"EMBARRASSING To Trump" Israel Attacks Qatar + Russian Drones Sighted | With Jeffrey Sachs
Donald Trump has stood resolutely with Israel - but yesterday’s unprecedented attack on Qatar may have been a strike too far. The US president said the bombing of a residential compound in Doha where the Hamas negotiating team were meeting to discuss the latest US ceasefire proposal did “not advance Israel or America’s goals.” Meanwhile, his Alaska summit was supposed to break the deadlock on ending Putin’s war on Ukraine - but instead, Russian drones over Poland have sparked fears of an all-out war with NATO. Piers Morgan is joined by author, political scientist and Eurasia Group President, Ian Bremmer and professor of economics and global affairs expert, Jeffrey Sachs. Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent and supported by: Birch Gold: Visit https://birchgold.com/piers to get your free info kit on gold. Oxford Natural: To watch their full stories, scan the QR code on your screen or visit https://oxfordnatural.com/piers/ to get 70% off your first order when you use code PIERS. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Trump's Red Line on Gaza00:11:16
Isabelle Brown.
Isabel Brown.
Isabel Brown.
The wait is almost over.
She's joining Daily Wire Plus with the Isabel Brown Show.
Cannot wait for you guys to see how hard we've been working.
I could not be more excited for this new adventure.
You can expect larger-than-life guests, deeper questions to the nerds.
Meeting the President of the United States and the Vice President, and now meeting our new American pope.
This is crazy.
Let's jump in.
Join me every weekday for the Isabel Brown Show on Daily Wire Plus or wherever you get your podcasts.
Hamas getting hit in Qatar, that's a big deal.
And that is embarrassing to Trump.
And I would be surprised if Trump actually knew.
Israel is completely lawless.
It is committing a genocide before our eyes.
Israel is just a murderous rogue nation.
Here you have Putin telling you, no, no, no, I have the cards.
You can push Zelensky around in the White House, but on me, my friend, no, you can't.
When you ask Ian, how should it end?
I didn't hear an answer.
I heard we need to be tough, we need to be resolute, we need to be credible.
That's not an answer.
U.S. President Donald Trump has stood resolutely with Israel, even as most of its allies have rushed to distance themselves from an increasingly punitive war.
Yesterday's unprecedented attack on Qatar may have been a strike too far.
This was a decision made by Netanyahu, not a decision made by me, Trump said, before praising Qatar as a strong ally and friend.
The strike does not advance Israel or America's goals.
Well, Israel bombed a residential compound in Doha where the Hamas negotiating team were meeting to discuss the latest U.S. ceasefire proposal.
They say five of his members were killed, as well as a member of the Qatari security services, but the officials all survived.
Diplomacy, as we understood it, has been cut to ribbons.
And to that point, Trump's Alaska summit was supposed to break the deadlock on ending Putin's war on Ukraine.
Instead, Russian drones over Poland have sparked fears of an all-out war with NATO.
Well, later on the show, I'll be joined by global affairs expert Jeffrey Sachs.
But our first big take on this remarkable and dangerous moment is from author, political scientist, and Eurasia Group president Ian Bremer.
Ian, when I heard I had you as a guest today, I was so happy because I thought, well, I need somebody with a massive brain who understands all this, who can put it into proper context because it feels like a very precarious moment in both these wars.
Let's start with good to see you in person.
Well, good to see you.
It's nice to be actually here in the way.
Absolutely.
Whenever you're here, please come in.
Let's start with Israel.
When I heard that they had deliberately struck in Doha at a meeting, apparently, of the Hamas negotiating team, who were meeting to discuss the latest proposal from Donald Trump.
Which is the role that Qatar has been serving for quite some time.
And quite laudably, whatever's gone on in the past, they've had a lot of credit for being the sort of brokers here, the honest brokers, if you like.
What was your reaction when you first heard that they'd done this, Israel?
My first reaction was thinking that, wow, Qatar's been struck now by both Israel and by Iran within like a few months.
Who can say that?
That's quite something.
Second was reminding myself that President Trump had just a couple of days before warned Hamas: you know, ceasefire, take my terms that Israel says they've taken, or else you're not getting a second chance.
And okay, he does all caps all the time and he can be a bit histrionic when he posts, but it wasn't as if he's in any way concerned about Hamas getting hit.
Hamas getting hit in Qatar, which is a principal non-NATO ally of the United States, biggest U.S. base in the region, even a member of the Qatari Secret Services getting killed.
