President Trump extends the Iran ceasefire despite Hormuz attacks, facing pressure to secure uranium removal without ground troops while fearing a Vietnam-style quagmire. Simultaneously, Valentina Gomez is banned from the UK following anti-Semitic outbursts where she claimed Muslims are a national security threat and preferred one dog over 100 million people. While Sami Hamdi counters her Islamophobic rhetoric with statistics on crime demographics, Piers Morgan condemns her as a bigot hating two billion people. Ultimately, the episode highlights deepening global instability driven by nuclear brinkmanship and rising domestic intolerance. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Diplomatic Phase and Sanctions Relief00:11:55
In real ways, you and me and millions of people like us are the reason this is happening right now.
We'll be tormented by it for a long time.
I will be.
I think the one thing I'm learning in this job and in this world is really not to put faith in people.
I think that when someone says that they were wrong about anything, we should normalize providing positive reinforcement for that.
Good morning, Pierce.
So good to see you again.
Where are your manners, Pierce?
You're supposed to introduce me correctly.
As what?
You don't have any cards, Donald Trump famously told President Zelensky.
You're not in a good position.
Well, now it's the U.S. president who appears to have folded.
Trump last night extended the Iran ceasefire indefinitely.
The bombing will stop, quote, until such time as the Iranians have agreed on their proposal.
And to be clear, anybody who's against this war or any war should be glad about that.
The problem for the president is that he has very little to show for the lost lives and the $60 billion impact on the U.S. economy.
Iran attacked three ships in the Hormuz Strait today.
The U.S. blockade of Iranian ships continues.
And what all of this means in practice is that gas prices are at the highest point in years and inflation is now higher than before Trump returned to office.
His approval rating is inevitably heading in the wrong direction.
And yesterday, with the clock ticking on the first ceasefire, Trump raised the stakes.
You're saying that you need at least the prospects for a signed deal today and tomorrow, or else you would resume bombing Iran.
Well, I expect to be bombing.
Because I think that's a better attitude to go in with.
But we're ready to go.
It looks a lot like Iran called Trump's bluff.
We can argue about the justification for war and about what, if anything, has been achieved.
But the fact is, the president's position is weakened by the fact he clearly wants out of this.
He's betting that Iran won't be able to suffer the prolonged financial pain of a U.S. blockade.
They're betting that they can tough it out for longer than a president who needs an off ramp.
And as long as they can turn off a fifth of the world's oil supply like a bathroom tap, they're probably right.
Iran said today that the ceasefire means nothing and is probably the pretext for a surprise attack.
The most chilling fact is that they don't seem to care if it is.
Iran's leaders are clearly prepared for their country to take a beating, they're clearly in no danger of being removed, and they clearly don't care much about the lives of their own people.
In Trump terms, that means they're holding quite a lot of cards.
If you plan for the worst, if you can live with the worst, the good will always take care of itself, a wise man once said.
That man was Donald Trump in The Art of the Deal.
Well, first up, I'm joined by Republican Senator for Kentucky, Rand Paul.
Senator Paul, welcome back to Unsensitive.
Thanks for having me.
I really can't get my head around what is happening with this war now because of all the conflicting incendiary rhetoric on all sides and the kind of reality check we're seeing with our own eyes.
What do you think is happening and how does this now play out?
Well, you know, I think it's a war of choice.
So, a war of choice, I'd like to end as quickly as possible.
I'd like to get our soldiers out of harm's way.
I'd like to remove the onerous changes that have come to our economy because of this war.
And so the sooner the better for me.
But I think it's important to know that if you want to stop a war, it's important to know how your enemy reacts.
So, for example, we have completely defeated them in every military aspect of a war.
They have no control of the air, no control of the seas.
And really, we can do as we wish with our bombing campaign.
But people have to look back in history and see well, what will people do in that kind of situation?
And I think one useful historical example to look back is at Japan.
Towards the end of World War II, you know, we had 400,000 soldiers die.
We weren't going to quit quickly.
We decided to drop two atomic weapons.
We dropped one in Hiroshima, three or four days later on Nagasaki.
Hundreds of thousands of people died.
But when the imperial cabinet came together, most of them still wanted to continue the war.
Finally, the emperor spoke up, and it was unusual for the emperor to speak.
And the emperor spoke first without anyone asking a question and said, enough's enough.
We're going to stop the war.
But even in that utter defeat, there were people who wanted to fight on.
So, I think it's not really out of the question that the Iranians, even though they're utterly defeated, would fight on.
So, when you come to a diplomatic solution, you can continue to berate your enemy.
You continue to belittle them.
You can offer that you will obliterate their civilization or destroy their religion or mock their religion.
But that's not a good way to actually get them to come to a diplomatic end of the war.
And it's unlikely it'll be an unconditional surrender like the Japanese did after two atomic weapons.
I think unconditional surrender is really off the table.
But if there's stuff we still want, which would actually be good, like let's say they gave up their enriched uranium, that'd be a good result to a negotiation.
But they're probably not going to do that just because of the military defeat.
They're probably going to want something in return.
So then you get to an actual negotiation.
They're going to want some of their money freed up that's been frozen by the banking system.
They may want relief of sanctions.
And I'm actually a big believer that you should trade relief of sanctions for better behavior.
Sanctions don't tend to work when you put them on a country.
We have hundreds of sanctions on China and there's no effect.
Hundreds of sanctions on Russia no effect.
But I do believe in removing them and trading removal for a, an action that you want, that you actually can get benefit from removing sanctions.
So i'm for real negotiations, i'm for removing sanctions if you get verifiable changes.
Removal of the um enriched uranium should be worth a lot really to opening trade, to opening trade with Iran, if they would actually agree to export or have uh, some sort of third neutral country take it um, but I the.
The bottom line is i'd just like to see meaningful negotiations and I'd like to see an end to the war as soon as possible.
The question of the enriched uranium seems pretty crucial to all this because for Donald Trump to have any kind of off ramp now, which looks like a victory, he would have to persuade the American people that his now declared main mission, which was to stop Iran developing a nuclear weapon, had been achieved.
The only way to, I think, do that convincingly is to actually have the enriched uranium handed over or destroyed and to be provably destroyed.
I'm not sure there's any real incentive to do that.
And they can now use the Strait of Hormuz and, of course, their highly effective attacks on their Gulf state neighbors.
They can do that anytime they'd like to put more pressure back on Donald Trump, who is facing already a lot of economic and political pressure himself the longer this goes on.
So I just don't understand how that happens, how the enriched uranium gets.
I don't think they're going to surrender it.
And how does America or the Israelis as well get their hands on it without committing.
Huge numbers of ground forces, I don't think, has any political appetite for that in America, given the way the polling is right now.
You know, it becomes harder to declare victory if they retain the enriched uranium and the regime stays in power.
And, you know, last year, the Trump administration declared victory.
They said we had obliterated their nuclear potential.
And now they're saying, oh, no, no, they're still only one week away.
So I think they're going to have to achieve something through the negotiations, either removal of the enriched uranium.
Because really, this deal will also be made and this deal will have critics.
Even further to the right, those who really are in the perpetual war camp will say, well, you're negotiating with people who are unreliable.
How are you going to verify this?
How are you going to trust but verify and make sure the agreement is adhered to.
So it isn't as simple as people make it out to be.
You have to have inspectors on the ground, you have to bring back the international atomic inspectors.
So there's a lot that has to go on, but all I can say is my hope still is for peace.
My hope is for a resolution to this.
Uh, for for many, many reasons, But it's not an easy way to do it.
But I can say that any members of the administration that are using apocalyptic religious terms to describe the war are making a big mistake.
I mean, a country of 90 million people who are almost entirely Islamic faith to mock Allah or to talk about Old Testament ways we're going to smite our enemy or made up pulp fiction passages are probably not good ways once you get to the talking phase.
And we are in the talking phase.
And we will always be able to win the military phase.
We won the military phase.
We can continue to win.
But really, short of ground troops, you're going to have to negotiate.
And it means understanding your enemy, accepting exactly who they are, but also understanding that some people believe that the people now in charge are actually more radical than the people that were killed.
Yeah, I mean, you know, you've got the supreme leader's son is now the new supreme leader.
Clearly, he's been wounded, so we haven't seen him.
But given he lost half his family in the initial strikes, it's hard to believe he wouldn't be more hardline and radical than perhaps even his father was.
And the IRGC appears to still have a very tight grip on the country because we've seen no uprisings whatsoever from the Iranian people.
Partly, of course, they don't want to get bombed, but also there seems to be no belief on their part at the moment that such an uprising would.
Would lead to anything other than mass deaths, as we saw back in January when they protested.
You know, if you were advising President Trump right now, I get the sense, looking at him and the conflicting positions he's taking, that he's desperate to try and get out of this, but in a way that looks like he can claim a victory.
What is the best way for him to do that, do you think, quickly?
You know, I think when you're leading up to a war, expressing how much we can do in damage is potentially a deterrent or an. inducement to negotiate.
