"They ALL Bow to Israel!" US ‘Wave of Strikes’ As Trump Iran Plan Slammed

15:37Josh Hammer:Yeah, Pierce, look, I think it would be very easy to, you know, dunk on Cheikh Uyghur, who I'm always reminded has the morality of a cockroach and the IQ of a tadpole. I mean, it would be very easy for me to kind of just launch off, you know, and explain why this morbidly obese fat oaf just continues to bloviate and bloviate and find himself on the wrong side of every single geopolitical issue. But, you know, I'd rather cut to the actual heart of the substance here, Pierce, which is this narrative that's being advanced here, unfortunately, a little bit in your opening monologue as well, which I think is contrary to what was actually said.

16:08Josh Hammer:So this Marco Rubio clip that's making the rounds there, it Rubio himself literally said was taken remarkably out of context. If you actually play the full clip there, it is pretty clear that he didn't say what you what you peers have said and what many others said that Marco Rubio actually said. In fact, Donald Trump yesterday, when he was meeting with the Chancellor of Germany there in the White House, was asked point blank, point blank, did Israel drag you into this war? Donald Trump said, no, if anything, we actually forced their hand. Marco Rubio reiterated that yesterday. Pete Hegseth reiterating that yet again.

16:37Josh Hammer:Well, let's play. Let's play. OK,

16:40Piers Morgan:hang on. Let's play. Let's play the whole Rubio. Hilarious Israeli propaganda. Let's play the Rubio clip.

16:47Peter Beinar:Yesterday you told us that Israel was going to strike Iran and that's why we needed to get involved. Today the president said that Iran was going to get.

16:56Nadav Shoham:Yeah, your statement is false. So that's not what I was asked very specifically. Were you there yesterday? Yes, I asked the question. No, were you the one that, because somebody asked me a question yesterday. Did we go in because of Israel? And I said, you were asking me that follow up. And I said, no, I told you this had to happen anyway. The president made a decision. And the decision he made was that Iran was not going to be allowed to hide behind its ballistic missile program. that Iran was not going to be allowed to hide behind its ability to conduct these attacks. That decision had been made.

17:22Nadav Shoham:The president systematically made a decision to systematically destroy this terroristic capability that they had, and we carried that out. I was very clear on that answer. This was a question of timing, of why this had to happen as a joint operation, not the question of the intent. Once the president made a decision that negotiations were not going to work, that they were playing us on the negotiations, and that this was a threat that was untenable, the decision was made to strike them. That's what I said yesterday, and you guys need to play it. If you're going to play these statements, you need to play the whole statement, not clip it to reach a narrative that you want to do, all right?

17:53Piers Morgan:So that was his rebuttal to what he'd said, but this is what he said the day before.

17:59Nadav Shoham:There absolutely was an imminent threat, and the imminent threat was that we knew that if Iran was attacked, and we believed they would be attacked, that they would immediately come after us. And we were not going to sit there and absorb a blow before we responded.

18:12Peter Beinar:Israel faced an existential risk, and they were prepared to strike Iran alone. If that happened, Iran was very likely to target our troops. That may address the question of why now? Why not two weeks ago? Why not two months from now?

18:27Piers Morgan:I mean, it couldn't be clearer. I'm not sure how we've taken this out of context. I mean, Rubio made it crystal clear in very simple language that the reason that America took preemptive action is because they understood that we clearly assume Israel was about to attack Iran and that the side effect of that, the consequence of that, would be that Iran would lash out and potentially attack American interests, bases or whatever. He couldn't have been clearer. And what happened then was they realised this was playing incredibly badly when a bunch of Republicans lined up with this same talking point.

19:02Piers Morgan:Donald Trump reframed the narrative in a different way and then suddenly out they all come saying the complete opposite to what they'd said the day before.

19:09Josh Hammer:It has come out, OK? We now know over the past 40 hours has come out that this operation was planned, Piers, for months and months. We now know that the Jared Kushner, Steve Wyckoff negotiations were what many of us said they were, which is a red herring and a decoy. That has all come out. This was in the works, Trump and Netanyahu working hand in glove, planning this joint binational operation for months and months and months now. What they are saying is that the reason that it happened literally on Saturday, the actual ultimate reason that the CIA found out that Khamenei was going to be physically present at this meeting with all the rest of the top counsel, that is the actual reason that the CIA got the intelligence.

19:45Josh Hammer:They've said that also publicly. It's all publicly available. So we now know that because of that, perhaps because Israel was saber rattling about a possible last minute right there, that's why it happens literally this Saturday and not last Saturday, not next Saturday. But the fact that the two countries were going to go in together there, apparently that decision was made months ago. Again, that's all publicly available now. Wall Street Journal, New York Times, they've all been reporting that the two countries have been planning this thing for months. The only debate is why it happened literally, literally right now, because the CIA found out how many would be their peers.

