All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
June 18, 2025 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
01:09:50
20250618_total-betrayal-trump-us-could-strike-iran-with-sen
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Trump's Consequential Iran Decision 00:03:24
Donald Trump is about to make possibly the most consequential decision of his life.
Iran is no threat to the United States whatsoever, and no one who knows anything about it believes that.
So, since Scott decided to become Iran's mouthpiece, can you please clarify for me what Khomeini means when he says death to America?
This is basically the Iraq WB hoax, except this time Trump isn't bothering to fabricate.
He's just outsourcing the job to Israel.
Having a nuclear Iran is something that President Trump has never wanted.
That goes back 15 years, and I support him wholeheartedly in this effort.
And I hope that Israel finishes the job.
I will not vote to send American kids to Iran.
I think it's a terrible mistake.
Every war is not our war.
Our country is bankrupting itself over our own obligations to our own people.
You know, take a pause.
I've always said, especially in gunfights, if you want to be fast, slow down.
Going to war is the gravest decision any leader ever has to make.
The cost in lives, in debt, and in reputation are unmatched by anything else they will ever have to do.
Tony Blair won three terms in the UK and led this country for a decade.
But ask anybody now in Britain what he's remembered for, and the answer will usually be Iraq and how wrong he got it.
The presidency of George W. Bush is defined by the war on terror.
Life, livelihood, and legacy are all things that President Trump cares deeply about.
And there's no doubt he was elected as an anti-war president under the banner of America First.
That's why some of his most influential supporters are now saying this.
I actually really love Trump.
I think he's a deeply humane, kind person.
And I am saying this because I'm really afraid that my country is going to be further weakened by this.
I think we're going to see the end of American Empire.
Obviously, other nations would like to see that.
And this is a perfect way to scuttle the USS America on the shoals of Iran.
But it's also going to end, I believe, Trump's presidency.
Well, if Trump's war talk is all brickmanship, he should probably get a Nobel Prize for bluffing.
But it seems very clear the United States is on the verge of joining Israel's attacks on Iran.
We have complete and total control of the skies of Tehran, Trump said yesterday before calling for the Iranian regime's unconditional surrender.
He repeated today that Iran's only option is surrender.
Anyone who thinks this could be a quick surgical strike with a rapid retreat should consider the words of the Ayatollah, who said today that any U.S. intervention will be met with irreparable harm.
You should also consider how rapidly the rhetoric has changed in Israel.
On Friday, it was precision strikes on military and nuclear targets.
Now it's regime change.
A month ago in Riet, President Trump declared an end to the era of neocons and nation building in the Middle East.
The big question is whether another one is about to begin under his watch.
In a moment, we'll debate it all with my panel.
First, a United States Senator, who's also one of the leading voices against American intervention in foreign wars, Dr. Ram Paul.
Dr. Paul, thank you very much indeed for coming back on Uncensored.
It's a really interesting debate raging right now on the conservative right in America between those who believe America first, no more foreign war intervention, and those like Lindsey Graham who are saying you've got Iran on the run.
America should absolutely get involved and finish off this evil regime.
Christians on War and Self-Defense 00:05:07
I know you're in the former camp, but what do you make first of all of this split now on the conservative right over this?
You know, I wouldn't say it's new.
I'd say it pre-exists Donald Trump, pre-exists the MAGA movement.
There always was sort of a more libertarian, less interventionist wing of the party that I'm from, that my father was from, or is from.
Then there's also a wing of the party that's more of the neoconservative wing that Lindsey Graham, John McCain, John Bolden, Dick Cheney, they have always represented that.
It's sort of good versus evil.
You know, which side is good?
That's us, of course.
And evil is the other side that always wants war.
But this division isn't a new thing.
It's been there for a long time.
And when Lindsey Graham came out recently with the attacks and saying game on, we thought that was a very disdainful sort of way to refer to war.
War is not a game and lots of people will die.
Look at the Ukraine-Russian war, not a game.
Hundreds of thousands of people have died.
Now, there are arguments on the issue: who's in the right?
Who's in the wrong?
Should the war happen, this and that.
But war is never a game.
War is never enjoyable.
And just like your previous guest talking about just war, there should never be any Christian that is consistent with their religion sort of glorifying war or glorifying that war in itself is something that we should idolize.
No, but I mean, do you believe that some war is not just justified, but essential?
Well, you know, if you look at the just war theory, self-war in self-defense, you know, it's the same way when you think of killing.
Most Christians don't think you can just go kill someone, but many Christians do believe that you can kill in self-defense.
If someone enters your house and attempts to kill you, you can kill them.
Some Christians, not all, but some Christians believe that the state can kill for you in self-defense as far as capital punishment.
But that issue is much more divided, I would say.
But in case of war, I would say that many Christians, not all, but many Christians would say that a war in self-defense, there are other admonitions that war should be proportional.
There are admonitions from the just war theory that say you shouldn't fight a preemptive or a preventative war.
And that would be an argument in this case that this is a war that someday Iran may develop a nuclear weapon, and we don't want that to happen.
But you know, the most recent intelligence estimate from the United States government said they weren't developing a weapon.
One of the interesting things also is that when we had the Iran agreement before the first Trump administration left the Iran agreement, they weren't enriching to the higher levels.
And that since we left the agreement, they're actually enriching to higher levels now.
There is also the question, what happens?
What happens after this war?
Will they be admonished?
Will they be humiliated?
Will they rush on to a bomb and develop it in weeks, as some have said they have the capability of?
Or will they simply fold and say, you've beaten us and we're going to give up on nuclear weapons?
I think that's an unknown, but it's a pretty big unknown.
Yeah, it is.
And the really big unknown is no one's quite sure where President Trump himself stands.
He's been a man who has persistently for decades espoused peace, not war.
He thinks wars are bad for human life, bad for business.
He's certainly been very keen to try and end the war in Gaza, end the war in Ukraine.
And yet from all the reports that are coming out today from Washington, the war jungle drums appear to be beating ever louder from the White House.
And it looks more likely than not that Donald Trump may bring America into this war against Iran, siding with Israel, of course.
Many people on the MAGA right are saying that's not what we voted for.
You know, Tucker Carlson and others leading the charge here.
Is that what people voted for?
I think the president's instincts and his public pronouncements have typically been of restraint, have typically been of the unintended consequences of either regime change or war.
He acknowledged that the Afghan war cost a lot of money, got into nation building and didn't necessarily come with a great outcome.
Same with the Iraq war.
He was a persistent critic of the Iraq war, as I and others have been.
And so I think when you look at it, that the overwhelming Presentation of foreign policy has been for more restraint and less intervention and cautious.
I would say, though, if you look at his pronouncements over years, that sometimes Iran has been an exception and Israel has been an exception to the rule.
And so that's what's unknown here: there's a significant lobbying movement for the war.
There's a huge number of congressmen and senators who would like to see the war engaged, believe that war will lead to a great outcome and it'll be just peachy keen and rosy.
And I'm one who warns of the repercussions of the chaos of war, the cost of the war.
Unintended Consequences of Regime Change 00:09:42
I don't see the U.S. occupying Iran.
I don't see Israel occupying Iran.
What happens in this large country once there is either no government?
I also think there's a very good chance that most authoritarian governments don't sit passively by.
Many people argue that their primary concern now will be control of their own people and less the ability to strike back at Israel.
They may not, they are striking back to show that they can.