That's a big deal.
And that is embarrassing to Trump.
And I would be surprised if Trump actually knew about these strikes before.
I was at the state dinner in Doha a few months ago for Donald Trump.
The Emir of Qatar held this state dinner, big event.
Huge number of influential people from around the world flew in, many of the top business people in America and so on.
And the warmth and relationship between the Emir and President Trump was palpable.
They go back a long way.
They have great respect for each other.
And I think there's genuine anger, visceral anger from the Emir, I think, and the Qatar.
Of course, as they would be.
For understandable reasons.
But also, I think anger from Trump stroke frustration that all the diplomacy may have just gone up in smoke and that the goal of the attack seems to have failed.
In other words, the Hamas side is saying none of their leaders were killed.
I don't think he's that frustrated about the ceasefire going up in smoke because he's been increasingly angry that despite all the efforts by Witcoff and by others, that they just haven't been able to get to yes.
And he certainly blames Hamas for that much more than he blames the Israelis.
No question there.
But is he angry that the Israelis hit Qatar and that he finds out about it to apologize and not ask permission?
Yeah, yeah, I think that that irritated him, but I think that Netanyahu feels like he can get away with it.
And especially because we have seen the Israelis be able to strike with impunity against all sorts of Iranian proxies across the region.
Hezbollah, the Houthis, Iran itself.
The Yemeni civilian government, right?
I mean, of course, Assad himself has just fallen.
And Iran directly.
And Trump, of course, it was after the Israelis struck Iran that he said, wow, that went pretty well.
They didn't do anything in response.
I want to be a part of that.
So I do think that Trump has found Israel useful as a hammer in the region where the United States doesn't have to actually take the direct blowback.
I think that there is some of that as well.
I want to play a clip.
This is from Yalda Hakim at Sky News interviewing Naftali Bennett, the former Israeli prime minister, last night.
You've gone into sovereign territory, crossed the skies, and launched this strike on a sovereign state.
You know, when the U.S. went out and took out Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, they didn't notify Pakistan in advance.
That was also a sovereign country.
You have to do this in order to eradicate terror.
So what he said is technically correct.
What is the difference between the two scenarios?
Well, again, this is a group of political operatives that are engaged in negotiations at the behest of Qatar, which is an ally of the United States.
Qatar has served that role directly.
The United States has appreciated and asked them to do that engagement.
The U.S. is getting frustrated, and the U.S. is getting frustrated with the Palestinians more broadly, not just Hamas.
And the U.S. certainly considers Hamas to be terrorists directly, as they did do al-Qaeda and other organizations.
But hitting Qatar directly is a huge embarrassment to the United States.
Hitting Pakistan when they've been facilitating having bin Laden there and the United States had no idea that that was actually happening in Abodabad, that's a very different story.
So clearly, trying to make that as some kind of these are equivalencies, that is on its face just wrong.
Israel is barreling through Gaza City in particular, mass destruction, hundreds and hundreds of people being killed on a weekly basis still.
It's obviously utter hell for the innocent civilians caught up in this in Gaza.
They seem to be acting with some form of impunity, Israel, with no sign that anyone has an ability to reign the race.
Where does this take us?
The senior leaders I've spoken to in Israel say that Israel has shifted from deterrence to threat eradication and that they understand that that's hurting their brand.
They've had those conversations, they've seen the studies, but it's not in any way slowing them down.
In the case of Gaza, that means continuing with this war.
It also means creating conditions where Palestinians, increasingly large numbers of Palestinians, find it unlivable and leave.
Facilitated by the United States.
You'll remember when Trump met with the Jordanian king, pretty embarrassing meeting for the Jordanians.
The Egyptians chose not to participate in all of that, saying we're going to create a Riviera on the Med, and the Palestinians will all want to go voluntarily, which isn't true, but increasingly a lot of them, I think, will actually want to leave.
In the case of the West Bank, there is a new plan that has been floated that Prime Minister Netanyahu is in favor of, which is no more Palestinian Authority.
They view them as a terrorist organization.
The United States does not, right?
But they want no more PA.
They won't engage with them.
They don't want the West Bank.
They instead want to create an emirate, a series of emirates, the first of which would be with these sheikhs that they have engaged with that would recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and then they would also simultaneously join the Abraham Accords.
Now, if that happens, there would also be annexation by Israel of the remaining territory in the West Bank.
