fact that immediately racing to the defense of Israel when these missiles were fired were the British, but also Jordan, Saudi Arabia.
You know, it was fascinating to watch the geopolitics play out here.
How significant do you think that was?
Yeah, so there's a lot going on there.
First of all, when you can the U.S. help Israel knock down the drones and the missiles, I'm totally in favor of that.
As you know, Piers, I've been consistent on this from day one.
I don't want any civilians dying in Israel, in Gaza, in Iran.
That's what I care about the most.
And so we want to avoid war.
Saudi Arabia has always hated Iran.
That's not surprising.
Look, Israel actually could unite a lot of the Arab countries, moderate or otherwise.
Saudi Arabia, of course, is not moderate.
They're also fundamentalist Muslims.
They're also dictators, et cetera.
But you could rally all those folks as long as you end the occupation.
But if you're going to continue the occupation for another 75 years, 75 days, et cetera, you're never going to rally any of those Arab countries.
Yeah, you might get a deal with a dictator or two because they have economic interests on your side, but you're not ever going to get the people on your side.
And by the way, in this conversation, we're actually finally getting this somewhere productive.
Look, there's plenty of disagreement I had with Emily on the money and the sanctions, et cetera.
But overall, think about it, guys.
If you bomb Iran, do you think that makes regime change more likely or less likely?
Obviously, it makes it less likely because it allows the regime to rally the Iranian people.
It depends on what kind of strategy.
If you're targeting an IRGC site, if you're targeting a nuclear site, you can't make a blanket statement like that.
That's massively overbroad.
There is a strategic military option.
There is...
No, there is no people on earth.
There are no people on earth that say, oh, it's okay to bomb our country as long as you bomb military or nuclear facilities or anything like that.
Strategic Options and Civilian Impact00:05:25
No, of course they're going to think Israel bombed us.
You have to bomb them back.
85% of the people are going to be able to do it.
And it's going to rally them around the regime.
I can't understand.
It's so important.
Let me bring in Joe.
Let me bring in Joe.
He's been waiting patients.
Let's clarify.
Okay, so Emily says bombing Iran is going to get the Iranian people on Israel's side.
I say no.
What do you mean?
Wait a minute.
To be fair, what she said was, it depends what targets Israel targeted in that issue.
It was purely military targets, nuclear targets, and so on.
Has she not got a point though, Jane?
Piers, are you saying that the Iranian people would be like, oh, you targeted us, but in the best possible intentions?
We're so happy Israel.
No, no, what I'm saying.
We are military.
No, no, what I'm saying.
No, what I'm saying is I think Emily has a point.
There would clearly be a different response, I would imagine, from a lot of Iranian people if they, the civilians, were not targeted.
I mean, there's a qualitative difference between military targets and civilian targets, isn't there?
Barely.
Because, look, it's all about rhetoric.
You think the Iranian regime is going to tell their local population, hey guys, don't sweat it.
It was just the military site.
No, they're going to rile people up.
I think it's deeply counterproductive.
It helps the mullahs.
It helps the Grand Ayatollah.
If you bomb Iran in any way, shape, or form.
Do you think that if America was bombed, we'd be like, oh, no, it's okay.
They hit a military target.
So we're now in favor of the country who bombed us.
There's a 0% chance of the bomb.
Let me bring in Joe now.
Let me bring in Joe.
We must let Joe have a say.
Joe.
No, and I'll be brief, Pierce.
Thanks.
I just think what happened this weekend, and I say this as someone who is off the charts pro-Israel, what happened this weekend presents an opportunity for Israel.
And I think turning the other cheek right now and ignoring Iran right now is a huge signal of strength.
I really do.
There are people around the world who hate Israel, who are just waiting for Israel to bomb and attack Iran.
Don't give them that.
Isolate Iran, ignore them, and focus on what you need to focus on, Israel.
Okay, Emily.
Is that if Israel doesn't respond...
Sorry, the problem here is that if Israel doesn't respond in some capacity, maybe it's a cyber attack, maybe it's some other method that we haven't thought of yet.
I don't know.
But if Israel does nothing, this also is not the right response because doing nothing emboldens the regime.
We need to deter the regime, not just Israel, but the entire Western world.
This is a disgusting Islamist human rights.
Emily is distributing its own people.
Yeah, but Emily, isn't it also the case, Emily?
Maybe it can be done through spirituality.
Okay, Emily, let me check.
But that's not up to Israel alone.
Okay, Emily, here's my question for you.
Is it not a deterrence that Iran fires off all these missiles, including ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and so on?
And none of them landed?
I mean, barely, nothing worked.
It was all neutralized by not just Israel's Iron Dome, but also by its other countries and their defenses in the region.