Once we've already shown that we can damage and the damage has already occurred, I don't know that reminding them is doing much because see, we've won the military phase.
Now from the diplomatic phase, the diplomatic phase is about sitting face to face with your enemy or adversary and actually understanding that at home they will have to save face.
And so if you and I are negotiating, I don't start out by saying you're ugly and your tie is terrible and your studio is bad.
I would probably start out with a compliment before I tried to ask you for something.
And that's the way negotiations work.
It has to be on a more, I can't complain about your tie.
You don't have a tie on.
But it would have to be more of a conciliatory sort of conversation.
And that's where we should be.
And that doesn't involve words like ending the civilization, obliterating a people, bombing you back into the Stone Age.
We kind of already have done that.
We've shown we have the might to do it.
I don't think we have to brag about it anymore.
At this point, we're in the diplomatic phase.
And that really involves understanding that the leadership who's going to negotiate with you. Potentially has problems at home if they look too weak in the negotiations.
We want something out of it.
What is the main thing we want?
It seems to me that the main victory of the diplomatic part of this war would be the removal of the highly enriched uranium.
If you had that, a promise not to enrich, and then some sort of regime that is an international regime that is periodically in Iran to check for enrichment, I think those would be big victories.
But Iran's probably not giving that up unless they get something in return, either relief of sanctions that allows them.
Let's sell their oil.
Senator Rand Paul.
Constitutional Rights and Conscience00:07:48
I'm sorry, I didn't trust you there.
I just want to thank you very much indeed for coming back on to Uncensored.
I appreciate it.
No problem.
Well, we'll debate all this with my panel in a moment, but let's hear now from the Republican Congresswoman for Colorado, Lauren Boba.
Welcome back, Congresswoman.
How are you?
I'm doing great, Pierce.
I feel bad for bumping Senator Rand Paul.
I'm sure he has a lot more intelligent things that your audience would like to hear, but we have some fights here in the House as well.
Well, all voices are welcome, as you know, on Uncensored.
I wanted to start this interview with you by playing an apology from Tucker Carlson.
Let's take a listen.
So, looking back, being because I mean, you and I and everyone else who supported him, you wrote speeches for him, I campaigned for him.
I mean, we're implicated in this for sure.
Yes.
It's not enough to say, well, I changed my mind or like, oh, this is bad, I'm out.
It's like in very small ways, but in real ways, you and me and millions of people like us are the reason this is happening right now.
Yes.
So, I do think it's like a moment to wrestle with our own consciences.
You know, we'll be tormented by it for a long time.
I will be.
Now, Congresswoman, on April 24th, 2023, you posted on X, wherever Tucker Carlson goes, America will follow.
Thank you for being one of the greatest and most powerful voices in the conservative movement.
Can't wait to see what's next.
Did you anticipate that what would come next would be a very long apology for supporting Donald Trump?
I think the one thing I'm learning in this job and in this world is really not to put faith in people and not to be so definitive on opinions of people because they change all the time.
People's opinions have certainly changed on me.
My opinions have changed on you, Pierce.
I think you're wonderful.
But, you know, I understand.
Yes.
I understand what Tucker Carlson is feeling and saying, and those are his beliefs.
He has a sense of betrayal by the president personally from the attacks that have come out, from the rhetoric that has been said.
And he's not alone there.
There have been many others in that list, and even a member of Congress who resigned because of the words that he said.
But I do not regret my vote for President Trump.
I do not believe we would have an America to defend if Kamala Harris would have won.
Endless world wars throughout the world, and I don't think that we would even be winning them.
And we certainly wouldn't have the victories at home.
I don't like getting involved in the Middle East talks.
President Trump has, you know, he has a track record of using our military wisely and not getting bogged down in forever wars.
And I do believe that he has an intent to solve this.
And just look at his first term.
But that said, I feel like, you know, this is already dragging on, and I want to focus on the issues here at home.
That includes just not going after these topics of who is mad at who and who hurt whose feelings.
I mean, I could have reasons to have my feelings hurt every single day, even by my own remarks and my own self.
But I stepped up to lead and to solve problems for Colorado and the rest of our country.
And that's what I'm going to continue to be focused on.
Right.
I mean, it seems to me what's very interesting about the split in the conservative right in America is that many on the conservative right do feel let down that President Trump, having campaigned so vociferously that he would not take America into these pointless, expensive wars, particularly in the Middle East, then takes America into the biggest potential war in the Middle East, which is with Iran, you know, a country of 90 million people.
And people are scratching their heads going, how does that square with America first?
And when you see that, The polling shows that most Americans don't agree with this war.
One in four Republicans don't agree with this war.
Most Americans would like the president to get on with focusing, as you've just said, on domestic issues.
They're scratching their heads going, why did he do this?
And it looks to me, I may be proven wrong, I hope I am, but it looks to me like the president wants to get out of this now, but can't see an easy way to do that that doesn't look like pulling out and surrendering.
Yes, well, if anyone has listened to President Trump's remarks from decades ago, even, he has always said that.
Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and that he would do anything in his power to prevent that.
And so it's no surprise that he is taking this action against Iran to ensure that they do not have a nuclear weapon.
But also, I do understand, I mean, he is the leader of the free world and really he is a world leader.
So there are other issues that come up.
Just look at Congress.
I don't want to be battling and exposing creeps and pedophiles as my job.
That's That's not exactly what I signed up and stepped up to do.
I said that I was going to deliver water and infrastructure projects for Colorado.
I was going to secure your constitutional rights.
I was going to empower parents to raise their own children.
And here I am dealing with scumbags in Washington, D.C., and forcing expulsions and forcing resignations and threatening expulsions.
And that's really part of the job, but it's not why I'm here.
So, there are definitely things that come up that aren't a total campaign focus.
But as long as we have a good outcome and good governance in between, I think that we could come out of this victoriously.
And I would put a lot of pressure on the House of Representatives to do our job.
We have FISA coming up.
I want to protect Fourth Amendment rights here to prevent your government, our government, from illegally spying on you.
And so that's another one of my focuses here.
And every day, you're just juggling many things and many policy issues and topics.
And hoping to get the best outcome on all of them.
You said that you think Congress has a sex problem.
Let's take a look at what you said.
Go to church, find Jesus.
Like, I mean, why is everybody so horny here?
You missed the best part, Pierce.
What was the best part?
Well, they were asking, what is the resolve here?
How do we prevent this activity from going on?
I said, well, I think we have a moral decay.
People need to go to church and find Jesus.
I'm just giving advice from someone who knows well you can make mistakes and have redemption.
Jesus saves.
But even it seriously feels like there is an atmosphere where people here feel empowered to be predators of some sort.
And it's unacceptable, unexcusable.
Anyone who holds this office and this title should not be engaged in behavior like that.
It's very shameful.
You know, I'm embarrassed already that we aren't passing enough of President Trump's agendas, codifying his executive orders that he has signed.
And instead, we're having to, like I said, clean house and take out the trash within our own ranks, both Republican and Democrat alike.
Dave Chappelle Reacts to Spat00:02:00
Yeah, and you're referring, of course, to Eric Swalwell, the Democrat from California, Tony Gonzalez, a Republican from Texas.
Before I let you go, you've also had a little spat online with Dave Chappelle, arguably America's greatest comedian.
This came after you did a selfie with him and fellow Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna, captioned, well, you captioned it, just three people who understand there's only two genders.
Now, he reacted by saying, I didn't want to say no in front of everybody, but I didn't know the phrase I respectfully declined.
So I just took the picture.
And then she posted the picture before I could even get from there to the show, just instantly like weaponized or politicized.
So I got to the arena and I lit her ass up for doing that.
And she should never do that to a person like me.
To which you responded, Oh, I mean, come on, you're a comedian.
Be a little tougher, right?
No, I thoroughly enjoyed this little spat.
But, you know, what did you think of Dave Chappelle reacting so furiously to what she said?
Because actually, on the issue of transgender women in, say, women's sport, for example, I think you are aligned, the three of you.
Yes, I was stating facts.
And, you know, for Dave Chappelle to go on NPR and have a counseling session and say that he lit my ass up on stage, well, it didn't even make the cut in his special.
So I guess it wasn't that good because someone cut it from the set entirely.
I had actually heard about it.
This was years ago.
And a reporter had actually said his lines word for word.
And yeah, it's a photo.
I was stating facts.
It was something that was very relevant and a topic that he brought up.
In that special.
So, I mean, for him to go and cry that, you know, five foot zero, 100 pound Lauren Bober intimidated him into taking a selfie with another member of Congress.
And he, you know, wasn't strong enough to say no or decline.
Extreme Options in Conflict00:15:29
I don't know.
You know, Dave Chappelle, I mean, he's been a part of my childhood.
He's hilarious.
I love his skit comedy.
You know, he had Eddie Murphy's brother on, and it was like, I mean, it's just such a great show.
All of his skits, most of Most of his specials.
I have absolutely rolled hilariously throughout all of it.