They'd also provide security for this enclave, these emirates, in Hebron to start and in other places.
I don't see any of this as remotely acceptable to the Arab world.
I don't see any of this as remotely acceptable to the Gulf states.
The other important thing that's happened recently, Pierce, and I'm sure you've seen this, is the United Arab Emirates, which has not only been a strong ally of the United States, but has also been one of the principal signatories of the top diplomatic achievement of Trump's first administration, the Abraham Accords.
And they have said that if annexation proceeds, if there is no longer a possibility of a two-state solution, which the Israelis now categorically reject, and Trump increasingly says he doesn't support it, then they will withdraw from the Abraham Accords.
That's a pretty significant articulation publicly of a red line that would directly undermine an achievement that Trump is very proud of.
U.S. national debt is more than $37 trillion, and these are uncertain times for the global economy.
It's enough to make you think maybe now would be a good time to buy some gold.
Whether it's a hedge against inflation, peace of mind during global instability, or just sensible diversification, Birch Gold Group believes that every American should own physical gold.
They created something special.
Until the 30th of September, if you're a first-time buyer, Birch Gold is offering a rebate of up to $10,000 in free metals on qualifying purchases.
Ethnic Cleansing in Israel00:08:20
To start the process, request a free information kit now.
Just text Piers, P-I-E-R-S, to 989-898.
Make right now your first time to buy gold and take advantage of a rebate of up to $10,000 when you buy before the end of September.
Text my name, Piers, to 989-898.
Tame your eligibility and get your free information back.
Again, just text peers to 989-898.
You also have at the same time the likes of Smodrich and Ben Gavir openly talking about ethnically cleansing Palestinians.
I mean, just getting all of them out of Gaza, for example, which to me would constitute a war crime, wouldn't it?
I mean, that is the purest personification of ethnic cleansing.
Yes.
And I mean, there's also been, there still is a significant debate about whether or not what's happening on the ground constitutes genocide.
What do you think of that?
The international court has not yet ruled, and as a consequence of that.
And no country has ever actually been found guilty of waging a genocide.
Even in Rwanda, it was determined that did not reach the bar of genocide, which I didn't know that actually until the whole genocide debate came.
I was stunned to hear that Rwanda wasn't a genocide.
But in that context, is it reasonable to frame what Israel is doing as a genocide?
I'm certainly comfortable with saying that ethnic cleansing is going on.
I'm certainly comfortable with saying that we have seen humanitarian abuses that reach the point of war crimes.
I will be much more comfortable when you actually have the ability to properly investigate on the ground in Gaza, which is not the case right now.
Do you think we're going to get a horrific wake-up call when journalists are finally allowed into Gaza to see the scale of it?
Well, I think we are.
I'm not sure that Israel is.
I think that after what happened on October 7th, that was such an incredible shock.
It was such that the magnitude of that terrorist attack against Israeli civilians, against women, against girls, against children, was so much greater than what we saw in my own city of New York on 9-11.
And then, of course, the continuing rockets and everyday all the sirens.
I think that what Israelis, the average Israelis, have gone through has helped to dehumanize the Palestinians in their eyes, has ended their support for a two-state solution, has ended their willingness to talk about the rights that the Palestinians have as equivalent human beings.
But does the scale of the response to October the 7th from Israel, does that scale of response inevitably mean that actually the security for Israelis and for Jews worldwide is actually less secure as a consequence of all this?
I would strongly say the latter is true.
I mean, when I think about how much in my own United States, younger people are now much more sympathetic to Palestinians as a cause than they are to Israel.
And that's not something I grew up with at all.
It's quite startling to me.
Even in New York City, my own New York, where such a large percentage of the Jewish population exists and very happily in New York, right?
It's very surprising to me.
So I do think that anti-Semitism, which had already been far greater than any of us want to ever see, is going to continue to spike significantly because of the response, the natural response to this incredible overreaction by a country that is far more powerful than anybody else militarily in the region.
Now, whether or not Israel itself will be less secure, I mean, Israel's a relatively small territory.
They have extraordinary intelligence capabilities.
They have extraordinary military capabilities.
They can respond with overwhelming force.
And they've shown that they're willing to do that consistently.
It's not clear to me, given surveillance, digital technology, given the ability to maintain Iron Dome and how much that tech is improving.
It's not clear to me that actual security for Israel on the ground.