20:15Piers Morgan:Fine. I'm not disputing that there may have been conversations going on for months about whether to do this. I'm simply saying that Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, could not have been clearer in his public statements 48 hours ago when he was asked about this, that the reason for America and the attack on Iran was because they had information that Iran was going to get attacked by somebody else that we presume to be Israel, and therefore this would then imperil potentially American interests coming back the other way from Iran. And it couldn't have been clearer. I mean, what they're expecting us to do, and what you're expecting me to do, is to listen to Marco Rubio's own words on camera and pretend he said the complete opposite.

20:58Piers Morgan:He couldn't have been clearer, and then they've done a complete screeching U-turn because they realise it looks ridiculous for the United States of America to have a position of saying we had a pre-emptive need to do this, but actually it turns out the pre-emptive need was Israel attacking Iran.

21:15Josh Hammer:I'm shocked that this is so difficult for some people to grasp, apparently including you, Pierre. Really hard. This was planned for months. It was literally planned for months. But why didn't they say that? It seems to me that Rubio slightly misspoke, and he had to clarify himself yesterday. Do you think? Again, I'm not defending every single line that was said there, but the president of the United States could not possibly have been cleared there. This has been planned for months. What Rubio is saying is that the actual reason happened on Saturday seems to me, if I'm trying to kind of put all these strings together, these strands together, It seems to me that the reason it started on Saturday was a combination, one, of possible Israeli intelligence about a strike there.

21:55Josh Hammer:They want to go be preemptive. Combined with the fact that the CIA, apparently it was CIA, not Mossad, the CIA found out that Khamenei would be at this meeting. Those are the two things, it seems, that made this operation start this past Saturday, not two Saturdays ago, not two Saturdays from now. But the fact that this was going to happen, apparently that decision was made months and months and months ago.

22:14Piers Morgan:Then all they had to do was say, we were in this with Israel from the start. We planned it together and we went in together. It's very straightforward positioning. And we both felt that there was a need to launch a preemptive joint attack because we believed that we were both going to be under attack from Iran. They didn't say that. Let me bring in Peter Beinhart. You know, I try and be fair and dispassionate, Peter, about all these things. I'd like to judge people on what comes out of their mouths. And I'm afraid Marco Rubio is damned by what came out of his mouth. He is one of the most powerful men in America right now.

22:47Piers Morgan:I actually think he's been one of Trump's better performers, actually, in his role as Secretary of State. But you cannot watch those two clips and not conclude he said one thing, then pretended he said something completely different.

23:01Josh Hammer:Right. But I think it's worth distinguishing two things. I think it may well be that the United States attacked when it did because it thought Israel was was Israel's about to attack. But it still begs the question of why the United States didn't stop Israel from attacking. Israel has wanted, particularly Benjamin Netanyahu, has wanted America to go into war against Iran for, you know, for a very, very long time. I think the other critical ingredient here, the thing that changed, the thing that changed was not Israel wanting to be in a war against Iran. It was Donald Trump's mounting hubris as after the Venezuela operation.

23:34Josh Hammer:I think what's happened is that Donald Trump, after attacking in his first term Soleimani, and not getting a significant Iranian response, And then the 12-day war last year, and now the attack on Venezuela. Trump now sees military action as a political winner for him, right, something that makes him look good. And I don't think he's smart enough to recognize that he's now bitten off something which is fundamentally different than what he does in Venezuela. He even said yesterday, according to The New York Times, that they want to do in Iran what they did in Venezuela. So I think the critical shifting aspect is not Israel.

24:11Josh Hammer:It's Trump's growing hubris about what American military action can produce.

24:17Piers Morgan:Well, I'll come to check now for the bigger picture question, which I didn't ask you the first time, which is if you're right, if I'm Donald Trump and I'm trying to explain why I think there's a consistency to what I'm doing here. Trump doesn't believe in putting boots on the ground so far. He believes in surgically decapitating things and people. He believes in going in and taking out individuals or having very short attacks on nuclear capability, or whatever it may be. In Venezuela, classic Trump, no boots on the ground, middle-of-the-night attack, special forces snatching Maduro and his wife, get them out, no American dead.

24:56Piers Morgan:This is what he does, this is what he's always done. And he distinguishes in his head between that and putting big boots on the ground for a ground invasion, and there is clearly a qualitative difference. In Venezuela, he's taken a bet that if you get rid of Maduro, that the regime may stay in place, but they've now had the ultimate warning, you play by our rules or you're going to be next. And it puts them back in a box that can be controlled or not as threatening to United States' interests. I think he's thinking the same thing can happen in Iran, where it's highly unlikely that he's going to get any kind of revolution of the kind that he talks about.