And it's always sad when someone that has been a part of your life in some meaningful way disappoints you.
But that kind of ties it back to how we started.
Don't put your trust in people, put your trust in Jesus, because people will always let you down.
Very wise advice.
Lauren Boga, thank you very much indeed for joining me again.
Thanks, Pierce.
Well, let me turn now to my high powered panel.
Joining me are Anna Kasparian, the executive producer and host at the Young Turks, Clay Travis, founder of Outkick, Josh Rogan, the lead global security analyst at Washington Post Intelligence, and Tom Sauer, he's the former US Navy commander and mine specialist.
Well, welcome to all of you.
Anna Kasparian, let me start with you.
Tucker Carlson's apology for supporting Donald Trump aligned to his bitter disappointment about the Iran war.
What did you make of that?
Are you now with Tucker Carlson politically, do you think?
I wouldn't say I'm with anyone politically.
I think people are complicated and they hold various positions, some of which I agree with, others I disagree with.
In regard to Trump's take on the war with Iran, his commentary in regard to the detrimental impact of the U.S. alliance with Israel, I wholeheartedly agree with him.
I've been agreeing with him.
And I think that when someone says that they were wrong about anything, whether it's a political candidate or particular political issue, When they admit that they were wrong and they apologize for it, we should normalize providing positive reinforcement for that.
We should create the kind of culture that rewards people who are willing to admit they were wrong.
Clay Travis, welcome back to Uncensored.
It was good to see you.
Polymarket on the U.S. and Iran permanent peace deal.
Reckon there'll be one by April the 30th, 20% likelihood of it being done by April the 30th.
I've got to say, I find this highly unlikely.
I mean, I look at this.
Current quagmire, I'm really struggling to see how Donald Trump extricates himself quickly in a way that gives him any kind of convincing victory lap.
And I just sense that his constant changing of rhetoric and positioning and so on indicates that he is really wrestling with how to do this in a way that works.
How are you feeling about it?
I mean, are you comfortable with the way this is all playing out?
First of all, thanks for having me back on.
And I think we can see a pathway to success here, but it requires that Iran get something and that the United States get something, as all negotiations require.
And so, what I would say the United States most wants is the so called nuclear dust from Iran in some way in our possession, removed from that country, and the Strait of Hormuz fully ending the blockade and also ending any threats to ships there.
I would say that's the two things the U.S. is most focused on right now.
I would say the two things that Iran needs is they want their money.
Unfrozen, the assets there.
They want the ability to get that removed.
And I think they also want, in some way, the political power that exists now to be recognized as a group that is worthy of negotiation with.
And I think the biggest hang up right now, based on everything that I'm hearing, is there is an internal discord between the negotiators and the IRGC over who actually is in control in Iran.
And remember, we still haven't seen.
At all in any way, even audio, certainly not video of the Ayatollah who has been elevated, the son of the killed Ayatollah.
So I think the challenge is here who are you negotiating with and who has authority to enter into any sort of deal with Iran?
But to me, that seems like a framework where Iran would get two things, the United States would get two things, and we could go back and see how well the relationship is going to play out here.
I would say Venezuela is a good model, Pierce.
We hear nothing at all about Venezuela right now.
It seems the country.
Has stabilized.
Delcy Rodriguez, in many ways, is working with the United States.
I think what the Trump administration is looking for is who are the leaders of Iran and can we trust and negotiate with them?
That is the biggest challenge to getting peace right now.
Josh Rogan, welcome back to you as well.
You shared an ex post yesterday from an Iranian national security analyst that said Trump's ceasefire extension means nothing.
The losing side cannot dictate terms.
The continuation of the siege is no different from bombardment and must be met with a military response.
Moreover, Trump's ceasefire extension is certainly a ploy to buy more time for a surprise strike.
The time for Iran to take the initiative has come.
Now, that may be just more bellicose rhetoric, but it seems to me, as it has done from the moment they shut the Strait of Hormuz, that we've been witnessing.
A very asymmetric war here.
There's been a military war of a conventional kind, which America and Israel have been pretty successful at so far.
But there's also been a war over a waterway, which has been highly effective for the Iranians in causing enormous economic and therefore political damage to America, I think, in particular.
And of course, there's been the constant attacks on the neighboring Gulf states, which have caused them enormous difficulties, which have presented a big, big blow.
To their future business model, which has been developed in the last few years of moving from oil to tourism and selling sun and safety in particular, and having entertainment and sport and so on.
That's all been put on hold.
And what you're seeing, a lot of people leaving because of what's happened.
So there's been a lot going on here.
One's been a conventional military war, and one has been a war over the Strait of Hormuz.
The problem, it seems to me, for Donald Trump is that he doesn't quite know what to do about either of those things.
I mean, if they were to now attack again, In Iran and attack, for argument's sake, oil refineries or desalination plants or whatever.
Well, the Iranians have made it crystal clear they would do exactly the same thing immediately to their neighboring Gulf states.
And that could be, in some instances, extremely damaging, particularly the desalination plants.
So, where do you think we are with this, and how does this play out?
Right.
Piers, I agree with your framing, except for one small detail.
It's all the same war.
The Strait of Hormuz, the attack on our Gulf allies by the Iranians, the conventional attacks by the U.S. and Israel on Iran, it's all the same conflict.
They're just different tools being used by different actors in that same conflict.
And of course, they're all related.
And now we're almost two months into this thing.
And what do we know for sure?
Well, we know a couple of things.
We know that the Trump administration's theory of the case, which is that this would be a short war, regime change, a Venezuela type.
You know, agreement with whoever was left standing was wrong.
They had, for whatever reason, either they were misled or misled themselves, got into this with completely wrong expectations about how the Iranians would react, what their capabilities would be.
And the way that we know this is because President Trump says it all the time.
He's admitted on several occasions.
He was shocked that the Iranians would close the street, he was shocked that they would attack our Gulf allies.
Now, one could say that if he hadn't taken all of the people in the U.S. government with any expertise in Iran or negotiations out of the loop, That he might have been more aware of that, but that's a separate story.
But to get to your question directly, where we are is nowhere.
We're at a stalemate.
And by highlighting what the Iranians are saying and what the Trump people are saying, you can see that there's a huge gap there.
And the reason that there's a gap is because both sides right now believe that they have the advantage.
And they've got a blockade, and we're blockading their blockade for some reason.
And they both have incentives to not return to major combat operations, but they also both have incentives to keep this thing going on and see if their leverage can increase.
And the The sort of day to day craziness of the Trump truth social posts, where he's threatening to wipe out a civilization one day and then threatening to destroy all the power plants, which, by the way, would be a war crime, and another post, and then saying everything's great.
And the market manipulations.
I mean, you're quoting Polly Market.
I mean, the corruption in the Polly Market, not to mention the futures market, is unprecedented.
And in that kind of a crazy situation, a delicate agreement with the Iranians over serious issues that require a lot of nuance and a lot of hard negotiating.
Basically impossible, both because of the chaos on their side, which is real, and the chaos on the U.S. side, which is real and obvious.
So that's a really bad situation.
And any country you go to, any diplomat you talk to in any part of the world will tell you the same thing that the entire world is suffering because of the craziness of the Trump team and the intransigence of the Iranians.
It's not that one is blamed or the other is blamed.
They both have a responsibility for getting into this mess, and nobody has a plan for getting out.
So I think this is going to be, at best, a medium boil conflict.
For the foreseeable future, well into the summer, and at worst, to return to major combat operations that will cost American and Iranian lives, especially.
May I buttress his point?
Because I do want to add something to what he said.
And I agree entirely with your analysis here.
There's a story out today in the Financial Times, the FT, where they go in depth into the 34 Iranian vessels.
It's part of their so called shadow fleet that were able to circumvent the U.S. blockade on Iranian vessels.
And as an American, of course, you're supposed to be on the American side and you're supposed to be rooting for what America is doing.
But it's incredibly hard to do that when you see how much of an economic struggle this is.
Imposing on countries all around the world.
You know, in the very beginning of this war, Trump actually lifted sanctions on Iranian oil because he wanted to ensure that the supply of oil wasn't going to be as limited as predicted.
And then when he saw that they were unwilling to play ball with the Strait of Hormuz, Trump decided to kind of have a bit of a tantrum and engage in this U.S. blockade of Iranian vessels.
But Iran is able to circumvent, I guess, to some extent.
And that is a good thing because we do need more supply on the global market in order to try to keep.
You know, gas prices down to some extent.
But Lufthansa, one of these major European airline companies, just announced that they have canceled, just completely canceled, tens of thousands of flights in order to reserve fuel.
They're running out of jet fuel.
So this is, the longer this goes on, the worse this is going to be.
Yeah, that's my sense.
Tom Sauer, you're more bullish, I think, about the war from an American perspective.
Explain why.
Yeah, I think everyone else on the panel here, point well taken.
I understand, like, there's some real concern there.
But I think it's important to step back, is to take a look at the fact that why are we here in the first place where we are?