But it was a complete failure operationally.
Now, it may well be that Iran intended it not to be that successful, hence the warnings that they gave to the Americans, to the Saudis, and so on.
It may be it was all performative in that sense.
But the reality is, Israel's defenses, unlike on October the 7th, they stood up magnificently well.
Is that not in itself a pretty unnerving deterrent to enemies who want to try and do this thing?
Is that you can try, but you won't succeed?
Well, I think there's no question it was a spectacular failure on the part of the Islamic Republic with 99% of their projectiles being shot down by a coalition of countries.
However, when it comes to deterrence, the Islamic Republic knows full well that they can fire 10 times the amount as they themselves have promised to do and overwhelm the missile defense system.
So that isn't really an accurate response.
And I also want to add that what the Islamic regime did in this instance by launching this, by escalating the conflict, is actually a sign of weakness of the regime itself.
I mean, they have rallied around bashing Israel as a tool to try to get people to their side and to show that they are under attack for many, many years.
This is a tactic that they did even with the Iran-Iraq war.
They were wildly unpopular, and so they started a war.
That being said, you can see that in the timidness of their strike and the fact that Hezbollah, which is an arm of the Islamic Republic in Lebanon, didn't go full out on Israel, although they also fired rockets, that they are not prepared.
And that could be for a number of different reasons.
But I don't think that they're looking for a full-out war with Israel right now.
Despite that, they did escalate the situation.
And I think that Israel has an obligation to deter them and to respond strongly and ensure that this type of thing does not respond again or does not occur again.
I'm sorry.
America on the Front Lines00:08:53
All right.
I'll come to Jenkin in a moment.
But Joe, you don't agree with that.
No, Emily, look, I agree that Iran is vastly weakened after this weekend.
But man, you bomb them.
You go after that regime militarily.
You will do nothing but embolden them.
They are weakened.
So keep them on this path.
Show your strength.
Look at them and look the other way and do what you need to do.
They're weak.
Continue to isolate.
This only works.
This only works if you have the coalition of other countries, if you have the West involved, if you have countries that are willing to enforce sanctions, that are willing to designate the IRGC.
No, they don't.
It's been years and Europe has refused to designate the IRGC.
They're not enforcing sanctions.
The Biden administration is weaker than ever.
They're releasing billions of frozen assets over and over and over again.
Appeasement doesn't work.
Every time we appease this regime, executions go up, nuclear proliferation goes up, funding for terrorism.
Let me bring in Jenk here.
Jenk, you're shaking your head there.
Do you not agree with the principle?
The Crown Prince said the same thing, that appeasing Iran in any way has turned out to be a completely pointless exercise.
Yeah, that's 100% wrong.
We had Iran completely contained under Obama.
We did a great deal.
We took the uranium out of the country.
They had no nuclear program.
Then that idiot Trump came along, egged on by the idiot Netanyahu and said, oh, let's get out of the deal so they can start doing uranium enrichment again.
That was such a terrible idea.
And now Iran is more emboldened and more dangerous because of that right-wing mentality of always go maximalist.
You think like the people don't know that Israel will try to obliterate Iran if they have a war?
Everybody knows that, okay?
Everybody knows that Israel has nukes.
Everyone knows that Netanyahu is a warmonger and will do vicious things.
It's not like we can't see Gaza.
But you're not going to help the people of Israel, let alone America, which I want to come back to, if you start this giant war in the Middle East.
Here's what the people, the government of Israel, I don't think, understands at this point.
They're in great danger of losing the American people for the first time in my life.
The left wing can't stand what they've done in Gaza, but I got news for you.
A ton of the right wing can't stand it either.
And here's what we're all unified about.
We don't want to go into another disastrous war in the Middle East.
MAGA doesn't want that.
Progressives don't want that.
The only people who want that.
The Israel is coming to you.
No.
No, it's not.
Israel wants the war.
America doesn't want the war.
Israel has promised from day one.
That is what the Islamic Republic, the little Satan is Israel and the big Satan is the United States.
This is their ideology.
They are not motivated.
They are not motivated by reason.
They're motivated by extremism.
No, no.
You are missing the point.
No, no.
We can talk over each other.
You can keep saying no.
It doesn't change the reality.
Okay, but here's the reality.
America doesn't want to go to war.
If any government official, whether it's Biden or Trump, if anybody brings us to war, they will pay a massive political price.
And by the way, so will Israel.
If Israel drags us into this war, I guarantee you they lose American support.
Whether you like it or you don't, and the polling indicates this, you are this close to losing the entire right wing, let alone the entire left wing.
We're sick of Palestinians being murdered with our money.