25:34Piers Morgan:I think is far more likely and achievable because of the sheer power of the United States military, that what could happen is you could have the regime remaining in place, but severely neutered to a degree that it has no ability to progress with its nuclear program and actually has no ability to represent much of a threat to the United States or Israel or anybody else. And it may be that that is what their actual game plan is here without putting boots on the ground. and that may end up being successful. I don't know. None of us know, right? But if it was successful, it would at least have the benefit of being consistent with Trump's overall philosophy that you don't need to commit thousands of troops on the ground to effect regime control.

26:22Matt Schlapp:Yeah, this is all nonsense. Look, could Trump's hubris be a part of it? Of course. Of course he has hubris. Does he want to dip in and out of war? yeah, I guess he does. But why does he want to go into war in the first place? That's the central question. Because he ran on anti-war. He ran on America first. Right now, we're not doing anything about grocery prices. Oil prices are going higher. The economy is slipping into a disaster, both higher inflation and higher unemployment. But he's obsessed with complying with Israel's demands. So Josh said something hilarious about how Marco Rubio misspoke.

26:57Matt Schlapp:Well, Well, Tom Cotton said the same thing. He's a senator. And Mike Johnson is the Speaker of the House. He said the same thing. Caroline Levitt, the White House spokesperson, said the same thing. So they all misspoke? No, they had their stated reason, which was Israel was not going to listen to us because they're the boss of us and they were going to go bomb and endanger our troops. So we had to scurry and catch up to Israel and do as they command. So now you mentioned in the beginning, Piers, you know, it turns out it's not a Cenk Uygur conspiracy theory. It's real. But think about the framing of conspiracy theories that our national media talks about.

27:37Matt Schlapp:So I say, for example, and these are all verifiable facts, and they agree these are facts. Ninety-four percent of Congress gets money from the Israeli lobby. The number one lifetime donor to Donald Trump is Israeli lobby,$337 million. Number one lifetime donor to Biden is Israeli lobby. This is... Hold on, let me finish. So now the New York Times and others look at that and go, it is a conspiracy that billions of dollars given to scummy politicians would affect them. I think that that's the conspiracy theory is that it wouldn't affect them. Of course it affects them. Israel has bought our government.

28:15Matt Schlapp:Hold on. Israel has bought our government lock, stock and barrel. And did they do something else as well, you know, with this Operation Epstein's Fury in terms of getting blackmail on people? Yes, it's entirely possible because Epstein in every interaction was trying to help Israel, procured cyber weapons for Israel. So we have an enormous Israeli lobbying operation in America. that he is controlling our politicians. Yeah, let me bring Matt. It is a dictatorial to say that they are not when they obviously are. We are sick of Israeli control. They have driven Trump into every war. Every war.

28:54Piers Morgan:I get it. I get it. Go ahead. Go ahead and deny it when it's obvious. I'm going to come to Matt to respond. What I would say, Cenk, is you are in danger of getting to the stage where if there is inclement weather in America, you instinctively blame Israel. It's because of Israel. And I do think you've got to be slightly careful. No, it's because Israel's response to blame Israel for anything. But let me not understand, Piers. I think we've got to beat that enough there.

29:19Nadav Shoham:Oh, you're saying like they almost control all of Congress. Yes, because they literally donated to 94 % of Congress. Wake up, wake up, wake up, America. Let me bring in, Matt. Israel's been in Washington, D.C.

29:31Piers Morgan:for a long time. Go ahead, lie. Please don't talk. Let me go here. I don't want to mute you, Cenk.

29:38Nadav Shoham:So let Matt Schlapp respond. Right. So I do think Israel is in charge of your brain. But the fact is, AIPAC and these other lobbies, it's true. They were very powerful in Washington, D.C. for a long period of time. And I do believe that you could argue that they were one of the most effective lobbies 25 years ago. Over time, I will just tell you, someone who's been in this town, their effectiveness from them and others has deteriorated. It's deteriorated to the point that even in Republican and conservative circles, we all have been watching this debate, this acrimony from people who are leading voices in the conservative movement about wanting to rejigger their priorities in the Middle East and step away from Israel.

30:24Nadav Shoham:So the idea that somehow politicians are bought and paid for by an Israeli lobby and somehow that's preventing people from having heterodox views is absurd. We're watching this all happen in real time. The reason why Donald Trump acted is not because Jared Kushner's Jewish or because some real estate guys who are Jewish gave him money. The reason why or Bibi Netanyahu forced him to act. These are conspiracy theories or I don't even know where you're going with Jeffrey Epstein. The reason he acted is because several presidents in a row have looked at the prospects of taking aggressive steps in Iran because Iran chants death to America on a regular basis through leading sponsor of terrorism around the globe, including towards Americans.