We saw the terrorist attack in Jerusalem just a few days ago, you know, bus depot, I guess, and a number of people killed, dozens injured.
Yes, that happened.
It's horrible.
I'm not sure that security for Israel actually decreases.
And that is the impunity is part of the problem here.
Right?
And there are a number of leaders around the world, a number of governments around the world that increasingly feel impunity.
Netanyahu himself feels impunity, not just because he's now gone through and is stronger in his power in Israel than he was before October 7th, and certainly then right after October 7th, but also he's managed to avoid prosecution for his own crimes.
I mean, he has no vested interest in ending any of this military conflict.
That's right.
Because it's actually made him a bit more popular.
He has personal impunity.
And that danger is that that personal impunity is not in any way fully aligned with Israel's national security long term.
When we have individuals running countries that are no longer aligned with their own long-term national security of their country, we have a very serious problem.
And we see so much of this in the United States.
We see so much of this in Israel.
We see so much in Russia, in so many countries around the world where we just say, wait, these people aren't representing us.
Well, let's come to Russia.
So an extraordinary development again with 19 Russian drones entering Polish airspace.
Four of them were taken down.
You've got the Polish prime minister and a lot of Polish politicians talking about this in extremely serious language.
And by the way, most European leaders at this point are also doing so.
And saying that we're as near to another world war as we've been since World War II.
First of all, again, your reaction when you heard they'd done this.
We have seen a number of instances where Shahed missiles fired by Russia have gone through Polish airspace.
They've gone through, I think, Romanian airspace.
They have not been shot down.
And there were not 19 of them.
So you can't say this was an accident.
You can't say it was just going through airspace to get into Ukraine.
You have to say, no, no, no, this was an intentional order, and it was going to hit Polish targets, and that's why they were shot down.
So from my perspective, this is almost certainly a test.
In the same way that Russia launching far more drones in the past few months under the Trump administration than you had seen in the first three years of the war is also a test.
In the same way that going after Ukraine's top government building in Kiev, trying to hit it, trying to destroy it, is also a test.
They want to see how NATO is going to respond.
That was the first thing I thought.
And how should NATO respond?
I don't think it can just be with a strongly worded letter.
They can't do nothing, can they?
Well, they can, of course.
I mean, they could, but it seems to me that, you know, I posted on X Today that there's got to be a point where at some stage, given the brazen impunity that Netanyahu and Putin in different ways are behaving, that at some point President Trump, because it will fall on him, at some point he has to stand up, doesn't he, and do something?
Look, I appreciated you saying that.
I thought it was a very interesting frame.
It's very provocative, of course.
But I will say that I don't think Trump in any way sees these two as equivalent.
I think that his view on Israel is this is a trusted American ally that he's standing with and they might do things occasionally I don't like.
I do things occasionally they don't like, but ultimately we are in this completely.
So he doesn't feel like he needs to hit back against Israel in a real way, even though you may not feel that way, even though I may not feel that way.
But on Russia, he's gotten personally embarrassed.
And the question is, will he stand up?
Yes.
Because he's gotten embarrassed with China, but he hasn't stood up, right?
He put those tariffs on.
He's like, well, they're going to call me.
They're going to bend the knee.
They didn't call him.
They didn't bend the knee.
And in fact, they started strangling the Americans on critical minerals.
And what did Trump do?
He said, oh, my God, I got a problem.
I'm going to have to get back to them.
Europe Stands with America00:11:43
I'm going to have to be willing to take a step back and actually relieve them the export controls on semiconductors.
For me, the China analogy is more interesting than the Israel analogy.
Because here you have Putin telling you, no, no, no, I have the cards.
You can push Zelensky around in the White House.
You can suspend your intelligence support, your defense support on Ukraine.
But on me, my friend?
No, you can't.
And here's what I'm going to do to you.
And what we've seen from Trump so far, he met him in Anchorage, sure.
And he's talked a little bit about deadlines, two-week deadlines, 50-day deadlines, other two-week deadlines.
But you and I both know the Americans today have less credibility versus Putin than they did on Trump's inauguration day.
That is the reality.
And the Europeans have to be deeply concerned about that.
Today's show is brought to you by Oxford Natural, makers of the Optimum Day and Optimum Night, all natural supplements.
Thousands of Brits and Americans are already taking them with incredible results.
Optimum Day is designed to boost your energy and support weight loss throughout the day.
Optimum night helps you relax and get deep, refreshing sleep.