It has not been largely effective, and Israel has been largely effective.
But I think now their concern will turn towards: are there any among us who would try to take over?
And so internal control of their people, I think, will paramount to Iran.
But the big question is: will they rush on to the bomb, to the development of the nuclear bomb because of this, or will they just give up in the face of military defeat?
Do you find it slightly baffling that Israel continues to refuse to say whether it has nuclear weapons itself when most people assume that they have quite an extensive nuclear arsenal and they're not open and don't allow themselves to be open to any checks and balances on any nuclear defense they may have?
Enough about nine to five.
What about the most important bit, the five to nine?
It should be the most comfortable part of your day.
And today's sponsor can help.
Cozy Earth's bamboo sheets are temperature regulating and designed to wick away both heat and moisture so you can sleep several degrees cooler.
They're soft, breathable, and guaranteed to give you a more comfortable night's sleep.
They also have high quality, breathable clothes for all-day luxury.
You can try it all risk-free with Cozy Earth's 100-night sleep trial and a 10-year warranty.
If you don't love their products, you can return them hassle-free, but trust me, you won't want to.
Luxury shouldn't be out of reach.
Go to cozyearth.com and use code PEERS, P-I-E-R-S, for up to 40% off.
Cozy Earth's best-selling temperature-regulating sheets, clothes, and more.
You will feel the difference on the very first night.
That's cozyearth.com.
Promo code PEERS.
Stay cool.
Well, I mean, the thing is, is if it is justified for Israel to attack Iran because they might get a nuclear weapon, is the reverse true?
And so the thing is, nobody would ask that, and I'm not saying that it is true, but I'm saying that if it's okay for one nation to attack another to stop them from getting nuclear weapons, would the reverse be true?
So I really think that, you know, there's a different standard.
The standards are different.
The overriding sort of, I think, conclusion from this, though, is that if you want peace in the Middle East, it has to involve more players.
Like, for example, if you want peace in Gaza and you want Gaza to be resolved, Gaza can't be resolved with no government and no police force in there, but it can't be resolved with American troops, can't be resolved with Israeli troops in there.
They're in there, but they're fighting a war.
When the war is finally completed and all that's left is rubble, how does Gaza recover?
I think it only recovers with an Arab force.
And I've been suggesting for years that the Arab League needs to be more active.
They need to be chomping at the bit.
They need to be pushing Israel to end the war.
And they need to say, we will provide 10,000 soldiers from 10 different countries, Arab-speaking, Muslim countries, that will come in and provide the peace.
Because you have to have peace, you know, not just between Israel and the Arabs, but among the people in Gaza, you've got 2 million people.
You can't have that without any law or any kind of food, running water, electricity.
And I think the Arab nations could make things a lot better very quickly.
And I hope we'll get to that transition soon.
I want to play before we finish a clip.
It's gone viral today of Tucker Coulson grilling Senator Ted Cruz, one of your fellow senators, and then ask you about this afterwards.
How many people live in Iran, by the way?
I don't know the population at all.
No, I don't know the population.
You don't know the population of the country you seek to topple?
How many people live in Iran?
92 million.
Okay.
You're not calling for military strikes against them in retaliation if you really believe.
They're carrying out military strikes today.
You said Israel was.
Right.
With our help.
I said we.
Israel is leading them, but we're supporting them.
Well, you're breaking news here because the U.S. government last night denied, the National Security Council spokesman Alex Pfeiffer denied on behalf of Trump that we were acting on Israel's behalf in any offensive capacity.
We're not bombing them.
Israel's bombing them.
You just said we were.
We are supporting Israel as a.
Senator, if you're saying the United States government is with Iran right now, people are listening.
I didn't think that was Ted Cruz's finest hour.
Senator, what were your thoughts?
You know, I think the gist of the conversation is over the unintended consequences of toppling a regime in a large country, you know?
So you got 80, 90 million people in Iran.
It's a big country.
Compared to Afghanistan, probably at least five times bigger, if not more.
So Afghanistan was a much smaller country, much less potent military, less sophisticated.
And still Afghanistan was chaos.
And the moment we left, it reverted back to the Stone Ages.
And so really, what are the capabilities and what happens after?
You know, these are the questions that we should always be asking.
You know, once Gaddafi was gone in Libya, which we encouraged and allowed to happen and really probably wouldn't have happened without our at least aerial assistance of the no-fly zone, is Libya a better place?
In fact, all I hear in all these committees now is how we need to send weapons into the sub-Saharan regions because weapons are coming out of Libya and supplying al-Qaeda, that Libya's all those weapons that Gaddafi used to control dispersed throughout sub-Sahara and that things got actually worse after Qaddafi.
It also sent a terrible message to the world.
And this is one that still is resonating, that if you negotiate it with the U.S., you give up your nuclear weapons in good faith, and then you know, you still may get killed.
And so it's just not a great lesson as far as negotiating.
You can see why people don't want to negotiate away their nuclear rights.
But people who have nuclear weapons look at the countries who do and say, well, maybe it's better to have them than not have them because it looks like people won't mess with you if you have nuclear weapons.
I'm not encouraging other countries to have it.
I'm just saying that that is their perception.
But I think the discussion you were seeing there is of the unintended consequences throughout the Middle East.
And you can see how people, when the Arab Spring happened, were like, oh, my goodness, this will be so great.
It'll be hopeful.
You know, all these monarchies and dictatorships and sheikhdoms be overthrown and we'll have democracies throughout the Middle East.
But it didn't turn out that way.
And it turned out with millions of people dislocated, hundreds of thousands of people killed in dozens of countries.
So I think in the end, that was what the debate looked to me to be about.
Would you have known how many people were in Iran?
Not to the person, but I know as a big country, you know, between 80 and 100, I think I can get that close.
Donald Trump just finally said, somebody please explain to Kookie Tucker Carlson that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.
Your thoughts?
I don't think anybody's really arguing that they should have a nuclear weapon.
And see, this is where it's complicated when you argue about what we should do.
So there's always a question is, if you bomb Tehran, which is happening right now, Israel's bombing Tehran, is it more or less likely that they go to a nuclear weapon?
I think it's a completely open question.
And I think there is a chance that Iran's response to this will be, if they're able to, you know, the discussion pre-hand was there, weeks away from a nuclear weapon, which Netanyahu has said for the last 15 years, they're weeks away.
We must do something.
We have to attack them.
So if they attack them and we stop them from getting the weapon, it'll be perceived as a heroic deed and Israel will be applauded.
If two weeks from now or a month from now, they announce they have a nuclear bomb, I think some people say, hmm, attacking them wasn't the best.
So you have to understand you don't know the outcome of these things and there's a danger of what are the unintended consequences of this.
And I don't think anybody really knows, but there definitely is a danger to it.
And at the same time, I don't want to be someone who says, oh, you know, the mullahs are just fine and the Ayatollah is just fine.
No, I think we should encourage freedom around the world and freedom movements around the world, but it doesn't mean we involve our soldiers and our weapons in every freedom movement around the world.
Can you see any scenario where American boots get on the ground in Iran?
Zero from my perspective.
I will not vote to send American kids to Iran.
I think it's a terrible mistake.
Every war is not our war.
Our country is bankrupting itself over our own obligations to our own people.
We should not ever send one soldier to Iran.
And I hope I'm pretty clear on that.
You could not have been clearer.
Senator Paul, thank you very much indeed for joining me.
Thank you.