And that is to prevent Iran from obtaining or building nuclear weapons.
Now, and also, I fully understand the argument that we've been told for the past 10 years that Iran is two weeks away from having a nuclear weapon, right?
I get that.
For what it's worth, though, is that obviously I would assume that the national security apparatus, folks at Pentagon, White House, and whatnot, many of whom I'm personal friends with, obviously they can't share information with me that they're not allowed to share.
But I'm going to go on the assumption that they have more information than I do.
Now, whether that means they're actually close to getting enriched uranium or whether that means more importantly, that they're building up their conventional defenses to such a point that we would have exceptionally more difficulty.
In eliminating a nuclear threat from them, if we continue to let them build up those conventional defenses, right?
So, I guess what it comes down to is imagine if we did have an Iran with a nuclear capability, just a warhead, but also miniaturized to the point where it could be mounted on a missile, right?
And keep in mind, consider this like North Korea has nuclear weapons.
We allowed them to do that.
That was probably a mistake on our part.
And because of that, nobody messes with them, right?
They usually like to be left alone.
They're very smart.
As much as everyone loves to talk about how terrible and dumb and crazy the North Koreans are, they're real smart, but they act more like a crime family, right?
So, and then let's take a look at another country that had a WMD program, Libya, right?
And then, you know, about a decade or so ago, Gaddafi decided to willingly. give up his nuclear program.
And what, how did that work out for him?
Yeah, he got sodomized on the hood of a pickup truck with a bayonet.
That's what happened to him.
So what did he, so, so what is the lesson that we have taught a lot of these other countries is the best thing you can do to ensure your security and survival is to have nuclear weapons.
So they've made that an existential objective for them.
And we are, and now imagine if you did have a nuclear armed Iran that was able to harass, Other people in the neighborhood that was able to control shipping within it, in and out of the Strait of Hormuz.
And it really makes it very difficult to take military action against them, especially when they have openly said again and again that they would like to use those nuclear weapons.
Okay, but so, yeah, but Tom, Tom, let me ask you a question.
Tom, let me ask you a question.
If the key thing is removing their ability to build a nuclear weapon, we know they've got enriched uranium to over 60%.
We know it's buried away.
No one's quite sure where it is.
And we know at the moment it remains buried away.
How does America get its hands on that enriched uranium?
Because it seems to me if it doesn't and doesn't provably remove it and destroy it, then the Iranians are still where they were when the war started.
They've still got exactly the same capability they had six weeks ago.
So how do we get that without a ground force invasion?
Without a ground force invasion, well, I'd say with great difficulty.
And here's something.
Saying too much is one thing I do know, and you can probably find this open source.
Actually, I know you can, is that there are parts of the military that have been working this problem, this very problem, for a very long time, well funded with a lot of technology, specifically what we call sub T, subterranean, and specifically working the problem set of what would we have to do in order to access subterranean facilities in Iran or North Korea.
So, without saying too much, there's something that I was involved in.
There are two things that I spent a lot of time in the military and was.
Mine countermeasures, sea mines as a Navy EOD officer, and also weapons of mass destruction.
So I do have a little bit of knowledge.
Unfortunately, there's not a whole lot I can say.
Nuclear Agreement and Sovereignty00:10:40
I think I can say, but I would not be surprised.
And this might be an extreme option.
And again, I have no special knowledge of plans of the administration.
But I think that possibly us conducting a very heavy prolonged raid to get that might be on the table of us.
I know it sounds crazy.
I'm not talking about an occupation or something like that.
Yeah, it does, but that might not be.
Okay, hang on.
Hang on.
Donald's bigger once.
Clay, I'll come to you in a moment, but Josh, you wanted us to rebut that, I think, quickly.
Yeah, I mean, there's a lot to rebut in that, but let's start with the premise that we had to attack Iran just in case we could imagine a world in which we couldn't attack Iran, which is a pretty circular logic, not to mention a completely unjustified reason for attacking a sovereign nation in any circumstance.
And I don't blame people who make that argument.
It's the only one the Trump administration has even offered up.
There's the only.
Possible explanation is other than the Israelis dragged us into it, which they've backed off from.
The only other one they have is, oh, well, someday we weren't going to be able to attack Iran, so we better attack them before we can't attack them.
And that has nothing to do with international law.
And what lesson does that tell the rest of the world?
What message and signal does that send to Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping or Kim Jong un, who would love to attack a country on a flimsy justification, but now there's nothing that we could really say about it because we just attacked.
So that's one thing.
The second thing is your question of how do we get at that.
Nuclear dust that Trump keeps talking about, if that's even possible.
There's only one way, and that's through diplomacy and a negotiation.
And if anyone thinks that anyone would be stupid enough to send American men and women into some subterranean dungeon, which is heavily guarded by Iran's most elite forces, to drag a thousand canisters of highly volatile nuclear material while having some sort of firefight, like I don't know what you're smoking or what movie you're watching, but that's not a real thing, despite the fact that, yes, some plan exists in some special forces vault somewhere.
That's not a good idea.
Let's pray that doesn't happen because it's not going to go well.
So, if we want to have a nuclear agreement with Iran, we have to have a nuclear agreement with Iran.
And that's the only path out of this.
And that's why it's so shocking and so terrible that our diplomatic engagement is so obviously incompetent because if it switches every day, then it's obvious that, yeah.
Okay, let me bring Clay in.
Clay, just on a political thing, because I heard people on the Trump side yesterday talking about the economic damage the blockade is clearly causing Iran.
And if that was to carry on, then whatever reserves they may have very quickly get swallowed up.
It gets very expensive for them, very punitive for them.
I get all that.
But at the same time, the same thing is happening to the US.
You know, there are constant reports now of depleted weaponry on the US military side.
A lot of stuff's been used in the last six weeks.
There's clearly a lot of economic pain.
You're seeing gas prices rising significantly.
You're going to have food prices rising because of the block on fertilizer coming through the Strait of Hormuz.
We haven't seen that come through yet into the food chain, but it will.
And all this with the backdrop of the midterm elections, it just seems politically very perilous the longer this goes on for Donald Trump.
And he keeps trying to say it's going to end.
It's going to last two weeks, three weeks, six weeks.
Well, we're now into the seventh week.
There's no sign of it ending at all.
As somebody that.
You know, we'd like the Republicans to do well in the midterms in November.
How concerned are you getting about the timeline here and the economic and political damage that is being sustained by America?
I'm very concerned.
Look, the number one thing that people say everywhere is they're angry about the cost of goods.
That is what I hear everywhere.
I got three boys every time I go through the Chick fil A here in Nashville, where I live.
It's over 50 bucks.
Things cost way more than they should.
I think it's probably something that everybody on this panel can agree with.
And there's anger.
And there's anger at everyone in power as a result, because again, it just comes back to everything costs more.
And so when gas, which was actually one of the things that would become more affordable, was under $3 a gallon.
People felt better.
Now that it's over $4, people get angry.
Here's what I would say, Pierce.
President Trump is not actually making short term calculations here.
I believe, really, in his heart, President Trump has been angry at Iran for 40 years over the way that this government has treated our country.
And I think that he sees in the 1990s what happened with North Korea.
I bet if you got Bill Clinton on right now, Pierce, and you asked him, okay, other than the blowjob from an intern in the Oval Office, What do you regret the most from your tenure in the 1990s?
I bet he would say letting North Korea get a nuclear weapon because it was eminently rational of a crazy regime to get it.
And once you have a nuclear weapon, as you just heard, I think most people would agree here too, you can't do anything to the party that is in control of a country that has a nuclear weapon.
Ask Ukraine, they gave it up.
And I think that's why Russia invaded them.
I don't think people would have ever invaded if Ukraine had kept their nukes.
Okay.
So, it's eminently rational for Iran to pursue nuclear weapons.
And I believe it's also eminently rational for us to try to keep those nuclear weapons from being there.
Now, this isn't a choice, though, that's being made for the next six months.
It's a choice that's being made in Trump's mind for the next 20 years.
And here's where people are going to disagree with me.
Here's how I see this ending, fears.
I don't see any solution other than President Trump wants to prove this is not Iraq, this is not a futile multi trillion dollar loss.
Of financial might for the United States, not to mention thousands of lost lives.
And for what?
It's not Afghanistan.
And for what?
I think President Trump wants the nuclear dust, as he calls it, in the possession of the United States to prove, unlike the war with Iraq that George W. Bush led us all astray in, this is one where there were weapons of mass destruction and we went and we seized them.
Now, that is a cinematic ending for a president who has a cinematic scope of how stories like these should go.
I think that's ultimately the resolution.
And here, let me throw a little wrinkle in, Piers.
I think there's an element of the Iranian leadership right now that might be willing to have that happen, but cannot say it publicly because if they do, they're going to get killed.
So, how do we somehow wink, nodge, nudge agreement, maybe from people in control of Iran that want to be in power, but know if they're seen as facilitating this sort of act, they're going to get killed?