And don't just take their word for it.
Here are just a few of their success stories.
England football legend, Michael Owen, lost £40.
Robbie, the face of AFTV, dropped over £100.
Linda, a top laurel firm executive, lost £50.
And Danita, an immigration lawyer, shed £60.
To watch their full stories and find out more, scan the QR code on your screen or visit oxfordnatural.com slash peers.
And here's the best part.
Use the code PEIRS, P-I-E-R-S, and get 70% off your first order.
You're 70% off with the promo code PIES.
What can anyone do about Putin?
I mean, if he's now launched drones into a NATO country.
Yes.
This is an obvious, significant escalation.
It is.
Because it takes it into NATO territory in terms of NATO's response and so on.
But what can anyone actually do?
Because you know the fear.
The fear is, look, they've got 6,000 nuclear weapons.
Russia, they've got a despotic leader who regrets the breakup of the Soviet Union, probably quite like to see it all restored on his watch as the great new modern czar.
What can we do about Putin?
Well, a lot has been done, but the point is that a lot had been done by the Europeans and the Americans together.
A lot is increasingly being done by the Europeans, standing up much more than they were a year ago, which they should have done anyway.
Which they should have done from day one.
So if the Europeans had provided the support three years ago that they're providing today, and I include your government, I include the German government, absolutely, the French government, we might be in a different situation.
I mean, you know, helping the Ukrainians not lose is very different from trying to help the Ukrainians actually win, you know, beat the Russians back.
And it's not like we were saying from day one, oh, you, Ukraine, should be able to take over Moscow.
It's, no, you should kick the Russians out of territory they took illegally.
Very similar.
What was America's last significant successful war?
It was Kuwait, Iraq.
It was Bush Sr. Desert Storm.
Right.
30 days.
Because they went in and they illegally invaded a sovereign country and they beat them out and then they stopped.
They beat them out and they stopped.
And the war has gone on for too long for that.
It's too asymmetrical.
The Ukrainians are never going to get back all their territory.
We all know that.
But that doesn't mean that Putin should be able to continue to attack with impunity across all of Ukraine.
It certainly doesn't mean that he should be tolerated for these strikes that we just saw into Poland.
So what should we do?
Well, one is the United States, now that the Europeans are standing up and doing a lot more, the United States has to be fully on board.
The Europeans have to trust that now that they're taking a leadership role, that the Americans are reliable.
They have to be reliable.
Today, you asked Europeans, do you know if something were to happen in your country and you needed an Article 5 resolution, would the Americans come to your defense?
You're not sure.
That's not acceptable.
You have to be sure.
So the first, that level of trust has to be stronger today than it was even when NATO was founded.
The second point is that when Trump talks about a 20-day deadline, a 50-day deadline, whatever it is, there's got to be consequences.
The only thing he said in the last week has been, well, I think that with the Europeans, that you all should put 100% tariffs on the Chinese and on India.
He knows they're not going to do that.
He knows that's an incredibly tall order that the Americans wouldn't do themselves because of the costs.
It's not credible.
When your own president comes out that way, right, you know that this is not going to work.
And so look, I know you have Jeff Sachs coming on.
He's going to have completely different views on this, right?
But and that's, I understand his perspective.
But my concern is that ultimately what really matters to Americans and Europeans is not Ukraine.
What matters to Americans and Europeans is NATO.
It's the transatlantic alliance, and it's the credibility of our nations together to defend ourselves collectively.
And Putin sees weakness, especially when he goes to China and he meets with Xi Jinping and they're standing up there, World War II commemoration.
They don't talk about the role the Americans played, even though it's pretty significant.
The Europeans, the Brits played, even though it's pretty significant.
No, no, no.
It's all about, you know, sort of their close relationship and Putin feeling like this guy, who's, by the way, no slouch, is going to be there for a lot longer than Trump, and he's providing a lot of technology, and his country is investing an awful lot.
That's a better bet for me long term.
Putin cannot feel that NATO can be fragmented, that NATO can be split apart, that NATO will be less than resolute in defending what NATO is for.
Totally agree.
Ian Bremer, thank you very much.
Great to see you.
Always.
Anytime you're in town, come in.
Love to see you.
Thank you very much.
So could this be the moment that President Trump's patience with Netanyahu finally runs out?
And do Russian drones over NATO member Poland bring us as close to a deadly conflict as the Polish Prime Minister believes?