31:12Nadav Shoham:And we can go through the dozens and dozens examples of the outrageous behavior that moderate Arab states also know is a massive danger. That's the story that doesn't get told here. Most moderate Arab states, despite what they say publicly, are all for defanging Iran. And Donald Trump did this because he thought it was in the interest of the American people, not because he's playing games with polls or politics, but because. He believed as the commander in chief, this was the right time to act in our interest as Americans.

31:47Piers Morgan:OK, just a whole. He just said that it was conspiratorial. Hang on, hang on. I think that the problem... If I can... Hang on, please. Hang on, please. I'm just going to ask the panel, if I could ask the panel just to have some patience, just for five minutes. Joining me now is the IDF spokesman, Nadav Shoshani. Welcome to you, Mr. Shoshani. Look, I don't know how much of that you may have been listening to, but there is a narrative that many people are promoting, that this has all been done at Israel's behest. It was a narrative that Marco Rubio and others explicitly laid out. They said, look, the reason America launched a strike when they did was because they knew that Israel were going to and that the response would come back from Iran and that might threaten American interests.

32:31Piers Morgan:And that's why America had to be preempted, which is now they've now changed that position after the blowback they got. But what is the truth? I mean, is the truth that Israel decided to do this and America then decided, well, if you do it, we're going to have to do something too? or is, as some of my panelists have argued, something that's been in the works for months and months and months and is always going to be a joint operation?

32:55Cenk Uygur:Well, Piers, first of all, thanks for having me and I'm glad to see you're doing better. And I'll answer the question. First of all, I've heard the Americans speak very loud and clear, all American leadership about it. I'm not a spokesperson for the Americans, but I can say as someone who's been in the inner rooms and the IDF, that is not a real claim. It's not close to the truth. I think that even if anyone thought that, America is not one to be dragged by Israel. But being in the rooms, knowing what's been happening in recent weeks and months, has no relation to reality. This is a joint operation with a mutual enemy, shared interests, shared values, shared enemy.

33:36Cenk Uygur:When they yell death to America, they yell death to Israel. When they yell death to Israel, they yell death to America. But I can explicitly say, since I'm an IDF spokesperson, knowing the planning for weeks and months, saying that Israel decided to attack alone and the US was dragged into it is just completely false.

33:51Piers Morgan:What people are struggling to understand is that last year in the 12-day war, there was a specific attack on Iran's nuclear capability, which we were told had been incredibly successful. And yet here we are less than a year later, significantly less than a year later, with apparently a need to go to a full-blown war with them because they still have the ability to have nuclear capability. And people are struggling to put those two positions together. They're like, well, we thought we destroyed. That was the whole point of what happened last summer. That was the end of that nuclear threat. Why is that threat now within eight, nine months now deemed to be so imminent that they have to be exposed to a full-blown war?

34:36Cenk Uygur:Well, that's a great question. And first of all, your statement is absolutely correct. We gave a very heavy blow, Israel and the United States of America, to the Iranian nuclear program. But what happened after the 12-day war is Ayatollah Khamenei and Iranian leadership decided we're going to go full in. We're going to go full in on ballistic missiles, and we're going to do whatever we can to make sure that we will obtain a nuclear weapon. Now, two things happened that are very disturbing. The first one is them hiding and digging deeper and concealing and fortifying their nuclear program. The idea is that even if they don't have nuclear weapons now, or they're not even producing now, but by the time that we understand something is happening, it's too late.

35:17Cenk Uygur:And even the best technology, best bombers in the world won't be able to use that. So that's one ticking time bomb. The second one is the ballistic missiles. What we're seeing in the last four or five days is incredible, unbelievable attacks by Iran towards the entire region, including European countries, including Australian, French, British assets in the region. And this is just a preview to how the reality would look like a year or two away if Iran continued in the pace of producing many hundreds of ballistic missiles a year. They were planning, we know this, they were planning to reach high numbers of ballistic missiles, all the way up to 8 ,000, 10 ,000 missiles, and get to a place where no one can deal with them.

35:56Cenk Uygur:They are creating an immunity for them that no one would dare deal with them. And what we're seeing right now in recent days shows the exact intent of the Iranian regime, but on a much smaller scale, because we caught this in the right timing. And by the way, there was one more important thing that's really important to mention. We also had a golden opportunity. We have golden intelligence that's been built up together with Americans for weeks on targeting Ayatollah Khamenei and the entire leadership, leading the way for the Iranian war machine. And we were able to make a real change, because what happened after the 12-day war, Ayatollah Khamenei decided, we're going all in.