And now you want to start a giant war in the Middle East and have us fight for it.
Here's how many troops should go into a war in the survival of Israel.
Zero, zero.
America doesn't need to fight.
You're arguing about politics and popularity.
That's what I'm saying.
If Israel wants to start a war with Iran, good luck to you, okay?
America should have nothing to do with it.
Nothing.
I'm sick of Israel starting hostilities, killing Muslim people, and then saying, America pay for it.
America fights for it.
Zero should go and zero dollars should go.
If the goal, and I think all three of us can agree to this, if the goal is to defeat Iran's ruling regime, you have to be smart.
And if you respond militarily right now in a big way against this regime, that will not defeat them.
Emily, I'm with you on your end game, but we have to be smart.
And it would be terribly short-sighted right now if Israel responded in kind.
We're on a path where we can isolate Iran.
I don't think Israel is considering even responding in kind.
Any sort of military response would backfire on Israel right now.
That's right.
Emily?
And you don't want to do it to Israel.
I don't agree with that.
I fundamentally don't agree with that.
But I actually want to address something else, which is that you're saying America doesn't want a war.
I agree with you.
What you're arguing about here is a popularity contest.
You're arguing about elections.
I'm not talking about that.
I'm talking about the future and the safety of the United States.
I'm talking about the future and the safety of the Western world and the future and the safety of the state of Israel.
And the reality is that we're dealing with a regime that is not logical.
They are concerned by extremist ideology that they're trying to promote all around the world.
It is not logical.
That is why appeasement hasn't worked.
And it's not going to work.
And we've been trying to do this forty-five, 45 years now, and it hasn't worked.
So try something different.
We need to have a smarter, a better approach in order to bring down this regime.
And you saying, oh, we shouldn't do X because of popularity, that's not the question.
America and the West and Israel need to do what they need to do in order to protect themselves, even if sometimes it's unpopular.
Now, are we at that point today with Iran?
I don't know.
That's not a decision that I'm making.
But for you to say, oh, because of popularity, it doesn't matter.
Because of popular, because of elections, the people of Iran who are suffering under this regime for 45 years, the people who are sitting in Evan prison because they went to a protest a year ago, that doesn't matter.
Shame on you.
You want to lose American elections and then lose all money to Israel?
Go have at it, Haas.
But that's not going to help Israel at all, okay?
So stop going in a counterproductive direction.
All of this warmongering is totally counterproductive.
It hurts Israeli citizens.
Obviously, Iranian civilians would be hurt.
But America, I don't understand how Israel is our ally.
All they ever do is drag us into wars, drag us into conflicts.
The idea of America is not safe unless we attack Iran.
Israel is on the front lines of a war that will come to the United States if Israel is not.
On the front lines of a war they started.
Front lines of a war they started.
I don't see how this has anything to do with American Israel.
Have you not heard about terrorism?
Yeah, I know what they say.
And you say that they're not rational.
That's actually not true.
If they were irrational and they were religious zealots and all that, so they're actually greedy and corrupt.
That's the thing that drives them.
And they want to keep their lives and they want to keep their money.
And so that's why they gave us 72-hour notice before the menu.
They want your exit.
They were irrational.
They were Islamist extremism all over the world as they stated as they were doing.
I can't go on with people that constantly talk over me.
All right, if they were zealots, they would have done what Netanyahu did, attack blindly and with rage and just kill everything in sight.
You want to talk about zealots?
Look at the Israeli settlers.
The fundamentalists of Muslims, Jews, you're talking about a regime that shot down a slight of their own citizens.
What are you talking about?
Yeah, by accident, because they're close.
What are you talking about?
Do you know nothing about Iran?
Do you know nothing about how the Islamic Republic works?
You seem to think that they're not aligned with their regime.
Emily, let me give the last word to Job.
Yeah, and Emily, let me slap Cenk with this one because you and I are on the same side of this one.
Israel, I tweeted this over the weekend, CHACK, and I believe it.
An attack on Israel is an attack on America.
Plain and simple.
Israel is not.
Chank, hold on.
Let me finish, my brother.
Israel is our best friend on this planet.
They are our closest ally.
If Israel was hit by any country in that region like over the weekend, America would be there to defend it, to defend Israel, because they are our best friend.
And CHANK, America will always be pro-Israel, period.
No, it won't.
We have to fight.
It's not pro-Israel right now.
I don't know why.
I mean, I would say on that, why?
Go ahead, Pierce.
I do think Jenkins made a powerful point earlier, which is true, which is the polling has never been as negative as this towards Israel in America in modern times.
So there is no doubt that there is a, certainly amongst younger people in America, there is a growing sense of unease about this special relationship.