We're here to debate the wider MAGA meltdown over what's happening at the president's policy in the Middle East as libertarian commentator and author of Provote, Scott Horton, the political commentator, Emily Austin, Aaron Marte, a journalist with the Grey Zone, and the man who killed Osama bin Laden, former Navy SEAL Rob O'Neill.
Well, welcome to all of you.
Scott Horton, let me start with you here.
A lot of conjecture that America is about to enter this war alongside Israel, ostensibly to get potentially into the nuclear sites, which Israel doesn't have the capability to get at.
What is your response to that?
Tax Day and the MAGA Split 00:03:16
Well, we should absolutely stay out of this.
I think you're right that it's likely that it'll take American, and I'm not a military expert.
I'll defer on the actual necessity from their point of view.
But it seems to be the case that the Israelis only have 20,000 pound bombs, but we have 30,000 pound ones.
And so, you know, therefore, if they really want to destroy Natan Sinfordo, maybe they would have to send in the B-2s or worse, drop in the 82nd Airborne to try to go in there and destroy it all with hand grenades or whatever they want, you know, in that kind of a sense.
But we absolutely should stay out of this war.
I mean, we're already in it, but we should get out to the degree that America is participating in it all and the diplomatic cover that we're providing for it and everything else.
We're sure, just as your previous guest, Senator Rand Paul, explained, we are sure to face all sorts of untold unintended consequences from participation in this aggressive war.
And we should absolutely stop as fast as we can.
And one more thing, I'm sorry, but it's the top headline on anti-war.com.
A solid majority pierce.
53% of Trump voters, they did a YouGov poll and they broke it down.
Male, female, young, old, liberal, conservative, Republican, Democrat, every way.
In every case, majorities are opposed and including a solid majority, 53% of Trump voters, with only 19% supporting.
So that is just the overwhelming consensus of the American people against this war and any further participation in it by the United States government.
Tax Day has passed, but for millions of Americans, that's where the trouble begins.
The IRS is now ramping up enforcement for those who miss the April deadline or still owe back taxes.
Well, today's sponsor, Tax Network USA, can still help.
If your books are a mess, if you're self-employed, or if you're a business owner, Tax Network USA specializes in cleaning up financial chaos and getting you back on track quickly.
They say the IRS is applying enforcement pressure at levels they've never seen before.
But even after the deadline, it's not too late to take control.
When consultation is completely free, acting now could stop penalties, threatening letters, and surprise levies before they escalate.
Call 1-800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com slash peers.
That's tnusa.com slash peers.
Let Tax Network USA make the next move, not the IRS.
Yeah, I mean, Emily Austin, it's a fascinating split now of people that are ostensibly pro-Trump or were at the election, but now split down the middle.
You know, those who are against Trump's current policy here, Candace Owens, Dave Smith, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Alex Jones, Matt Walsh, those in favor, Charlie Kirk, Lindsey Graham, Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin, Mark Levine.
I mean, it's extraordinary to see the conservative right in America basically cut in half here.
And, you know, you've got to look at maybe the future of MAGA, if not Trump himself.
Trusting Iran to Avoid Nuclear War 00:15:42
Might well hinge on what happens with this war in Iran.
Right.
Well, first and foremost, I think time is the best teller.
And there's a reason we elected Donald Trump in office is because ultimately we have to just trust his decision making.
The banter between the right and wing doesn't bother me at all.
I think it's very healthy to hear other perspectives and it's healthy to engage in this dialogue in a very respectful manner, which I give credit to the right-wingers.
For the most part, aside from the Tucker reams, which are very justified, it's very healthy to see that online.
However, I want to confront what Scott was saying.
I'm glad you're anti-war and you're anti-aggression, but at what point can you live like that knowing that Iran is not?
Everyone who's against striking Iran's nuclear sites, we'll talk about the regime change later.
I just have to ask them, okay, for now you want to stay out of it.
And yes, right now it's an imminent threat to Israel until it's not.
Then it will become an imminent threat to America.
And let me tell you, once the nuclear weapon's already developed, good luck combating that then.
So why don't you take the smarter decision to take care of the issue before it becomes too late?
Because I'm glad you're anti-war.
I don't think Khomeini cares what you think.
But Emily, out of interest, thank you for your question.
I'm happy to answer.
Yeah, go on, you can ask.
Yeah, sure.
Iran is no threat to the United States whatsoever.
And no one who knows anything about it believes that.
The biggest advances that they've made in the region in the last 25 years was when George W. Bush gave them Baghdad.
Everyone knows they're in the nonproliferation treaty.
They have a safeguards agreement with the IAEA.
Every bit of their civilian nuclear program is safeguarded.
And this whole time, it has been a latent nuclear deterrent.
Just like Japan, just like Germany, just like Brazil, they have proven that they have mastered the fuel cycle and have not made the decision to begin to attempt to make a nuclear weapon.
That's a fact.
You can scoff, but Tulsi Gabbard That in February and again in March.
And apparently there was a new intelligence report just last week that said the same thing, that they are not even trying to make a nuclear weapon right now.
So you can scoff, but that's basically just taking the place of you not knowing anything about the details.
Right, so let me jump back.
Iran is a very weak country.
They cannot threaten the USA.
Not in the next 200 years could they threaten this?
Okay, Scott, so let me counter that.
Let me counter that slightly because the atomic agency that you referenced there, their report made it clear that Iran has gone from a 3% uranium enrichment to 60% now.
You need to get to 90% to make a nuclear weapon.
Hang on one second, man.
I can explain that.
Well, hang on one sec.
So there's clearly been a massive acceleration in their uranium enrichment program.
Then it comes down to trust, whether you trust Iran not to take this further to the 90%.
Let me explain.
I would say this.
Well, let me finish my question.
So the atomic agency, I saw one of the people from the agency on Christian Lamanport's show yesterday, and he was saying, in his estimation, he'd seen nothing to suggest that this was going to happen anytime soon.
We've got this clip.
If there was some activity which was clandestine or hidden or away from our inspectors, we couldn't know.
What we informed and what we reported was that we did not have, as in coincidence with some of the sources you mentioned there, that we did not have any proof of a systematic effort to move into a nuclear weapon.
Now, I thought that was significant, Scott, because certainly I could see.
Well, hang on, hang on, let me finish.
Let me just ask you a question.
You know, I thought about this a lot before saying anything after the Israel attack and concluded that I could see some justification for it based on that report.
That clarification made me less certain of the justification.
However, in the report itself, it then talks about Iran constantly lying and obfuscating, you know, probably hiding stuff, not letting inspectors see stuff.
And so it comes down, like I said earlier, doesn't it come down to a question of trust?
Why would you trust the Iranian regime as far as you could throw them when it comes to potentially creating a bomb?
It doesn't come down to trust at all.
And I'll beg the rest of the panel's forgiveness.
I'll try to stay quiet later on in the hour here and let y'all talk.
But just real quick so you understand, we had a deal in 2015 under which Iran exported every bit of their enriched uranium stockpile to France, who would then turn it into fuel rods and then ship it back to Iran to use in their reactor.
Now, the nuclear reactor produces plutonium waste, but they don't have the facility required to reprocess plutonium to get all the impurities out to make weapons fuel.
So they had no plutonium route to the bomb.
The Russians would come and get the plutonium out of their reactor when it was full and time every couple years or whatever.
Now their uranium route to the bomb, because they were exporting every bit of their enriched uranium out of the country, they have this arbitrary timeline breakout period.