36:34Cenk Uygur:Our lesson from the 12-day war is let's fight even harder. And I can guarantee you at least one thing. Ayatollah Khamenei will not be leading the way again all in against Israel and America.

36:44Piers Morgan:Well, he may not, but his son might. He's being apparently promoted to be the new supreme leader. And the reality is the Revolutionary Guard remains intact, and there are over 200 ,000 of them. There are half a million more paramilitaries loyal to the regime. There's an outstanding army of nearly a million more who are also loyal to the regime. And at the moment, there is no sign of the uprising by the people of Iran that Donald Trump was suggesting he hoped would happen. And so that begs the question, as with any war when it gets started, is, well, what is the end game? What is victory? If the people do not rise up and overthrow the regime in the way that Donald Trump has clearly hoped for, then what does victory look like?

37:30Cenk Uygur:I can speak on behalf of the IDF and on behalf of Israel. Our goal is to remove a gun that's pointed at our heads, and it's a loaded gun. That's our goal, to degrade the Iranian regime's capabilities to pose an existential threat for us, but also an enormous threat for the entire region. Three continents all the way to Eastern Europe, they are posing a threat to everyone. So that is our goal. But I'll tell you something more than that. The Iranian regime is not a small army. They have multiple armies. They're an enormous country, 10 times the population of Israel. We did not say this would be something short or simple.

38:04Cenk Uygur:But we do this not because it's easy, because we need to. Because if you don't do this right now, we'll face something much, much worse later. And success for us, if you're asking victory for us, would mean that we would not need to fight Iran for a long time to come. Maybe it's because we've degraded them so far. And maybe it's because they're not trying to kill us after this operation is all said and done. But what we want to do is make a real change, take this loaded gun that's to our heads and remove it for a prolonged period of time.

38:33Piers Morgan:But that just finally, that does seem to be an acceptance on your part. And correct me if I'm wrong, the victory may end up with the regime intact because it's so big and the tentacle spread so far, it's impossible to overthrow that regime or to change it in a conventional sense. but that it becomes so neutered that it no longer represents a clear and present threat to Israel. Is that what you're saying?

38:57Cenk Uygur:Well, as an IDF spokesperson, we're looking at military threats and how we deal with those threats and remove them from Israel. And we're looking at those threats and acting to remove them actively. Now, no one, everyone in the Middle East understands how dangerous this regime. People in Israel remember having good relationships with Iran. We're not in war with the people of Iran. We would be happy to see them liberated, but that's not an official goal of the war. That is not a military goal. By the way, I have Iranian family a little bit far past, but we would be happy to not need to fight this war.

39:32Cenk Uygur:But we have to fight this war right now because this is a regime that for 50 years has been doing, not just saying, but doing everything they can to close. In the last year alone, Pierce, this is amazing. While they've been in the worst economical situation in Iran, maybe in their entire history, people had no water. They invested almost a billion dollars in proxies in the Middle East, most of it going to Hezbollah. So when people in Iran don't have water, this regime is doing everything they can to kill us. So I think everyone agrees this regime is not good. But our goal to this operation, military goals, is to look at the threats, to make sure that Israel is not posing an existential threat and to act against it.

40:13Piers Morgan:Okay. IDF spokesman Nadev Shoshani, I appreciate you coming on on Censored. Thank you.

40:19Cenk Uygur:Thanks for having me, Pierce.

40:21Piers Morgan:Let's go back to the panel. Let me bring in Josh Hammer there. I mean, it just seems to me that, you know, I've got a lot of military in my family. My brother was a British Army colonel. My brother-in-law was a British Army colonel and so on. You know, the rule one of when you start a war is you've got to know what victory looks like for everyone's sake, for the armed forces that take part in it, for the people of the countries that you're at war with and so on. And yet it seems here no one seems to be quite sure. Is the goal regime change? If so, how does that get achieved without boots on the ground?

40:54Piers Morgan:Most experts think that's completely impossible with a country the size of Iran. If it's not regime change, is it a damaged regime which stays in power, a bit like we've seen with, say, Venezuela? You know, where's the victory here? When does this war end because victory has been achieved? And what does that victory look like?

41:16Josh Hammer:So, Piers, I can speak for what I believe is America's national interest in this war and what I think Donald Trump's angles. I obviously can't speak for a different country. I think that Nadav just spoke quite well from his country's perspective, From a U.S. perspective, I think that Pete Hegseth and General Cain, here's Chen Geiger doing the whole anti-Semitic thing. Okay, very, very predictable. So says Khamenei's chiefs. Chen, Chen, Chen, Chen. Sorry, can I just jump in? Of course Josh Hammer is an American. I profoundly disagree with Josh Hammer's political views, but he's an American Jew.