They're going to end up like Gaddafi.
I think that's one of the really difficult aspects here that everyone is trying to resolve.
Who's in power?
How do they stay in power?
Can we find a Delcy Rodriguez like figure in Iran that we can work with better than the past?
That's my sort of overall, overarching take, Pierce.
No, no, so you might be right.
We just obviously don't know, right?
There's a lot of rhetoric and counter rhetoric and a lot of bullshit going on, frankly.
And Anna, just coming back to this, we haven't mentioned Israel yet.
And there's still this ongoing debate, which Trump furiously denied a few days ago, that he was railroaded into this by the Israelis.
But clearly, from what Marco Rubio said very early on.
You know, America got involved because the Israelis presented a plan which could involve the immediate taking out of the Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah, and a load of top people.
But then they laid out a plan, according to the New York Times, that would then follow that, where you'd have the collapse of the IRGC, the people would rise up, there would be a regime change in the realist terms, and the Strait of Hormuz would be an irrelevance.
No one would be, everyone would be too busy to notice it.
None of the rest of that plan has materialized.
What do we feel about the Israeli part of this?
Because we haven't discussed it.
And the Israelis, I don't think they really care whether there's chaos in Iran, but I do think the Americans care.
You're right in that assessment.
And, you know, as much as I trust the gentlemen on the panel when they say that they're concerned about nuclear material that's in the possession of the Iranians, the fact of the matter is, this war, for the Israelis at least, was never really about their so called fear of Iran's nuclear material or nuclear weapons.
Because Israel itself is a nuclear power and, in fact, have threatened to use their nukes on multiple occasions.
The traitor to the United States, Jonathan Pollard, has suggested it on two different occasions that Israel should use its nuclear weapons.
But what Israel wants more than anything is a similar situation to that of Syria, where there is chaos.
It's a complete and utter disaster in Syria, but they're no longer worried about Bashar al Assad and his alliance with the Iranians.
Now they want to get rid of the Iranian regime, but that has proven to be a lot more difficult.
And in fact, there really are no signs that that is going to happen.
I mean, when you really think about so many different elements of Iran as a country, right?
I think Trump doesn't understand Iranian culture.
So when he issues these insane threats of like wiping out their civilization or bombing their civilian infrastructure, that only hardens the Iranians.
That doesn't scare them at all.
And he should learn that lesson by now because he's.
Like broadcasting that he intends to do these war crimes, and he's getting nothing from that other than people giving him the side eye or condemning him pretty aggressively.
What Israel wants is to be able to do what they're doing right now in Lebanon.
They want to expand their borders, what they've already done in Syria, expand their borders without any challenge from Iran or its proxy groups, which is why it's important for the Trump administration to understand as much as they think that this is about nuclear material or even ballistic missiles.
For the Israelis, it's not.
That was always the cover story.
They want regime change or they want a failed state.
Right.
Tom Sauer, I want to play a clip of Donald Trump talking about the Vietnam War, which he claimed he would have sorted very quickly.
Let's take a listen.
It will end.
When it's over, you know, they want it to be over immediately.
Vietnam Prediction and Markets00:06:11
And I just looked at a little chart.
World War I, four years and three months.
World War II, six years.
Korean War, three years.
Vietnam, 19 years.
Iraq, eight years.
I'm five months, okay?
Five months.
I would have won Vietnam very quickly.
I would have, if I were president.
And I think the parallel is quite interesting because, of course, the Vietnam War started with just a few hundred Marines being sent over to deal with something very quickly and come back, and then became a quagmire which America couldn't get itself out of for a very long time and with enormous cost, particularly on military life.
You know, there is a danger here.
I mean, depending on what route Donald Trump takes, but were he to start committing troops on the ground, you could see a parallel with something like Vietnam if he's not very, very careful because.
I think the Iranians have infinite patience, right?
I don't think they've got any intention of giving up their enriched uranium unless they absolutely have to.
And at the moment, I don't think there's enough pressure on them to do that.
Well, I think we'll see.
But one of the things that I noticed you pointed out that it started with a few hundred troops and then it grew, which it absolutely did.
And I think what Clay mentioned is some way for us to obtain it.
I think that Clay kind of alluded to what I was saying earlier is look, when I made this suggestion, again, this is a capability that we've been working on for a while.
And that doesn't mean a small little raid.
Yeah, there might be a decent sized footprint to get it out.
But I think, you know, otherwise just using diplomacy, if you don't have any leverage or any threat, you're really just begging.
So it really just does come down to getting the uranium, enriched uranium out of the country.
And that's it.
So I don't really see any situation where we would have any sort of a continued presence in Iran or boots on the ground for an occupying force or anything like that.
I don't think anybody is seriously considering that.
It is a, you know, Iran is a very large mountainous country with like 90 million people.
And they have a pretty robust domestic army in the area.
So I don't think anyone's really suggesting that.
But I think that we do need to get one way or another, we should get that nuclear material out.
And I agree with Clay that that is one of the ways we can do that now.
And there very well might be, because we don't really know who is in charge of Iran.
We don't, right?
It might just be the IRGC.
And there might be certain elements that, you know, if you remember when we took out Soleimani, right?
You know, what did they do?
They had to respond.
They had to show face.
But what did they do?
They just threw a couple of missiles that landed into an empty field.
So that really very well could be a possibility.
But one way or another, it could be done.
It would take a large footprint.
Well, when I say large footprint, I mean hundreds of troops that would eventually leave with tons of air cover while they dig it out and get it out one way or another.
And again, it's a problem we've been working for a while.
And you'd be actually pretty surprised at some of the things that we can do.
So I don't think we're looking at a Vietnam situation ever.
I am curious.
Let me ask all of you.
Hang on one sec.
Don't talk at once.
Just want to end by asking all of you, actually, just to very quickly summarize how you think it'll play out.
So let's go to the Josh Rogan prediction market.
What do you think is going to happen here?
Well, first of all, I predict that both the prediction markets and the futures markets will continue to be corrupted by inside traders who are making money off of the ups and downs of Trump's machinations and utterances regarding the war.
Second, I predict that.
No, Trump will not be foolish enough to do a full land invasion of Iran because that's a crazy thing to do.
Second, third, I predict that this will be a stalemate that will go on for a long time and that will crush not only the U.S. economy, every economy in the world, peers.
There's the Koreans, the Japanese, they're all paying 30% more for energy, European jet fuel is about.
This is a disaster, not just for America, but for the world.
And I predict that Trump doesn't have a clear way out.
And he did the only way out, which is actual serious negotiations, he doesn't seem to be willing to do in any sustained way.
And that's not a happy prediction, but it's also not based on sort of any corrupt prediction markets.
And it's not based on any interest in trying to spin this as some sort of best effort to get at a hard problem.
It's not.
It's a really incompetent, really misguided effort to get at a hard problem.
And that hard problem is likely to persist.
Clay Travis, how do you see this playing out?
What's your best bet of what we're going to witness?
I think we seize the nuclear dust and, as sort of a wink, wink, nod, nod behind the scene agreement, we unfreeze the Iranian assets as a part of doing that.
Iran has to open back up its economy.
The Strait of Hormuz opens back up.
I think that all happens within the next month.
And so I am somewhat optimistic that rational actors here will end up reaching a rational conclusion.
Even if Iran doesn't acknowledge agreeing to it publicly, and even if the United States doesn't acknowledge agreeing to it publicly either, what Iran wants is unfrozen assets and the ability to sell product.
What we want is dust and an open straight of Hormuz.
I think that's where we're going to end up.
Okay, Anna, finally, you.
What would you say?
Let me just say I've been vibing with Josh for sure.
Josh seems to know what's going on, and I agree wholeheartedly.
The one thing I'll just add is this whole notion of going in and Getting the nuclear dust, as Trump likes to call it.
This is something that Benjamin Netanyahu has been fear mongering about for literally decades, dating back to the 1980s.
So I think the IDF should go in and get the nuclear dust.
I think that's their job.
I don't think we should risk the lives of our American soldiers in doing that operation.
Well, we will mean to see what happens if there is any attack by ground forces.
Pakistan Terrorist Allegations00:15:39
I think it would be an extremely dangerous escalation if that were to happen.
And once that kind of thing happens, very, very hard to control what then follows.
I think the Iranians remain pretty heavily armed.
You know, they've got a lot of ballistic missiles, a lot of stuff they have buried away, a lot of forces.
It's dangerous.
And I would not be comfortable, I have to say, seeing British forces committed to that on the ground.
And I'm not sure many Americans would be comfortable seeing American forces.
So, maybe Anna's suggestion is right.
They'll go in, but they'll come from Israel, which would be quite an interesting development.
Thank you very much.
I've got to say, one of the more civilized panel debates I think we've ever had on uncensors.
I want to thank you all.
We should have you stuffed for posterity.
But I appreciate the tenor of that debate.
Thank you all very much.
Thank you.
Thank you for your attention.