They call it the breakout point, that it would take them one year if they decided to withdraw from the treaty, kick the inspectors out of the country, and begin to enrich weapons-grade uranium.
It would take them a year to have enough to make one bomb with.
Now, the new report that came out said that on top of that, it would take them another couple of years to have an actual warhead ready to do anything with it.
And I'm sorry this is complicated, but I know people can follow on this if you know anything about the history here.
Let me explain real quick now that the Nagasaki bomb was a implosion bomb, a plutonium implosion bomb, which is the type of bomb that can be miniaturized and fit to a missile.
But the Hiroshima bomb was a simple gun-type nuke, a uranium nuke, which is a humongous thing.
Iran could never fit that on a missile or deliver it to Israel or the United States in a million years.
And so if they had a single gun-type nuke or two, it would essentially be to test off a demonstration round in the desert to show that they have one, but it still would not make them an offensive threat to anyone.
And as the CIA concluded in 07, they abandoned all research into a weapons program, even bothering to look into it in 03 when America got rid of Saddam Hussein for them.
And so the fact that they've had now, I'm sorry, get to your point.
Donald Trump left the treaty or the agreement in 2018.
Now, Piers, it's complicated, but according to the agreement, Iran is allowed to stop abiding by some of the restrictions in it if America breaks our side of the deal.
They actually are still within the larger agreement, even while ceasing to abide by some parts of it.
Now, that 60% enriched uranium stockpile that they built up is clearly just as it was in the Obama years, is clearly simply a card to play in negotiations to deal away.
That uranium is there to give up if they can get America to back down and lift the sanctions.
That's all it is.
If they wanted to make weapons-grade uranium, they could have made weapons-grade uranium.
They weren't doing that.
They're getting closer because it's a card to play in negotiations.
And now, to your, and one last point, and then I swear I'll stop.
And you made this point.
Nothing changed.
Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, says nothing changed.
They did not break out toward a nuclear weapon.
There was no cost of spelly here, even if you accepted the premise that you could launch a preemptive war to prevent them from getting a nuke, which is a whole other argument.
But even if you accept that premise, nothing had changed in Iran other than the timeline, the arbitrary timeline of Trump's demand had expired.
And you hear Trump and the rest of the hawks trying to conflate having a nuclear program at all with being on the verge of achieving a nuclear weapons capability.
And this is what George W. Bush called shorthanding it.
In other words, they just imply a bunch of lies because they can't explain what they mean.
Okay.
And so this whole war is just a matter of time.
I want to bring in the...
We haven't heard of it.
Hang on.
Beams creatine is America's number one.
And it's made by a company founded on values like hard work and delivering real results.
Creatine is often dismissed as just for bodybuilders, but the truth is that it's one of the most researched, effective, and safest supplements for supporting strength, brain health, and longevity.
Quality matters, of course, and beam creatine delivers.
There's no fillers, no sugar, and nothing synthetic, just clean, science-backed creatine for strength, focus, and results.
We've teamed up to give you up to 30% off their best-selling creatine for a limited time only.
Go to shopbeam.com slash peers and use the code peers at checkout.
That's shopbeamb-E-A-M.com slash peers, P-I-E-R-S.
Use the code PEERS for up to 30% off.
These sales don't happen very often.
This is the lowest price you'll find anywhere for a product of this quality.
Go to shopbeam.com slash peers and use the promo code PEERS for up to 30% off.
We haven't heard from team members of the panel yet.
I will come back to that.
But I just want to address a point you said before we move on because contrary to what I said, he keeps saying that Iran's not a threat to America.
So since Scott decided to become Iran's mouthpiece, can you please clarify for me what Khomeini means when he says death to America, death to the West and forceful conversions?
Can you translate in the language that you so clearly understand that all of us are missing?
Thank you.
Sure.
Yeah.
So first of all, Khomeini died in 1989.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Second of all, the chant.
You'll notice all of y'all in the audience and on the panel notice how often the Hawks bring this up and how much heavy lifting these chants are doing.
Are you so terrified of chants?
In fact, they have no air.
They have no ability.
They have no offensive force that they can threaten this country with.
So in other words, you're saying you're really upset because they're hurting your feelings by some stupid chant, which of course is terrible politics.
It's a terrible government, but it's not a threat to this country.
When somebody wants to kill you and they are too late.
No, you are naive.
It's okay.
America could have normalized relations with Iran 30 years ago.
Trump gave him 60 days.
They didn't do this at all.
Trump gave him 60 days and they were too egotistical to meet at the negotiating table.
They had no right to do that.
They had no right to do that.
They have the right to a civilian nuclear program.
They're members of the Nonproliferation Treaty.
Iran deserves the nuclear weapons.
Which has a secret nuclear weapons program.
They have the right to civilian nuclear weapons.
We've got two other guests who haven't spoken yet.
Rob O'Neill.
I'm out.
Sorry.
Go ahead.
No, no, it's interesting.
It's still very interesting.
Rob O'Neill, you were a Navy SEAL Team 6 guy for a long time, took part in some of the biggest missions American forces have ever taken, part in.
You killed Bin Laden.
In that time, how big a threat did you determine Iran constituted to the United States?
Well, they were a big threat in Iraq.
They were giving the insurgents, both Sunni and Shia, the technology for explosively foreign penetrators that killed and maimed, you know, thousands of Americans.
And that's just them, again, because they have interest in Iraq because eventually Iran wants the, they want the free trip over to Israel, which is what they want to do.
They want to destroy Israel.
They've said it.
They're 12ers.
A lot of people out there arguing, Ted Cruz, especially, when he doesn't know anything about a country, he probably couldn't tell you the difference between a Sunni and a Shia, but there is a difference.
And one of the things that Shia said, they can hasten the return of the Mahdi by washing the world in blood.
I don't know if you're afraid of the chant death to America or just saying some stuff like that, but yeah, we're going to get the return of our savior, which is not Jesus, by the way.
It's Muhammad Al-Mahdi.
And a nuclear weapon might bring that there.
And, you know, I mean, not to get all religious too, but if you hasten the return, you're just bringing in the Antichrist.
I'm not going to get technical there.
But I mean, let me say this as well.
This is the way this needs to be discussed.
Both sides, because there's a lot going on that will affect all of us.
And I'm happy we don't get down to stupid name-calling or tweeting at someone who's a fascist or a Nazi, which is the tendency to go.
But Iran certainly is a threat.
During the last four years of open borders, there's 8,000 terrorists in this country.
Iran is a major part of that, and they've activated very experienced cells.
October 7th in Israel was not nice.
And we got a lot of gun-free zones here.
So don't forget that.
I've got friends on the International Atomic Energy Agency, and they'll tell me straight up they have.
They can't wait to retire to tell me their story because that's the biggest waste of time.
You can't believe a word they say.
The United Nations hates the United States, pretty much the West, and Iran's going to lie to you too.
So that, I mean, there's part of that there, and everyone wants to hurt everyone else.
But this is so complex that if I'm a believer, if one nuclear weapon gets launched by one country, we are going to a nuclear winter because everyone's going to start freaking out.
Everybody, especially the greedy people, they can hit the button.
We can all hit the button.
It's going to hurt all of us.
I've been to war a ton.
On 9-12, 2001, I would have invaded any country in the world.
Having seen everything, having seen the depths of the, you know, our military-industrial complex, I don't call myself anti-war or pro-war.