I'm joined now by Jeffrey Sachs, professor of economics and global affairs expert.
Jeffrey, great to have you back on Uncensored.
A lot to unpack.
I know you were listening there to Ian Bremer.
First of all, your reaction to what Ian was saying.
Let's start with Israel.
Well, with Israel, it's absolutely disastrous that the United States has been in the hands of the Israel lobby or the Zionist lobby for decades.
Israel is waging war all over the Middle East, destabilizing the entire region.
And the United States is saying, okay, okay, okay, okay.
Even President Trump said, as Israel is now in war in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, and I mean war.
It's on the ground fighting in Yemen, in now Qatar.
Donald Trump said yesterday, well, Prime Minister Netanyahu told me he's for peace.
That's good.
This is not good.
This is not serious.
This is extremely dangerous.
And every time we've talked, Israel has just escalated its mass murder, its war on its own population that it has in occupation.
And now it continues to expand the war, bombing Doha yesterday.
And Trump saying he didn't know.
I believe him.
He didn't know.
I'm sure the CIA knew, but they probably don't let Trump in on a lot of what's going on.
This is all absolutely dangerous, reckless, and a very sad commentary on what passes for U.S. foreign policy.
It's not U.S. foreign policy.
It's Israeli foreign policy.
I want to play you the same clip I played Ian, which is Yada Hakeem Vasgani is talking to Naftali Bennett, former Israeli prime minister.
Let's take a look.
You've gone into sovereign territory, crossed the skies, and launched this strike on a sovereign state.
You know, when the U.S. went out and took out Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, they didn't notify Pakistan in advance.
That was also a sovereign country.
You have to do this in order to eradicate terror.
So this has been the position of Israel from the start.
We were attacked in an appalling terror attack, which is obviously true on October the 7th.
And we were then wedded as a policy to eliminate Hamas.
And we will do that wherever Hamas is.
Their argument is the Hamas leadership have been based a lot of the time in Qatar, in Doha.
They got information clearly that they believed a number of the leaders were going to be in this particular building and they attacked it.
And what is the difference, they say, between that and what America did with Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad?
Well, I'll tell you some similarities, indeed.
The United States put Osama bin Laden on the CIA payroll in the 1980s.
And similarly, Bibi Netanyahu put Hamas on the payroll.
We all know that it was Netanyahu who went repeatedly to Qatar to tell Qatar, pay Hamas.
They were funding Hamas.
So yes, there's a lot of dissimilar duplicity.
But basically, Israel is completely lawless.
It is utterly a rogue nation.
It is committing a genocide before our eyes.
It is starving 2 million people.
Children are dying of starvation every day.
It is shooting people when they go to the food lines.
Israel is just a murderous rogue nation.
I have nothing else to say other than this is a country that is in brazen violation of every moral standard and every international law that we have right now.
So when Naftali Bennett speaks, yes, he talks about Israel's impunity.
And other Israeli leaders have said so in the last day.
We will go anywhere.
We will hunt anyone.
Nothing is beyond our reach.
Well, that is complete lawlessness.
And they're speaking the truth of their point of view, which is that they have complete impunity to commit murder anywhere that they want in the world.
I don't agree with that.
Negotiators Must Stop Escalation00:14:58
Hello and welcome.
We'll be giving some breaking news.
Woke is dead.
The war on common sense is officially over.
Canceled celebrities are emerging from Twitter jail.
Virtue signaling has been outlawed under punishment of mass ridicule.
And we are finally free to call a spade a spade.
So what was the cause of death?
How did the silenced majority finally win?
And what exactly is going to take its place?
Woke is dead is my definitive story on the rise and fall of woke, as well as the common sense heroes and PC villains who have dominated news and culture across 10 years of madness.
It's also my personal roadmap back to a less divided world.
A world where we can agree to disagree, where debate triumphs over censorship, and where common sense is king.
You will be shocked by how much you agree with me.
What do you think happens as a consequence of the strike in Doha?
It does seem a significant escalation.
The reaction from countries like the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and others show how seriously they're taking this.
Obviously, before October the 7th, there was a move to potentially bring the Saudis in to the Abraham Accords and so on.
Now you've got UAE saying that actually the way things are going, they might come out of the Abraham Accords.
There are going to be real-time consequences to this.
And I was saying to Ian, I was at the state dinner thrown by the Emir of Qatar for Donald Trump a few months ago, and their relationship looked extremely warm, very respectful.