Two weeks ago, the UK government banned Kanye West from entering the country because of his anti Semitic outburst.
The decision sparked a debate about Britain's weakness on freedom of speech.
Many people accused the government of inconsistency.
People like the racist influencer Valentina Gomez are allowed in, they argued.
So why not Kanye?
It's possible, and in fact likely, the government had no idea who she was until this point was made.
And this week they duly announced that Valentina Gomez has indeed been banned from entering the UK.
The Columbia born American patriot was hoping to attend a Tommy Robinson rally in London next month, but we'll now have to watch it on social media.
We're always ahead of the curve.
I actually banned Valentina Gomez from the show back in December.
Let's take a reminder.
Here's my pledge to you.
If it turns out the people of Texas, a state that I love and have spent a lot of time in, if it turns out they're all as big as it as you are, then you'll win.
And if you win, I'll get you back on Uncensored.
But here's the deal.
If you lose, you're never coming back.
Well, less than 24 hours after Gomez appeared on this show, President Trump endorsed her rival, and she duly lost the primary by a staggering 49 points, one of the biggest beatings in American political history.
But given that she's been all over the newspapers, Back home in the UK.
I've decided to comply with Valentina Gomez's personal request that we temporarily lift her ban and have her back on Uncensored.
And because she will ride on the coattails of the very reasonable Brits don't understand free speech argument, I've also invited a Brit who was kicked out of the United States for his speech.
So joining me now is the Colombian American activist and anti Islam influencer Valentina Gomez and the journalist and MD of international interest Sami Hamdi.
Well, welcome to.
Both of you.
Valentina Gomez, why do you think it was unfair that you were barred entry to the United Kingdom?
Good morning, Piers.
So good to see you again.
Where are your manners, Piers?
You're supposed to introduce me correctly.
Come on, I'll give you a second chance for you to introduce me once again.
As what?
As the most beautiful and truthful conservative you'll ever meet.
Piers, great to see you since you don't have the decency to do it.
I'll do it myself.
Good morning to all of my English lads.
I'll be looking forward to meeting each one of you on May 16th at the United Kingdom rally with Tommy Robinson.
All right, can you answer the question?
Otherwise, we're not going to get anywhere.
I'm getting there.
I'm getting there.
And yes, Pierce, you said last time on your show, if I lost my election, I wouldn't be back.
But never say never, Pierce.
And believe it or not, Pierce, you're my favorite brick.
I mean, Brick and Pierce.
So I cannot wait to hop on a boat.
Swim across the English Channel, meet Shabbat.
Are you able to answer the question, or are we just going to go around the house?
He's going to bring me some fish and chips, and we're going to have an amazing time.
Just once again, you obviously didn't hear me, or maybe you didn't understand it, but just for simplicity, why do you think it was unfair that you were banned entry to the United Kingdom?
Pierce, because I speak the truth, the same reason why the Bible is banned in every Muslim nation.
And Pierce, if you come after my First Amendment, I can assure you I'm going to use my Second Amendment, Piers Morgan, because that's the beauty about the First Amendment.
Whether you disagree with it, we have to protect it at all costs.
Just like when your wife goes online and asks to be.
To be, I would say, accommodated by pool boys, since you already know what's going on with that.
Okay.
Are you making some weird threat involving guns?
I can't really keep up with what you're saying.
Absolutely not.
I'm saying I speak the truth.
I'm saying that I want every rapist and pedophile behind bars and publicly executed.
I'm saying I want every terrorist dead.
And I'm saying also that every Muslim should start respecting Christian nations and maybe, hopefully, go back to their 56 Muslim nations, Piers Morgan.
Your reaction when the British Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood banned you from coming in for this rally because of the incendiary bigoted comments that you've been on the record as saying was that you called her a dirty Pakistani Muslim and said, I'm coming to England on a boat.
Obviously, that is grotesquely offensive, racist, bigoted, and vile.
But also, there's a point I'd like to make to you Shabana Mahmood was born in Birmingham in England.
She's as English as.
As I am.
You, however, were born in Colombia.
You weren't born in the United States.
So I would argue that Shabana Mahmood has much, much more validity to be considered English than you do to be an American.
Piers Morgan, she's from Pakistan.
You're an actual British.
And let's talk about Pakistan.
She was born in Birmingham in the middle of England.
Her parents are from Pakistan.
Let's not.
Yeah, she was born in Birmingham in England.
She was born in England.
She's from Pakistan.
Her parents are from Pakistan.
And Piers Morgan, Pakistan is not known for being the cleanest place on earth.
It's actually a dirty shithole full of terrorists.
I've never heard anybody say that they want to go to Pakistan for vacation.
Okay, let me bring in our other guest because you're obviously intent on being as disgusting as possible, which is your modus operandi.
Why nobody voted for you, by the way.
But it doesn't really interest me what happens with your political system.
Thousands of people voted for him here.
Sammy Hamdi, were you lost by one of the biggest thrashings in American political history?
So the voters voted with their own votes.
Sammy Hamdi, let me bring you in here.
You were detained in America by ICE officers for two weeks while on a speaking tour.
They alleged that you supported terrorism and posed a threat to national security.
They said, We said it before, we'll say it again.
The United States has no obligation to host foreigners who support terrorism and actively undermine the safety of Americans.
Now, you were later allowed to go back to the UK after two weeks.
But what was your reaction to being barred entry and then being, well, allowed in, but being held in detention and then sent back?
Thank you very much, Piers, for having me.
I think, to be honest, the climate in America at the time, you could almost sense that something was coming.
My particular case slightly differs from Valentina in that for me it was a particularly targeted attack.
There was a lady called Laura Luma online who was going after those who were advocating for Palestine.
So they went after American Muslims for Palestine in Michigan.
The judge ruled in favor of the American Muslims for Palestine, American citizens.
They went after them in Nevada.
The judge ruled that they have freedom of speech.
They went after Mehdi Hassan and his naturalization.
They failed there.
They went after Mahmoud Khalil and the green card and they failed.
The judge ruled that Mahmoud Khalil is allowed to stay.
So, they went after student visas, Rumesa Ozturk and Mu'sa Mehdou in Colombia.
They failed there.
And then there was sort of a we need to find something because the judges are ruling against us.
And a video appeared of me speaking in Kuala Lumpur, in which I was telling an audience that we should speak freely in these democracies because, with this freedom, as people are hearing the message, as they're hearing the message of the humanization of the Palestinians, people are changing their minds.
Tucker Carlson is changing his mind.
Candace Owens is changing her mind.
Dave Smith is changing his mind.
And that's why we don't need the violence.
We can speak freely, democratically, and use those freedoms.
To change their opinions, we can use our words and show the images and show the videos.
Laura Luma took this video, her and Senator Ted Cruz and an individual called Dinesh D'Souza, and they openly came on Twitter and said, We need to go after this British lecturer who's giving lectures in Stanford, in Berkeley, in CUNY, all these other places.
We need to get rid of them.
So this was on the Monday I saw that tweet.
So I was sort of expecting it.
And the reason I was only there for two weeks as opposed to six months, like some other people, is because the friends of mine at the State Department, I'm a risk consultant, I've advised the State Department on a few occasions.
They came out and said this was a misunderstanding, we'll clear the record, just go back to the UK, apply for a new visa, and you can come back to America.
So, my situation is slightly different, but my reaction was there is this Israel First lobby that's deeply concerned with the shift in American public opinion.
How can we scare people into not talking about Palestine to stop them from speaking about it?
Because, as you can see in the Gallup poll, now more Americans sympathize with the Palestinians than they do with the Israelis.
And the point I make here about Valentina is you mentioned it, Piers, yourself that the language of hate didn't resonate with voters.
And we saw it that the language of hope is what's resonating.
Mamdani speaking about how we should all stand together for humanity and think about the basic needs of the ordinary American, and he wins.
Abdul Sayyid.
Let me jump in.
Let me jump in.
Go ahead.
Just to stop you in the flow.
But the reason that was cited for you not being allowed into the United States was comments that you made on October the 18th, 2023.
So just after October the 7th had happened, at a London mosque.
And this was cited by the Department of Homeland Security in America, where you said, celebrate the victory.
We are pitying a people who brought a huge victory since 1948.
Don't pity them.
They don't want your pity.
Celebrate the victory.
And you then asked the crowd, when you got the news that it happened, How many of you felt the euphoria?
Now, you said that you were taken out of context.
Is LA a terrorist, Pierce?
He celebrates terrorist attacks.
What do you expect from somebody like that?
I mean, if you can wait, please.
Please.
Sammy, you said you were taken out of context.
Explain how you were taken out of context.
So, Piers, that particular video, the reason why, I mean, I know what the Homeland Security Department of Homeland Security was saying.
In the courts, this was not mentioned at all.
The charge sheet only said overstayed the visa.
Because of a revocation.
But this particular point that you mentioned, the reason the video was never presented is because it's a doctored video of five different clips with 20 minutes between each clip.