I'm an unapologetic American, but I am pro-people.
I have never been in a city being bombed, but I have been next to it as we're dropping the bombs.
And I can imagine being a city.
When's it going to hit me?
When's it going to hit me?
When's it going to hit my kids?
This is all happening because there's a lot of people in charge of religious authority and governments, however they got elected or put into place, that don't care about the people.
They care about their personal power.
And there's a lot of people out there making money on a lot of the Israel was justified in its preemptive strikes against Iran based on their belief that Iran was about to develop a nuclear weapon.
I've seen that you said Iran has four ports, bomb them right now, crush their ability to get anything, squeeze the populace to overthrow these Islamic bullies.
We have anti-drone technology.
They have no idea we can dominate.
We've just chosen not to do it now.
So you would like to see the United States getting directly involved.
Well, no, I wouldn't want to see them getting directly involved.
And I mean, Israel, they are trying to hit military targets.
They even put leaflets out to get out of there.
And I mean, and based on their intelligence, Mossad has proven they're the best in the world that they can kill your scientists with sending a missile through the room you're sleeping in.
They know a lot more than I do.
And we got to be honest, a lot of us, a lot of us don't know what's actually happening in Iran.
I mean, look at the people.
I think the way that you got to get rid of the religious clerics, but who's going to trust us?
Who's going to trust the West?
Look at how many times we've gone in, regime change, we abandon you.
I mean, this is very complex.
And most of us don't know what's happening in Iran anyway.
Yeah, because I want to bring it down.
He's also the word.
Thank you, Aaron, for your patience.
It's all been very interesting.
But what is your view here?
I mean, obviously, I know you share Scott's view that America shouldn't get involved here.
Israel Strikes: Normal or Not 00:15:26
But do you understand why Israel has felt the way it has about the threat from Iran specifically?
Because I don't think anybody doubts that Iran has funded both financially and with weapons, Hezbollah, the Houthis, Hamas, and that they have all waged acts of terrorism.
Call it what you like.
I call it terrorism against Israel for many years.
And that's all been done at the behest and help and support and enthusiastic support of Iran.
If you're Israel, why would you not seek to try and dismantle a regime that has gone out of its way through proxy groups to destroy you?
Well, it depends what kind of government you are if you're Israel.
If you're a government that is committed to peace in the region, you would explore the available diplomatic opportunities, and there have been plenty.
If you're a government like Israel, which it actually is, which is committed to hegemony and supremacy, of course, you will see any group or country that challenges your supremacy as a threat.
And that's why Israel is going after Iran.
Iran supports groups and all whom you named that resist Israeli aggression.
Hezbollah, for example, why does it exist?
It was founded in response to Israel's invasion in 1982, which killed tens of thousands of people.
The aim of that invasion was to basically wipe out the PLO, the main Palestinian group at that time, at a time when the Palestinian, at a time when the PLO was calling actually increasingly for a compromise in which Palestini accept a very, very small state.
And that's the fundamental issue.
Israel will not accept any right to Palestine self-determination.
And that's why it has enemies in the region.
That's the fundamental problem.
Iran even has endorsed the global consensus of a two-state solution in which Palestini accept as 22% of their historic homeland, which was stolen from them by Israel.
Even Iran has.
Israel won't accept that because it's committed to occupation and supremacy.
Iran has also proposed that there be a nuclear-free Middle East.
So if you don't want us to get nuclear weapons, no one should have nuclear weapons.
Israel won't even entertain that because Israel wants to threaten everybody else to preserve its hegemony.
Scott invoked this.
30 years ago, Iran also offered the U.S. to basically address all the issues on the table, including its support for Hezbollah.
The Bush administration got that note from Iran and initially pretended they didn't even receive it before they ultimately ignored it.
There also was the Iran nuclear deal, which everybody involved says Iran was respecting.
It's only Israel because of its foundational commitment to supremacy and aggression, which continues to attack everybody else because it doesn't want anybody resisting its occupation and displacement, ethnic cleansing, and now mass murder of Palestinians.
Emily, your response to that.
Aaron, I'm glad you hit all the buzzwords that are fancy on social media, but I hate to break it to you.
Why would and why should Israel reward terror groups and terror states their right to self-determination?
If in 2005 they experimented essentially by giving Gaza to the Palestinian people and their way of, I guess you could call it proving that they can self-determine their own region, their own state, you can call it, their way of doing that was by constantly attacking their neighbors, doing multiple October 7th on smaller scales, and constantly cheering and indoctrinating children to hate their neighbor and hate Jewish people.
Please explain to me what any normal country would do other than resist and not want them to be their next door neighbor.
Please do.
Well, this is the point.
Israel is not a normal country.
It's an occupying country that was founded on ethnic cleansing and remains committed to that project.
I'm glad you mentioned 2005.
Why did Israel engage from Gaza?
Sorry, disengage from Gaza in 2005.
The standard story is that Israel pulled out of Gaza, gave it back to the Palestinians, and they used that opportunity to turn Gaza into a terror state.
Here's what actually happened.
A top advisor, a top Israeli advisor, Dub Wiseglass, explained at the time that the reason Israel disengaged from Gaza was that, first of all, it's costly to maintain settlers, illegal settlers in Gaza, when Israel really wants to steal Palestinian land in the West Bank.
Second of all, the aim of the disengagement was to put what he called formaldehyde on the peace process, that if we pull back from Gaza, that will ease the pressure on us to give Palestinians a state, again, in a tiny sliver of their stolen land, the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, to 22% of their historic homeland.
That's what every single Israeli action, whether it's disengaging from Gaza or now committing mass murder in Gaza, is oriented around.
It's denying Palestinians the right to self-determination.
If Israel were a normal country, if Israel were a normal country, what it would do is say, we're going to, for the first time in our history, respect our own recognized borders, which are an Israeli state within the pre-1967 borders.
Israel's not a normal state.
It's an occupying state.
It's an aggressive state, as it's showing now by committing terror against the people of Iran after more than a year and a half long genocide in Gaza.
So if it were a normal state, Israel would say, these are our recognized borders, the ones that everybody recognizes.
We're going to rise to the level of Iran and Hamas and the other Palestinian leadership, the Palestinian Authority, and finally say Palestinians can have a big surrender for them, but still a state of their own in the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem.
It won't do that because it's not a normal state.
It's a Jewish supremacist state.
Okay.
Hang on, okay, Emily, quick response, and then I'm going to.
Do you think Jordan's a normal state?
Do you think Egypt's a normal state?
Explain what you mean by that.
You just said Israel is not a normal state.
So I just asked you a question according to your own logic.
Is Jordan a normal state and is Egypt a normal state?
Neither Jordan or Egypt are occupying millions of people and denying them their basic rights.
Wait, wait, I'm not done with my point.
Wait, yes or no?
Do you consider them normal states?
They're far more normal than Israel was.
Absolutely.
Of them had jurisdiction over Gaza and also did not give Palestinians right to self-determination because they also didn't trust them, as did Kuwait when they expelled tens of thousands of Palestinians.
But you consider Egypt and Jordan normal or do you just hate Israel?
Israel is the state that was founded on ethnically cleansing all those Palestinians and denying them.
Now, I don't want to, it's not Gaza, it's not Egypt or Jordan's fault that Palestinians don't have a state of their own.
They could do more to achieve that.
Certainly, I wish they would sit up to Israel.