41:46Josh Hammer:He's not an Israeli. We should be clear about these. No? When you've lost Peter Beiner, you have seriously lost him. No, no, no. I mean, I would just say that. I think we have to be careful. We have to be careful about this. No, no, Peter, Peter, Peter.

42:01Matt Schlapp:Yeah, this has nothing to do with Jewish Americans. No, it has to do with scum who represent Israel and are loyal to Israel. And by the way, it's not at all just Jewish Americans. It's actually mostly Christians like Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz and Trump and Biden and Kamala Harris who serve Israel like dogs. All right.

42:19Josh Hammer:Comment, comment, comment, comment, an apologist has some has some words to say here. Let's get back to Pierce's question. Okay, so America's interest, Pierce, as defined by Pete Hegseth and Dan Cain at their Pentagon press conferences for the past few days, is, as I understand it, as follows. At minimum, the severe crippling of the Iranian regime, the severe decapitation of their ballistic missile programs, preventing them from acquiring intercontinental ballistic missiles that can reach Western Europe and perhaps the East Coast of the United States, finally delivering a fatal blow to their nuclear program.

42:49Josh Hammer:There has not been a clear articulation as to whether or not the goal here is to see the entire Mullahs, the entire IRGC, all of that to be ended. In fact, if I'm being very candid with you, I think that there is actually a real world where a year from now, I think that it actually could look like what you suggest it could look like. This could look like a Delcy Rodriguez, post-Chavez, post-Maduro type situation in Venezuela. I do think it's also possible, to be clear, that the exiled Crown Prince Reza Pilevi could be called back in to lead some sort of transition period. It could be a civil war.

43:17Josh Hammer:I don't really know, frankly. I don't think that anyone knows exactly what it's going to look like. But the goal here is to deliver a severe crippling to this most despotic and tyrannical of regimes, and at minimum, at minimum of nothing else, to give the non-clerical, the non-theocratic, non-Islamo-fascist elements within the country of Iran, of which there are many. That's the majority of the country here, tens and tens of millions of people, people that have been slaughtered, slaughtered by the horrific regime that Shank Uyghur is infamously now calling courageous there. It's to give them a fighting chance to take back their country.

43:53Josh Hammer:That is the goal here. Whether or not it will all work out, who knows? It could be just dealing with a severely crippled IRGC, a less radical mullah that is a more restrained second, third rate power in the region there. That's entirely possible. But for now, I think it's going staggeringly well and we should definitely applaud all of our efforts.

44:10Piers Morgan:I mean, Peter Beinhardt, it seems to me that notwithstanding the confusion about the mission statements that have been made by the Americans and Israelis, that it seems to me a gigantically stupid strategic error by the Iranians to start attacking all the other Gulf states. All they seem to have done by doing that is rather than, as they've tried to do in recent years, put up a wedge between Saudi Arabia and Israel, for example, by what they did in helping Hamas commit the atrocities of October 7th. What they hoped by doing that, one of the aspirations, clearly, was to stop Saudi Arabia joining the Abraham Accords.

44:54Piers Morgan:But here, by attacking sites in Saudi Arabia, in Qatar, in Dubai, what they've done is galvanised these Gulf states. now against Iran, and ironically, you know, on the side of America and Israel. I would say it's now far more likely that Saudi Arabia will end up joining the Abraham Accords than it was last week.

45:17Josh Hammer:Yeah, it may well be a strategic mistake for Iran to do that, but I'm not Iranian. I'm an American. I get on the subway every day in New York, and I see people who our government isn't giving the basic decencies of life, a home, enough food, And then I think, is it a good use of my government's money to be spending billions and billions of dollars to attack a country that with an absolutely odious regime that poses no threat to the United States? I mean, come on, let's be real, right? Iran doesn't have a single nuclear weapon. The United States has thousands of nuclear weapons. You know how much more?

45:52Josh Hammer:The United States probably spends as much on its military in a day as Iran spends in a year, right? You think you can go to the American people who can see that this country has desperately, we don't give our people health care, we have a deteriorating infrastructure, people are suffering, and say this is the best use of our money? Beyond that, I just want to say, because I would like you, Pierce, if you could, to get one of the parents of those 175 children who were killed in that school that the United States or Israel bombed in southern Iran and ask people to support this war to say to them that this was worth it.

46:28Piers Morgan:Let me stop you there. Let me stop you there. Because we went through all this, we've been through all this in Gaza. And I've learned to be patient about these things. Because we don't actually know for a fact yet what happened with that school. It was clearly an appalling incident. Clearly, many, many young girls were killed in that school. Clearly, the school used to be until recently, part of the Revolutionary Guard base. It was near, yes. But several years ago it got separated and has been a separate entity. Now, there are various things that could have happened here. It could have been struck mistakenly by an Israeli or American missile, of course.