And it came in the middle of a Middle Eastern tour by Trump that had been focused on the extraordinary amount of business that was coming from these Middle Eastern countries in deals with America, totaling several trillion dollars potentially over a few years.
Is all that up in smoke now?
I mean, where does this leave us?
If there is an attack by Israel into Doha in the way we saw that, and there's no consequence for it, where does that leave everything?
We should remember that the reason that the Hamas individuals were in Doha is that this was the group that was considering Donald Trump's negotiating position from yesterday.
This was a negotiating group.
Israel does not want negotiations.
Israel, every time that there are negotiations, tries to kill the negotiators.
I mean that literally, not figuratively.
It doesn't try to kill the negotiations.
It tries to kill the negotiators.
When the United States and Iran were negotiating over the status of Iran's nuclear program, they were entering the sixth round.
And if you looked at what the negotiators were saying on both sides, they were making progress.
That's precisely why Israel launched its so-called 12-day war on Iran to stop the negotiations.
This yesterday was an attack to kill the Hamas negotiators who have said several times that they want the permanent ceasefire that the United States has been pushing.
Israel wanted to kill them before they could say that.
Why?
Because Israel's vision of this particular government, though it has, unfortunately, to say wide backing in the Israeli public, is that Israel will control all of Palestine and it will either kill the Palestinians or it will ethnically cleanse them, expel them,
or they will live under complete Israeli domination and nothing is going to stop that.
No negotiations, no two-state solution, no state of Palestine.
This is obvious what they're doing.
They are literally killing negotiations by killing the negotiators anywhere, and they're claiming the right of murder at any time, any place.
Again, to my mind, this is a dangerous and rogue state.
And what country in the Gulf can feel safe?
if the United States is giving a blank check, financing and arming and diplomatically supporting any attack, whether it's in Lebanon, whether it's in Syria, it was against Iraq, whether it's in Yemen, now it's in Doha Qatar.
Of course, no one's safe.
If Israel is the one that decides everything by military means, diplomacy counts for nothing, and the U.S. will always back us up.
Why will the U.S. always back up Israel?
It's one of the biggest mysteries imaginable.
Is it Epstein files?
Is it APAC money?
Is it whatever misguided ideas?
Nobody understands this, honestly, because the last thing in the world is this is not in the U.S. interest.
Don't take it from me.
Donald Trump said so yesterday.
He said explicitly, this isn't in America's interest, and it isn't in America's interest.
Well, he actually.
But then he went along and then he apologized for Netanyahu.
Well, he added it wasn't in Israel's interest, but he said, but what is also in everyone's interest is to get rid of Hamas.
So it's a slightly mixed message.
If you're Netanyahu, you're like, well, hang on, one side he's condemning me.
On the other side, he's supporting my overall strategy here.
So I thought it was a mixed message.
But, you know, this idea that Donald Trump is angry, annoyed, whatever, does it make any real difference?
No.
This is a Mossad CIA lockup backed up by these other things that I talked about, massive gifts to politicians, campaign contributions, Epstein files.
Who knows what it all comes from?
But no, it doesn't make any difference.
This has been proved now for 50 years.
It doesn't make any difference.
Let's switch gears and talk about Russia and Ukraine and this extraordinary development where Russia appears to have deliberately fired 19 drones into Polish airspace, four of which were shot down by Polish and NATO forces.
What is your view of what's happened here in terms of the severity of this moment?
We don't know.
I don't know what's happened.
So I can't really speak about it in any definitive way, certainly.
If Russia comes out and says, yes, we did this deliberately, this is a warning and so forth, it's a horrendous escalation.
I don't know what the Russians have said about this yet.
I have not seen, actually.
So I don't know how to respond, but it is a sign of how extraordinarily dangerous this ongoing conflict is, something that I have felt every day for 11 years, by the way, because this war started in February 2014.
I mean, Russia's come out and said that it's groundless to suggest this was done deliberately, that the drones came from Ukraine and so on.
But every military expert I've seen and all the intelligence that's been put into public domain from Poland and their officials and so on all makes it pretty clear.
You can't have a mistake that's 19 drones coming in like that.
It had to have been a direct and deliberate order to do that.
And as Ian Bremer said, that maybe this constitutes a test by Russia of NATO's resolve.
In other words, what are you actually going to do about this?
Again, I don't think we know that right now, but I do think what needs to be done is for this war to end.