Israel is the entity that refuses to give Palestinians their basic right to self-determination.
They have millions of people under barbaric occupation, and they never committed, never committed genocide, which Israel is currently doing in Gaza.
Okay.
Let's take a, I want to take a short break.
Keep the panel just to listen to this interview I'm about to do with the Republican congresswoman Nancy Mace, who posted yesterday.
Hey, I'm Caitlin Becker, the host of the New York Postcast, and I've got exactly what you need to start your weekdays.
Every morning, I'll bring you the stories that matter, plus the news people actually talk about.
The juicy details in the world's politics, business, pop culture, and everything in between.
It's what you want from the New York Post wrapped up in one snappy show.
Ask your smart speaker to play the NY Postcast podcast.
Listen and subscribe on Amazon Music, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
President Trump is right.
Terrorists should never have nukes.
Well, welcome to you.
Thanks for coming back on Uncensored.
Pretty unequivocal there.
Terrorists shouldn't have nukes.
Trump is right.
Do you think he's right if he now gets involved directly in this war and commits American forces?
Well, I think it depends on what you mean by directly.
I mean, if that means taking out the Ayatollah, if that means taking out their nuclear sites with a 30,000-pound bunker buster delivered by a B-2, I'm okay with that.
What Israel is doing right now is making the world much safer for everybody.
And by the way, Israel is also supported by many of the Gulf states who don't want to see terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.
The argument, as you know, against what you've just said is that I remember people saying exactly the same kind of thing before the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war.
It was being done because it would make the world a safer place.
Nobody can really look at what happened in Iraq or Afghanistan.
I think it made the world safer at all.
Why are you confident that it would with Iran?
I agree with you there.
And in fact, I was against the war in Iraq for the reasons that we went after Saddam Hussein.
We didn't have weapons of mass destruction.
There was not evidence of that.
And I've been very vocal about that.
This is different.
This is different based on real intelligence.
I was overseas in the Middle East a few months ago.
I visited Israel.
I've had those conversations.
I do believe that Iran was very close and is very close to having a nuclear warhead.
The threat is real.
And it's not just about Israel.
Israel is just the tip of the spear.
This is about our national security.
Iran, if they get a nuclear weapon, they're not just going to bomb Israel.
They're going to use it against all their enemies if they can.
And we have to make sure that we can live peacefully, that people can live peacefully in the Middle East.
And Iran is, I mean, Israel is doing the work for everybody else in the Middle East right now.
And I support their endeavor.
And I hope they finish the job.
We've had Tulsi Gubbard, Director of National Intelligence, she said literally just two months ago that there was no evidence that the United States had determined that what you just said is correct in terms of Iran's ability to create a nuclear weapon imminently.
And we've had the Atomic Agency say the same thing.
I saw the director on television last night saying he'd not seen anything.
How come you know that there is the evidence of that, but Tulsi Gabba doesn't, and nor do the atomic agencies?
Well, as Donald Trump, as President Trump said the other day, I agree with him based on intelligence I have been briefed on, that they were close.
And Trump is right, as he's always been right.
He stated the other day that he believed Iran was close to being armed with nukes, and he's correct.
I believe what his statement that he said was true.
Last night was a fascinating dust up between Senator Tay Cruz and Tucker Carlson, which kind of laid bare the split on the conservative right in America, with many lining up to support Trump and intervention, and many saying this will be a total betrayal of everything that people voted for when they voted for Donald Trump last November.
How do you explain that the conservative right is so divided over this?
Nobody wants a forever war with Iran.
We don't want to send our men and women in uniform to go die in Iran.
I believe that once the regime, the mullahs, the Ayatollah and the rest of his team are taken out, I believe the people will rise because over 80% of Iranians, they want freedom.
They want democracy.
They want a non-nuclear Iran.
There are leaders outside of Iran right now waiting to step in to help take over in a new government if one should occur, if that should occur.
The other thing is that in terms of Israel and the United States in this whole situation is that Israel is doing the fight.
And while they're fighting, if we are supporting them with some air support or radar or whatever, that's not the same thing as a war with Iran or troops on the ground.
If we supply them with a missile that can blow up their nuclear facilities deep below the bunkers, that's not the same thing as a full on-out war.
That's supporting our ally, Israel, who's the only Jewish state.
Well, technically, yeah, but it actually, that would be.
I mean, because only an American pilot would be flying that plane that would drop that bomb that you're talking about.
Potentially, yeah, potentially.
But in that scenario, America, but in that scenario, America absolutely will have joined the war.
It will be doing the bombing.
It's about a clearer evidence of acting a warrant against somebody we can imagine.
I wouldn't agree that it's different than having troops on the ground.
Having a ground war with troops on the ground versus supplying the arms necessary to take out all of their nuclear facilities.
I think those are two very different levels of interaction there.
Do you feel the same about Ukraine and their right to defend themselves against marauding Russian dictators and their forces?
I do.
I do.
And I've supported Ukraine up until a point probably in the last year or so where I felt we were expending too much.
And a lot of some of what we sent over wasn't even working over to Ukraine.
And it's also a very different situation.
Having a nuclear Iran is something that President Trump has never wanted.
That goes back 15 years.
And I support him wholeheartedly in this effort.
And I hope that Israel finishes the job.
Okay, Nancy Mace, thank you very much indeed for joining me.
Thank you.
All right, let's come back to the panel.
Scott, I could see that you weren't entirely buying everything that Nancy Mace was saying there.
Just absurdity on top of absurdity there.
The director of national intelligence is wrong.
And Iran was, in fact, they were, too, making a nuclear bomb.
Why?
Because she believes it.
And she says, I saw the intelligence.
I went to Israel and they briefed me and told me.
Yeah, so she's choosing what the Mossad told her when she went on a trip to a foreign country over what the director of national intelligence, who works for her current president that she favors, is reporting on behalf of the consensus of America's intelligence community that there's actually no shift there whatsoever.
It's completely ridiculous.
I love that.
Iraq war opponents for a preemptive, supposed aggressive war, supposed preemptive, definitely aggressive war against Iran is just completely absurd.
And I want to say all due respect to Rob here.
It's an important story, although it's an old one, but he mentioned it about the 500, it's usually estimated up to 600 Americans who were killed fighting the Shiites in 2007 in Iraq War II.
And the reality is, and I have in my book, I cite a solid dozen sources at least of American reporters and international reporters on patrol with American soldiers fighting against Muqtadah al-Sadr's forces and in East Baghdad and in Najaf.
And they found the EFP factories over and over and over again in Iraq.
Those EFPs, the Copper Corps, explosively foreign penetrators, improved IEDs were being made in Iraq by Iraqis.
And yes, it's true that it was Muqtad al-Sadr and the Shiites, and they were somewhat supported by Iran.
But you notice the way Nancy Mace says, any American support to Israel, whatever they do, that's just Israel.
But if Iran gives a hand to Muqtad al-Sadr or if Iran gives a hand to Hamas in any way, then they are just a proxy.
And anything they do is all Iran's responsibility.
But what was really going on there was, if you zoom out, the entire war of Iraq War II was fought for Muqtadah al-Sadr.
False Narratives About Iraq Deaths 00:04:52
He's one of the most important kingmakers in that country to this day.
And he was part of the United Iraqi alliance with the Supreme Islamic Council and the Dawah Party.