47:07Piers Morgan:It could also be, as some people have suggested, it could have been an attempt by the Revolutionary Guard to stop a missile coming in that has gone horribly wrong. Right, but can I respond to that? Let me just respond. Just for viewers who are not up to speed. Yes, but, Pierce, the point is... Hang on, Peter. Peter, hang on. Let me finish my point, please. The reason it's important is... Well, it's important to know the facts, right? It's a bit like when the three American fighter jets were taken down. The initial reporting was all over the place about that, and I preferred to wait, and now it turns out it was friendly fire from a Kuwaiti pilot who mistook them for Iranians.

47:48Piers Morgan:So, I just think we need to get to facts before you declare... I know, Pierce, I understand what you're saying. Definitely an Israeli missile.

47:54Josh Hammer:Pierce, Pierce, even if it was an Iranian missile that was fired in response to the attack from Israel and the United States, right, even if it was an Iranian missile, those girls would still be alive today if the United States and Israel had not launched the attack. So you are right. We don't know who launched the missile. But we know that if the U.S. and Israel had not attacked a country that poses no serious threat to them, Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons. America has thousands that those girls would be alive.

48:28Piers Morgan:OK, but I would also say to that that it is indisputable. It is indisputable to... Hang on, Matt, please. Hang on, please.

48:36Nadav Shoham:Let me finish my point.

48:38Piers Morgan:Matt, let me just make the point. You're probably going to make the same point, which is if you're Israel, you have had 47 years of this regime in Iran wedded to your destruction to the extent that Iran has absolutely indisputably sponsored Hamas, the Houthis, Hezbollah, in a concerted effort to take out Israel. So regardless of what you think of Israel, that is indisputable. They've also, by the way, continually... Piers, can I just jump in? Well, it is.

49:08Josh Hammer:Piers, do you know that Israel sold Iran weapons in the 1980s under the Ayatollah Khomeini? I want to stop there for a second. In fact, some of the weapons that Hezbollah has used against Israeli forces, Haaretz, Israeli newspaper has reported, were likely sold to Iran by Israel, not under the Shah, under Ayatollah Khomeini...

49:27Piers Morgan:I think there is probably shocking hypocrisy on arms sales from all countries. No, it's because the point is that Israel did not... But Peter, Peter, Peter, Peter, just answer my point. Do you dispute that Iran has been very instrumental in funding terror groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis against Israel. Would you dispute that?

49:48Josh Hammer:Absolutely they have funded those groups against Israel, but it doesn't mean... OK, they're more in agreement. But it doesn't mean they pose an existential threat. Iran also endorsed the Arab Peace Initiative in 2002, in which it said it would recognise Israel's existence if Israel allowed a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza and there was an agreement on refugee return. Yes, Iran, for its own cynical reasons, uses the Palestinian cause and others to try to gain influence in the Middle East. That is not the same as saying it's an existential threat to a country that has nuclear weapons on submarines, has a massive nuclear deterrent, and is massively more powerful than them.

50:24Josh Hammer:And the point I was making about the 1980s, and then I'll stop, is the reason Israel wasn't afraid of Iran in the 1980s, in fact, sold them weapons, was at that point they saw Iraq as the greater threat. It was only when Iraq became weaker that they turned to saying Iran is the existential threat. And mark my words, if Iran is destroyed by this war, we will have people like our guests here coming on a year from now and saying it's Turkey and Turkey needs to be attacked because there will always be some country that's willing to support the Palestinian cause, maybe for their own reasons. And Israel will declare that country an existential threat, whether it is or not.

51:00Josh Hammer:Well, I don't know. Let me bring in. Let me bring in Matt, then, Cenk.

51:04Piers Morgan:Let me bring in Matt first because you wanted to get in there. I know. Matt, your chances.

51:08Nadav Shoham:I just feel like it's a critical to say that these attacks harmed women and children when those women and children, the young girls that you reference would be live a life in a barbaric, unequal society behind a burqa with no ability to make career choices. You know, the human rights in Iran is nothing you should use as the focal point. No, that's not what I'm saying either. And I will admit from my point of view, that all of this is controversial. Pierce started off by saying, isn't it controversial that Donald Trump is doing this? And I think I need to be honest from my point of view. It is.

51:46Nadav Shoham:It's controversial. There are a lot of America First people who are surprised. So they were going to be covered up in a burpee, in your opinion. The question to this is if I could I'll summarize quickly. But the answer to this is there's a tremendous amount of trust, Pierce, towards Donald Trump's judgment on these things. And really, nobody who's a serious mind in politics believes that Donald Trump was blackmailed or leveraged or led by the nose into this decision. He made this decision because he thought it was in the long-term best interests of the American people. And there is a chance that his decision making around the strikes in Iran will result in a better situation, not just in Iran for the people of Iran who are long suffering, but for the region.