When you asked Ian, how should it end?
I didn't hear an answer.
I heard the U.S. should be on board.
Deadline should have consequences.
We should be resolute.
It was precisely no answer, zero answer.
It was interesting that he said under his breath, oh, well, Ukraine's never going to get back all the territories.
That was the closest he came to an answer.
But when you asked him his answer, he didn't have an answer.
He just said, we need to be tough.
We need to be resolute.
We need to be credible.
That's not an answer.
What do we need to do?
Well, we actually need to end the fighting.
And we know that the fighting is going to end on the basis of neutrality, because this is the whole causes belli.
This is the whole reason for this war.
And it's a reason that has been in conflict with Russia for more than 30 years.
Stop your enlargement to our border.
If we do that, then we get down to the territorial issues and we get down to Crimea and we get down to the Donbass.
And what Ian said that Ukraine's never going to get back all the territories, well, that was helpful realism.
So we need to make a settlement and stop this before it ends up in World War III.
This is not just a test of our credibility.
This is not a test of our resoluteness.
We should have thought about that 30 years ago when we started NATO enlargement to Ukraine, a crazy idea to begin with.
We should have thought about that when we helped to engineer a coup in Ukraine in February 2014.
We should have thought about that when we rejected the Minsk II agreements, even after signing and unanimous support in the UN Security Council.
We told Poroshenko, don't worry about it.
Nothing you have to actually implement.
Okay, maybe we should have thought about all of that.
Now we need to think about ending this before we all get blown up.
If it turns out that Russia, as many suspect, has done this deliberately as some kind of test of NATO, how would you expect NATO to respond?
I would expect serious, urgent negotiation and discussion between the United States and Russia, principally and real and urgent discussion.
If it happened that this was a deliberate sending of drones to Poland, it is inexcusable.
Clearly, it is dangerous.
It should never happen.
At the same time, this war should be ended and it should be ended not the way that Starmer and Mertz and Macron and almost all the political class in the United States is talking about, which is NATO and arming Ukraine to the teeth and all the rest.
And even the Secretary General of NATO, Mark Ruta, saying a couple of days ago, Russia has no say in whether Ukraine joins NATO.
Ukraine's a sovereign country.
Yes, that's been the position that got us into this war in the first place.
The idea that we can do what we want, including coups and then trying to put our missile systems and our militaries right up against Russia's border and that Russia has no say.
If we continue with that view, which Mark Ruta expressed, I think two days ago or three days ago, yes, we will succeed in proving the point and getting the whole world blown up.
Is that what we're trying to do?
Well, Donald, Donald Tusk has said, I have no reason to claim we're on the brink of war, but a line has been crossed and it's incomparably more dangerous than before.
The situation brings us the closest we've been to open conflict since World War II.
I mean, they're pretty chilling words.
They are.
And I agree.
It's important to understand what happened, which I don't right now because we haven't heard anything very clear about this.
But yes, this is very dangerous.
Whether it's the closest since World War II, I would guess that that one second in the disabled Soviet submarine when it was about to fire a nuclear tip torpedo in the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 was a mite closer.
But I think that the point is right.
This is extraordinarily dangerous.
There are warmongers everywhere.
Starmer, Mertz, Macron, insufferable warmongers, in my view.
They give no political solution.
All they talk about is all these words of resolve.
We stand with Ukraine.
And then the Ukrainian leader Zelensky, who operates by martial law, does not have the public backing, which overwhelmingly wants a negotiated solution, according to the latest Gallup survey, overwhelmingly.
He says, yeah, we fight on for everything and NATO, well, this irreconcilability and lack of any sane diplomacy truly can get us all killed.
It really can.
It's no joke.
You have to sit down and end this, not this complete escalation, followed by escalation, followed by another meeting where Starmer hugs Zelensky and we talk about how evil Putin is.
This is not getting us anywhere, honestly.
Professor Sachs, always good to have you on Oncensa, especially on a day like this.
Thank you very much.
It's always great to be with you.
Thank you.
Well, my thanks to both Ian Bremer and Jeffrey Sachs.
Piers Morgan Calls for Peace00:00:35
We did, of course, invite a whole host of Israeli officials to defend the attack on Doha here on Arcensa.
But unusually, we couldn't find anyone who would do it.
Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent.
The only boss around here is me.
You enjoy our show and 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 censor media has never been more critical and we couldn't do it Without you.