And America fought the whole war for him, except for a couple times when they stopped and fought against him, and including in this giant propaganda campaign in 2007 by Dick Cheney, David Petraeus, and Michael Gordon, especially at the New York Times, pushing this lie about the EFPs because they were trying to justify starting a war with Iran then.
And George Bush finally put his foot down and said no.
And so, you know, there's a kernel of truth in that, but it's always embellished.
And usually, although I don't believe Rob said this directly, but it's usually embellished to the point where it's just Iran killed 600 Americans in Iraq War II, which is just purely false.
Okay.
Rob, I want to ask you a slightly wider question, which is something that's been baffling me, which is Mossad clearly have been unbelievably skillful from a technology point of view in the way they dismantled Hezbollah with those pages, but many years in the making.
They seem to have been equally successful so far in specifically targeting military commanders, nuclear scientists, nuclear sites, and so on in Tehran, albeit with some civilian casualties too.
But it's been very surgically precise from a military perspective.
And yet in Gaza, it appears to be the complete opposite.
And they've been getting more and more opprobrium from around the world, from former Israeli prime ministers to many of the allies of Israel, traditional allies, because they just seem to be trying to obliterate everything that's in front of them in Gaza.
I mean, do you buy the argument that just because Hamas has a policy of putting itself and its terrorists amongst civilian population, that is the only way to defeat them?
Well, I mean, I'm a believer that because of October 7th, Israel knows it needs to wipe Hamas out.
I mean, you're not born hating.
You're taught to hate.
You're taught to be racist.
And a lot of these poor kids that are raised around Hamas, all they know is cut the heads off the dirty Jews.
That's exactly what they're saying.
I mean, it's horrible the words that they use.
I'm upset with myself just for saying that right now, but that's what they're teaching them.
And like my question too is, okay, a two-party state, here's a serious question.
You get Palestine.
Who's going to lead it?
Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Islam Jihad, Hezbollah, Hamas?
You're getting more of the same.
You need to have real leadership.
And again, with the conversations we're having right now, I mean, first of all, I've been to Sadder City.
I've been to Najaf.
I'm definitely going to read Scott's book because I think it is important to try to, you shouldn't be sitting in a room with people that just agree in an echo chamber.
I'm very interested now to reading that.
Were these EFPs that killed a lot of Americans made in Iraq?
Neither here nor there.
I mean, if you're trying to tell me that a lot of American kids weren't blown up and killed and maimed and watched their friends blown in half and now, just a ton of traumatic brain injury.
And I've seen it.
It's there.
No, I'm just saying everybody didn't do it.
I'm only saying Iraq didn't do it.
I'm not challenging the deaths in the chaos of that war.
It was terrible.
Yeah, it was pretty bad.
I saw it.
Did you see it?
From here.
And it was fast.
Take your science as no, you didn't see it.
But I'm just saying it's all based on their religion and the end of their times.
Again, there's so much going on.
You know what?
Part of the issue, too, with all these wars, the first Gulf War, go back to Vietnam, go back to Korea.
The first Gulf War, the second Gulf War.
Why'd we bomb Bosnia?
Then go into Afghanistan.
You know, obviously, we know why we had Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia.
You know who's been watching us the entire time?
China.
Rob.
Hey, Mike Baker here, host of the President's Daily Brief podcast.
If you want straight talk on national security, foreign policy, and the biggest global stories going on of the day, this is the show for you.
We publish twice a day, Monday through Friday, once in the morning, again in the afternoon, and on the weekend.
We go longer with the PDB Situation Report with excellent guests, including national security insiders and foreign policy experts.
Check us out on Spotify and Apple or wherever you get your podcasts.
Also on our YouTube channel at President's Daily Brief.
You know, the last clip that I saw of you before today's show was a short clip of you on the Sean Ryan show talking about how you killed this guy in his house because he went for a gun.
And then later on, you thought to yourself, what was I doing there?
Why did I kill this guy?
I wonder if he was funny.
I wonder if we could have had a drink because you, and the way you finished the story, because you believe George Bush's lies, he sent you on a fool's errand, what, to fight for Iran in Iraq War II that whole time.
Outsourcing Jobs to Israel 00:11:52
My friend, you should be over it by now.
I can't understand how you could be rocking the war party.
You're the one that controls.
I don't want to go to war too.
Like I said, after 9-11, I believe that industrial complex did.
I mean, Iraq is so complicated.
We never should have invaded.
We shouldn't have left how we did.
We formed ISIS.
But yeah, I mean, that realization of a dude that I shot that I didn't even know, because he went for a gun.
He went for a gun because I was his worst nightmare in his room at two in the morning, simply because George Bush didn't like what Saddam Hussein said about his dad.
I'm admitting that right now.
I mean, I'm not on here as some pro-war guy.
I'd love it if it all ended.
The conversations need to be had.
And I mean, we've proven for a long, long time that bombs and bullets aren't exactly working.
And it's the same story every single time.
They're so close, we got to bomb them.
I mean, look at Gaddafi was running Libya.
He gave up his nukes.
We went in there, we made up the Arab Spring, bombed him, killed him, and all of a sudden there's open slave markets.
This war stuff's not really working.
I'm not a pro-war guy.
Can I make a point here?
The reason to oppose war is not because it doesn't work.
It's because you have no right to do it.
You had no right as an illegal aggressor to invade Iraq.
That was based on a lie, and the U.S. had no right to bomb it.
Just says Israel has no right to bomb Iran, which is not threatening Israel.
Israel has no right to occupy the people of Palestine.
It only has the obligation to stop occupying them.
And on that point, I've been to Gaza.
I'm Jewish myself.
I was treated very well.
I met children.
They're not taught to hate.
They're just taught to have their eyes open and see what's in front of them.
Israeli occupation that has denied them their basic rights.
It's put them in a cage.
If you don't want Hamas there, don't put them under one of the most sadistic military occupations in the world in which Israel controls even what kind of food people can eat, which now has been reduced to Holocaust levels.
You know, 20 years ago, that was at the levels where Israel was counting the calories, literally, so that they would give the people of Gaza just enough food so there wouldn't be a full-blown starvation crisis.
One Israeli official referred to this as putting them on a diet.
That's called sadism, and it's the root cause of all problems in the Middle East.
If you don't want wars, if you don't want conflict, the first place to start is with our aggression, our tyranny.
And the fundamental tyranny that threatens everybody is Israel's oppression and now mass murder of the Palestinian people.
Okay, I want to play.
Emily, I want to play a question.
Can I ask a question really quickly here?
Since other than the Palestinians electing Hamas, Israel's the only democracy in the Middle East.
If that goes away like you want it to, where are the homosexuals and trans going to go?
Because that's the only place in the Middle East they're welcome.
Okay, first of all, this notion that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, try telling that to the millions of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza who have been ruled by Israel for decades now and can't vote for their leaders, can't even move without Israeli permission, who die at checkpoints because Israel denies them medical care, who lack food and water.
Right now, in Gaza, there's literally a starvation crisis because Israel is controlling everything that comes in with the starvation siege.
This notion that Israel is a democracy is a complete lie.
Yes, it's a democracy nominally internally for the people that have Israeli citizenship, but not for the millions of Palestinians that it rules over in the West Bank and Gaza.
It's not a democracy.
It's a tyranny for them.
All right, Emily, I want to play.
Hang on, hang on.
I want to play a clip.
This is Trump, President Trump today, talking about Iran.
Say good luck.
Why did the end run out?
Say it?
I know your patients run out.
It's already run out.