52:31Nadav Shoham:And if that ends up happening, I actually think politically it'd be a very positive thing. OK, Cenk, Pano Bokji.

52:37Matt Schlapp:Same thing you said about Iraq, right? Yeah.

52:40Nadav Shoham:Look, they're not comparable, but if we go down the road to Iraq, I will agree with you. Hey, Matt. Political disaster.

52:46Matt Schlapp:Matt, you were wrong about Iraq because you serve Israel. You're wrong about Iran because you serve Israel. So let's get to the realities here.

52:53Josh Hammer:Wait a minute. I serve God and I follow the conversation. Disgusting slug.

52:57Matt Schlapp:So I thought it was my turn to talk. I thought it was my turn to talk. You can talk, but you can't make false libelous charges. You can talk, but you can't not sound retarded. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I got it. You already yap for Israel. You already yap for it. Don't worry, you'll get the check. Don't worry, you'll get the check. So I, like, for example, I'd say that Josh is Israel first. Yeah, sure, I know. So maybe they'll come back. Anyway, so Josh, I say Josh is Israel first, and then you guys flip out over it. Then you pan to one shot of Josh, and there's his book with Israel in the title.

53:31Matt Schlapp:Israel, everybody serve Israel. I have clerked for a federal appeals judge. I have spoken at Yale Law School, Harvard Law School, published constantly.

53:39Josh Hammer:Israel, Israel. It's right behind you, dude. It's right behind you. That's your book. Why didn't you write a book about America? It is a, actually, if you've read my damn book, large swath of the book are actually about America. The book is about, is about the Bible and Western civilization. No, if you were less of a retard, you understand that. Can I answer the question? These guys are obvious frauds. Israel refers actually to the children of Israel, to the biblical inheritance, something that you don't know a damn thing about. Of course, I know. Because you serve non-Western, neopaganist, long-term political.

54:13Matt Schlapp:You know what? You know what? Can I answer a question?

54:17Piers Morgan:Well, let me jump in, because actually I'm going to make a statement, not a question, which is, actually, Cenk, of all my guests in the last three years on Uncensored, probably the one who's mentioned the word Israel the most is you. Shocker.

54:32Matt Schlapp:Because, okay, so can I explain why? So, guys. Very quickly. You've got one minute to explain why. Yeah. Okay, Peter and I keep arguing, hey, we should take care of the American people, our health care, our wages, et cetera. Everybody else is saying, had this giant conversation about Israel's interest. And then I say, hey, look, obviously, guys, they've given billions to our politicians, so we're ignoring the elephant in the room. Yes, the conspiracy theory is that the national media says that our politicians are so moral, so decent, that they're not affected by the billions of dollars that the Israeli lobby has given them.

55:08Matt Schlapp:That is a wild, outrageous conspiracy theory. So, number one, we have no interest in this war. We already destroyed their nuclear facilities. Their ballistic missiles cannot reach us. So, when we talk about their ballistic missiles, we're all admitting this is a war for Israel. Israel cares about their ballistic missiles.

55:25Josh Hammer:They can reach the European Union.

55:26Matt Schlapp:We had no problems with their ballistic missiles until we attacked them. And then this outrageous thing of, like, can you believe Iran has attacked the countries that has attacked it? Of course! When you launch a war against the country, what did you think they were going to do? Has Cenk heard about the hostage crisis in Tehran? I don't care about your stupid Israeli lies. I'm worried about the American lives. I thought I was going to give a regime that was founded upon the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran. You know why I shot on your show? It was literally founded upon the U.S. embassy. Because every time I start talking, some Israeli puppet comes in.

55:59Matt Schlapp:I was talking about the six Americans dead and how so many more Americans are going to die for Israel because our scum politicians have taken, and no one disputes this, billions of dollars from the Israeli lobby. That is why they serve Israel. And is it... Can we... This story has a long way... Are you saying Joe Biden is corrupt? This story has a long way to go. Yes, yes, Joe Biden is corrupt. Donald Trump is corrupt. They've taken tens and hundreds of millions of dollars from the Israeli lobby. You don't dispute that. All you do is talk over... I'm going to leave it there

56:33Piers Morgan:for the sake of your blood vessels, Cenk. I appreciate you all joining me I'm perfectly calm

56:38Matt Schlapp:get Israel out of our country and we'll be in great shape serve Americans not Israelis that is not a conspiracy theory that's an American theory got it go serve Israel the rest of you except Peter

56:55Piers Morgan:okay thank you

57:05Piers Morgan: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.