And when something similar happened to Donald Trump, a BBC director ended up being sacked.
The point here being is what is allegedly said in the video that they were claiming wasn't actually being said, which is why two federal judges, while I was in ICE, ruled that there were signs that my freedom of speech had been violated and that I had a case to present at the federal court, which is why when the government came to negotiate to say, would you like to go home?
And they said the condition is please don't go towards the federal courts.
I said I'm happy to go home, and they said you can come back to America anytime.
The point I'm making here, Piers, is that's not the reason why the visa was revoked.
It's not the reason why I was detained by ISIS.
No, I understand.
Of course.
I understand that distinction, but I'm just curious about.
We've got the audio that goes with these comments you made.
So let's take a listen, and then I just want you to explain why it was out of context.
Netanyahu did not envisage that for the first time since 1948, The Palestinians would actually retake land back from the Israelis.
Netanyahu did not envisage that for the first time since 1948, the Palestinians would be able to hold those territories for more than 72 hours.
We are pitying a people who brought a huge victory since 1948.
Don't pity them.
They don't want your pity.
Celebrate the victory.
Allah has shown the world that no normalization can erase the Palestinian cause.
When everybody thought it was finished, it's roaring.
How many of you feel it in your hearts when you got the news that it happened?
How many of you felt the euphoria?
Allahu Akbar, how many of you felt it?
Why did you feel it?
Because the despair vanished.
You said this Ummah is alive.
So, Sami Hani, just to be clear, what was the lack of context?
So, in the talk, I described how prior to October 7th, the Saudis were about to normalize with the Israelis.
Netanyahu held a map at the United Nations of his future for the Middle East, and there was no Palestine on that map.
Israel had subsumed and consumed all of the Palestinians.
In the talk, I described how Bloomberg were now publishing articles saying that people are realizing you can't normalize over the heads of the Palestinians.
You have to engage them in any discussion regarding a peace.
That now the Saudis were no longer going to normalize with the Israelis without a Palestinian state, as the Saudi crown prince had suggested.
And as a result, when you're seeing all of these headlines, celebrate that victory that the Palestinians will no longer be trampled, that now everybody's going to include them in any future talks, that it's been demonstrated you can't walk over them and do a peace without consulting them or including them in it.
And that's why everybody should celebrate that the Palestinians are back, the Palestinians are involved in what's being discussed, because people are realizing just as you couldn't force the African Americans to abide by slavery, now you're realizing that injustice will result in these incidents.
The only way to stop it, It is to engage the Palestinians, and now everybody is talking to them.
That's the victory.
But on no account, Piers, in that talk, in even the clips that you've been talking about.
Okay, but when you said, when you got the news that it happened, how many of you felt the euphoria?
What did you mean by that?
That the Palestinians at that time.
Let's be very clear about something.
Let's clear something up.
Can you be quiet, please?
The best thing about it is that we just need to bump everything up.
I'm asking Sammy Handy to provide the context.
Go ahead, Sammy.
When you got the news that the Palestinians were not going to take normalization lying down, that the Palestinians were still there, that they weren't being discarded from the table, when you got the news that the Palestinians were taking action, and bear in mind, at that point, there was still no news of civilian deaths, there were no news of the different atrocities that were committed, that the Palestinians still have a foothold in this, and therefore people should celebrate and say that the Palestinians.
Well, hang on, This was October the 23rd.
This is two weeks.
After October the 7th.
So everybody knew about all the civilian casualties.
We knew that 1,200 people had been murdered.
We knew that 7,000 more had been wounded.
So when you talk about people hearing the news with euphoria, that would have been said on a day where there was full knowledge of exactly who had been killed.
Not exactly, Pears.
Because at that time, if you remember, guests were coming on.
There was a conflicting of news.
It wasn't clear how many had been killed.
It wasn't clear who killed them.
It wasn't clear if it was Hannibal's directive.
It wasn't clear if the testimonies by Israelis that the Israeli forces had killed them, all of that was unclear.
Branding Muslims as Rapists00:15:01
But the reality is that all civilian deaths are condemnable.
I'm sorry, I can't, I'm sorry, Sammy, I can't accept that.
I'm sorry.
It was crystal clear.
I was covering it every day.
Binary.
Sorry, no, can you please wait?
Can you please wait?
No, Sammy, just to be clear, I mean, I was on air every day pretty much after October the 7th.
We are talking 16 days later, you said this.
How many people had been killed, and we knew how they'd been killed.
So I'm just curious why you would use the phrase euphoria.
How many of you felt the euphoria when by then we knew that there had been a massacre of predominantly civilian people in Israel?
It appears at the time in which October 7th was taking place, there was the belief that the Palestinian cause was dead, that it was finished, that the reality was that the Palestinian voice did not matter anymore, that on the table, the ones who would decide their future would be those who were about to erase them, that Israel was going to go to annex Gaza, that they were annexing the West Bank, that the pogroms were taking place, and that the world quite simply didn't care, that at the United Nations,
it was being pushed that Palestine would no longer exist in the future, and the Arab leaders were about to go along with this as well.
The Saudi ambassador and UAE ambassadors were going to the West Bank and they were being stoned by the Palestinians who were saying, You're about to sell us out.
And no matter how much people kept saying to the Brits and to the Americans and to Europe that this is an injustice of epic proportions, that you are about to let the Israelis ethnically cleanse an entire territory and you are about to reckon and you're not willing to take any action whatsoever, there was this sense of despair, peers, that no international law resolution was being implemented.
The United Nations was futile.
The point that I'm making here, please, if you allow me just to finish this point.
Sorry, to be clear.
To be clear, did you feel personally a sense of euphoria after October the 7th?
Piers, when I saw that the Palestinians were still there, that the Palestinians were not going to be rolled over, it is true that many people were happy that at least the Palestinians could still take a stand.
When they saw the civilian casualties, their hearts were broken because this is not the way of Muslims.
Muslims shouldn't be killing civilians.
We don't celebrate that.
We have in our tradition that the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, when he sent one of his generals to a tribe and he found out civilians had been killed in the campaign, He turned to the sky and said, Allahumma, inni abra'u ilayka min ma fa'ala Khalid.
Allah, I'm innocent of what this general has done.
I'm innocent of the death of civilians that have been caused.
In other words, the act under international law by which a Palestinian tries to take back his territory is enshrined in international law.
The problem I have with it is the timeline, right?
This is the 23rd of October, you said this.
It's 16 days after October the 7th.
Everybody knew what had happened by then.
And I'm just curious whether you.
Do you now regret saying, when you got the news that it happened, how many of you felt the euphoria?
Do you regret saying that?
Piers, what I regret is the death of civilians.
What I regret is the bloodshed.
What I regret is the theft of land.
What I regret is ethnic cleansing.
What I regret is that for centuries, Jews, Muslims, and Christians lived side by side in Andalusia, Sarajevo, and Jerusalem.
What I regret is that we lived together and married into each other and built families together.
Do you regret saying.
Do you regret saying.
Do you regret asking that crowd on October the 23rd?
When you got the news that it happened October the 7th, how many of you felt the euphoria?
Do you wish you hadn't phrased it like that now?
I wish, I wish, Piers, this is what I regret.
I wish, I wish that there were other avenues available for the Palestinians in order to secure a statehood and recognition of their state.
I regret, Piers.
I regret, Piers.
I regret the bloodshed being shed.
That euphoria that I described is not a euphoria of bloodshed.
That euphoria I described was in a sentiment at the time in which the Palestinians would not be rolled over.
That's all I'm talking about.
I don't celebrate war.
I don't celebrate the spilling of bloodshed.
No one has a euphoria when they see blood being spilt.
The euphoria is that people are talking about the Palestinians.
When it's news, they're being kicked out of their homes, peers.
They're being slaughtered in cold blood.
Peers, even before October 7th, there are 780,000 people kicked out of their homes just because of some project that didn't want people living together.
Peers, the despair is real, peers.
Peers, these are innocent kids being killed.
Sidra with her legs blown off.
The euphoria was that the Palestinians won't die.
The euphoria is not in the killing of a Jew or a Christian.
When we come from a legacy where the Ottoman Sultan Sent boats to bring the Jews from Andalusia when Isabella was slaughtering them.
That after the Holocaust, Piers, the Jews came to Palestine and said to them, Please don't do to us what the Europeans did.
I know the heritage I come from.
Piers, just on this final point, Piers, on this final point, Piers, nothing in that video, nothing in that whole speech, which was for two hours long, endorses the death of civilians.
It's not the way of the Muslims.
Rather, what I was arguing and what I still argue is give the Palestinians their humanity, put them on the table, don't steamroll them, don't go over their heads.
Just because you want to take their land.
Respect international law.
Respect the United Nations.
Give them their land back.
Give them their nation back.
And let's go back to living side by side the way that we did for centuries as the people of God.
Okay, let me bring in Valentina Gomez to respond to that.
Finally, Pierce.
What a boatload of crap that was, honestly.
Just straight up ranting nonstop.