That's what we're doing.
What are we doing?
Yeah, they had 60 days and a big, you know, 60 days, plenty of time.
And they made a mistake.
Their country's in ruins.
So many people are dead.
They shouldn't be dead.
It's a very sad thing.
So, Emily, Donald Trump is about to make possibly the most consequential decision of his life.
This is a man who's been persistently anti-war in his rhetoric, wanting to end wars, not start them, proud of the fact that in his first term, he didn't start any significant war.
But here, he might be actively engaging in starting an American war, albeit with Israel against Iran.
Do you not feel after what happened with Iraq, after what happened with Afghanistan?
Do you not feel this is a massive roll of the dice?
And that Ducky Carlson, in his pretty apocalyptic warning, someone who's a pro-Trump guy, voted for Trump, says this could end his presidency.
That's very dramatic and hysterical of you ask me.
Before I answer that question, I just want to point out that Aaron believes America has no right to interject into what's happening in Iran, but Hamas has the right to pull an October 7th and invade Israel because of the false narrative that they're occupied.
So now moving on from that, I watched what Trump said this morning.
I watched it live, actually.
And I feel like the issue here is that everyone's equivocating what's happening in Iran to Iraq and Afghanistan.
I'd argue that the people of Iran, the Persian people, are a bit more sophisticated than what Iraq was and what Afghanistan was, a little bit more secular.
Half of them are resisting the regime or calling for a regime change.
Do I think it's America's burden to reinsure that they have a new, whatever you want to call it, supreme leader, president, hopefully something more democratic?
No.
However, I do believe that at the very least, if we get rid of their nuclear facilities, the whole world is a better place.
Trust me, the entire Middle East will be happy.
UAE, Saudi, all the countries that are going more Western will be thanking us for that.
And at the very best, within Iran, once it's in ruins, as Trump said, it won't be in ruins.
We'll get a B-2 bomb.
But once they have the opportunity to, they can overthrow the regime and stay what it was pre-79.
They don't need to be oppressed by their own anymore.
The Iranian people are taking the streets.
They're not chanting death to America anymore.
They're chanting death to the dictator.
So I feel like they're ready for this change.
And it's not Iraq and it's not Afghanistan.
I mean, the parallel with Iraq, though, I would say, is quite clear in that that was fought on what turned out to be an entirely false pretext, the Saddam Hussein have weapons of mass destruction.
And here, there is a belief put out by Prime Minister Netanyahu that Iran is imminently about to create a nuclear bomb, but nobody else outside of Israel.
He said that then too.
Yeah, but nobody else outside of Israel seems to agree.
I mean, Scott, this is the dilemma for Donald Trump, is that there is a part of his support that's dragging him into engaging in this war, but there's another.
Due diligence, come on, he's not that naive.
Well, the problem is that all those whose specific job it is to do that due diligence are saying that Iran is nowhere near it.
And that's what would stop me in my tracks if I was president of the United States.
It's like, am I going to believe the Israelis led by Netanyahu, who's been saying this for decades without actual evidence that it's about to create a bomb or not?
I don't think we know whether or not he was presented with evidence by Netanyahu.
I don't think Trump shows all of the reports to every single person in the United States or abroad.
I really have a very hard time believing that Nyahu called him, said, hey, bro, trust me, they have a nuclear weapon.
And Trump was like, yeah, let's get involved.
I think we know it's a little bit more.
That's exactly what happened given that Trump is ignoring what his own director of national intelligence said, which has been bolstered in recent days by leaks to CNN and the New York Times, in which all the, as Scott mentioned earlier, even the latest intelligence reports say the same thing.
And there was no convincing evidence provided by Israel.
This is basically the Iraq WMD hoax, wherein Dick Cheney got the intelligence.
He knew there was no Iraq WMD, so he ordered it to be fabricated, including through torture.
This is basically the Iraq WMB hoax, except this time Trump isn't bothering to fabricate.
He's just outsourcing the job to Israel.
Okay, Scott.
And like I said, this is a hell of a roll of a dice if Trump pulls the trigger on getting involved in this.
I mean, I do think it's going to be extraordinarily consequential.
Yeah.
Well, and look, he should not get involved at all.
And Israel should call it off right now, short of regime change.
The idea that, oh, and this reminds me of the funniest thing that Nancy May said in that interview was, oh, yeah, well, you know what?
We'll just kill the regime and then the people will rise up.
And, you know, they'll just figure it out.
It'll be fine.
This is exactly what I'll never forget Representative Bob Dornan in 2011 talking about how, yes, we should support Al-Qaeda to overthrow the government in Damascus, Syria, because, well, you know, we don't know who's going to replace them, but I'm sure someone will come to the fore.
he said.
And now who came to the fore?
First the Islamic State bin Ladenite Caliphate.
It was so bad that America had to launch Iraq War III to destroy it again, in alliance with Iran, by the way, providing them direct air cover as they took back to Crete.
But anyway, and then after that, now Al-Qaeda has broken out of the Idlib province, the al-Nusra front, and sacked Damascus last December and are the ruling regime.
They're now recognized by Donald Trump.
That's who came to the fore in Syria when America got rid of the secular Alawite dictatorship.
Iran is different.
Yes, it's much more sophisticated.
You mean their population is almost 100 million people and that there are Sunni Arabs and Shiite Persians and Azeris and Baluks and all kinds of different people that you've never heard of with all of their own factional differences, religious and sectarian differences and historical grudges who are sure to go to bloody civil war to take over.
You say, oh, there's foreigners waiting to come in.
It'll be just like before 79 when they were free.
You mean when they were under the American-backed sock puppet dictator, the Shah Reza Pahlavi, which is who they're talking about parachuting his son in now.
Maybe that's all Trump meant, Pierce, when he gave that speech in Qatar denouncing neoconservatism.
He said, forget democracy.
Maybe he just meant we're going to reinstall his Royal Majesty, His Highness, to be the iron-fisted monarch of Persia again.
Anyone listening to this who thinks that that is credible, that that's going to work, that any new regime America installs there is not going to immediately face a vast insurgency from the people of that vast and mountainous country are insane.
You need to get your head checked.
Every one of you people.
Let me give the final word to Rob O'Neill.
Rob, if you were able to speak to President Trump today as he mulls up what to do here, what would you advise him?
To go in?
Well, I would just advise him to definitely sit down with his close advisors and don't be so eager to start bombing anywhere.
We've already admitted that we're fueling their planes.
We've got refuelers all over the place.
But I mean, what Scott just said was pretty much right.
I agreed with most of it.
And the regime change doesn't work.
So you got to be really, really careful with, hey, the people will just rise up and we'll see what happens.
Because like Scott was just saying, there are so many groups over there.
You don't know who they are.
And sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don't.
It's again, so complex, a lot put out there, but not all wrong.
So no, I would say be very careful to include who you trust because there are people in the United States government and the Israeli government who really, really want war for different reasons other than just protecting the homeland.
We've heard it before.
Listen to your people.
Do your research and just take a pause.
I've always said, especially in gunfights, if you want to be fast, slow down.
Very sensible words to end on.
Thank you to my panel very much.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Be Careful Who You Trust 00:00:25
Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent.
The only boss around here is me.
If you enjoy our show, offer only one simple thing.
Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Piers Morgan Uncensored on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.
And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate, and entertain.
And we'll do it all for free.
independent on censored media has never been more critical and we couldn't do it Without you.
Export Selection