Exactly what Muslims do.
Just try to confuse you, blow up, and just yell nonstop.
Pierce, let's be honest.
Muslims are a threat to national security.
That's why Christians in Nigeria are being slaughtered by Muslims.
Do you know how many Muslims there are in the world?
No, I don't need to know.
Well, have a guess.
How many Muslims do you think there are in the world?
Way too many, peers.
I prefer one dog over 100 million Muslims.
Okay.
Yeah, that's a disgusting, offensive, and vile thing to say.
It's very much on brand for you.
But how many Muslims are there in the world?
They like to rape goats.
They like to rape little girls.
That's normal.
How many Muslims are there in the world?
I don't know, Pierce.
That's not something I care about.
How many Christians are in the world?
Have a guess.
Have a guess.
Have a guess on how many Christians are in the world.
No, I'd like you, I'm asking the questions.
How many Muslims would you think there are in the world?
I already said way too many, a billion.
And they have 56 Muslim nations.
They should go there and live in the 50s.
How many Muslim nations?
How many people amongst the Chinese?
You describe all Muslims, you describe all Muslims, because you're disgustingly Islamophobic.
You describe all Muslims in the most disgusting manner.
You call them a bunch of killers and rapists and so on.
I'm just asking you a simple question to put these views into context.
Do you know how many people you're talking about?
Pierce, I do not rape and I do not kill and I do not steal.
That's something I must say.
How many Muslims are there in the world?
I already told you.
You say they all do this.
How many?
I already told you way too many, Pierce.
Just like they have taken over the internet.
You've no idea, have you?
You have no idea how many people you are branding.
Rapists and killers.
You don't know, do you?
You don't care.
You don't care, do you?
Yeah.
You don't care how many there are.
You don't care the context of your violence.
How many girls have been raped by the Muslim rape gangs?
Go ahead.
Answer my questions, please.
Are you going to try and compare?
How many girls have been raped by the Muslim rape gangs?
Just like Mohammed raped Zero girls.
The grooming gang.
No, I'm not going to be able to do that.
The grooming scandal was an utter.
The grooming scandal was an utter disgrace, and the perpetrators were finally brought to justice way longer than they should have been, and they were imprisoned for their disgusting actions.
And what happened there was a repulsive failure by our justice system to bring these people to account.
However, I am asking you because you brand all Muslims with the same way that you brand the people that committed the grooming gang scandal, you brand all Muslims the same way.
But you have no idea how many Muslims there are.
There are nearly two billion Muslims in this world.
And what you're doing when you talk about them as a community of people.
Let's say it's one, two billion Muslims.
You're tiring all two billion.
You are tiring.
Let me finish.
You are tiring all two billion people with the same brush of being killers and rapists and so on.
To which I say to you, that is the purest personification of vile bigotry, racism, and Islamophobia.
Why don't you focus on people of all religions?
Yes.
They follow a book that calls for the murder of Jews.
Christians, Hindus, and infidels, just because we don't abide, we don't bow down to their stupid rock, Piers Morgan.
We don't do that in Christianity.
In Christianity, if you want to be an atheist, if you want to worship a cow, if you want to worship a table, you're allowed to do that without getting killed.
Because right now in Egypt, a 30 year old man is being held in prison because he's about to get murdered by the government of Egypt because he is no longer a Muslim.
He is now a Christian.
It's just not true, Piers Morgan.
Can I say something here, Piers?
Piers, if you don't mind, can I just.
Yes, I'll bring in Sammy Ham to respond, yeah.
Piers, I just want to.
She keeps talking about the idea.
She keeps talking about this idea of rapists and the like.
Piers, I went to the website of the Office for National Statistics and the Bureau of Justice of the Americans.
And here you can see these are all the victims saying who their perpetrators are.
And here they say that it's people that they know, it's their family members, it's their friends, it's their acquaintances.
Only this small number over here is done by strangers or what she calls grooming gangs.
You can see the overwhelming majority.
Are done by those that they know or those or their relatives.
Nobody says this is white Christian sexual epidemic.
If you look at the population, she says that they're being taken over.
This is the population of Muslims in the UK and in the US.
In the US, 1.1%, in the UK, 6%.
Tell me, where is the takeover that's taking place here?
Piers, when you look at the crimes that are committed against Brits, and I'm a Brit, I'm born and raised here, against our sisters and our daughters and the like.
Here are the crimes committed by Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris.
Nobody says this is white Christian rape.
No one says this is a white Christian problem.
Everybody says crime has no faith and it has no race.
This was committed by vile individuals and justice should be delivered.
Piers, when you look at the Office of National Statistics and you see the number of people incarcerated in the UK, you can see that they are overwhelmingly white.
But nobody says that this country has a white criminal problem.
No one says that this is a Christian problem.
Everybody says this is a criminal problem by vile people because crime has no faith and crime has no race.
Peers, when you look at the mass shootings in America that kill students and kill their children, this is the data from the Bureau of Justice in America.
This is by white shooters, this is by ethnic minorities.
No one says that in America they have a white Christian shooting problem because they know crime has no faith, they know crime has no race, and they know that it is individuals who need to be brought to justice.
Let me ask you this question, Sammy Hamdi.
Let me ask you, Sammy Hamdi.
Sammy Hamdi, I understand the point you're making.
It doesn't in any way, in my opinion, It doesn't in any way excuse the appalling way that the grooming gang scandal was handled or the failure of our justice system to bring those perpetrators who were almost exclusively in that scandal case.
They were British Pakistani men.
It doesn't excuse any of that.
But you make a valid point about the totality of statistics.
My question for Sami Hamdi is about Valentina Gomez.
Would you have allowed her into the UK?
Piers, part of me believes that it would have been good for Valentina to come and see the real Britain.
The Britain that belongs to the family that I am in.
The English blood that runs through my kids from Stenning, Brighton.
It would have been good for her to come and meet the wonderful giants of Britain who are Muslim, like Timothy Winter in Cambridge, like Paul Williams, like Paul Keeler, like Suhail Hanif.
It would have been good for her to see the realities of what Britain is like and how Muslims live in Britain and contribute to society.
Because when Tucker Carlson finally saw it, Instead of regurgitating the hate that he was doing in 2008, Tucker Carlson came out and said, I was wronged and I didn't know that Muslims love Jesus too and they believe in the second coming.
When Candace finally got to see the reality, she came out and said, I was disgusted with myself for not looking in further.
I believe Valentina is still young.
She's in the early stages of what Tucker Carlson was.
I'm asking her, skip the years that it takes to figure it out.
Go and see what the world looks like.
Go and see the reality because your message of hate didn't work.
Abdul Sayyid, the Senate candidate for Michigan, a right winger, turned up in his rally and told him, I'm here as a right winger.
Abdul Sayyid put his hand on his heart and said, I am so glad you're here.
I'm so glad we can talk with one another.
I'm so glad that we're standing together.
Marjorie Tennigreen says, This is no longer a battle between left and right.
This is a battle for America first.
And the final point, Piers, I'll finish on this.
Valentina's brother serves in US forces.
That Valentina, instead of focusing on the 1% of American Muslims, Who aren't the problem in America?
She should focus on the 42 million Americans living on snack who can't afford basic groceries.
She should focus on the servicemen who return to America and sit in the freezing cold and magnificent mile in Chicago.
She should focus on those ordinary Americans going bankrupt as a result of medical bills.
There's a reason she was rejected in Texas because no one resonates with that hate.
There's a reason why she was rejected in Texas because no one buys the hate anymore.
What wins in America, what wins in the UK?
The reason reform lost in Gorton and Denton is because Zach Polanski came with a message of hope.
In America, Mamdani came with a message of hope.
And even Donald Trump, peers, even Donald Trump, that's what we're saying.
The truth is, the truth is, even Donald Trump, when he won the election, declared that he had established a peace that would be for Muslims and Arab Americans.
We've run out of time.
I just want to say, hold your peace.
That's enough, please.
I would simply say to Valentina Gomez that sometimes when people show themselves, you should believe them when they show you.
Morgan Uncensored Independence00:01:19
And your reaction.
To the English born Home Secretary of my country, Shabana Mahmood, who's a diligent, hard working, intelligent, decent person born in Birmingham in the Midlands of my country.
Your reaction to her calling her a dirty Pakistani Muslim was one of the most disgusting things I've seen or heard in a very long time.
And it showed you for what you are.
You are a disgusting, Islamophobic bigot that hates two billion people on this planet simply because of their religion.
They hate me too.
Shame on you.
Shame on you.
They hate people like me.
You hate people who don't hate you.
We don't hate you.
I promise we don't hate you.
You're only back on this program.
You're only back on this program because you were banned from my country.
I say good on you, Homosexual.
Because my message.
I wouldn't be up for it.
I'm going to leave it there.
Thank you very much for your contribution to this debate.
Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent.
The only boss around here is me.
If you enjoy our show, we ask 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, uncensored media has never been more critical, and we couldn't do it without you.