Piers Morgan Uncensored - "A CATASTROPHIC Failure!" Has Trump Fallen Into "A Trap" With The Iran War And NATO Allies?

Episode Date: March 17, 2026

As conflict escalates, concerns over the unintended consequences of war are taking center stage. From rising costs in both lives and resources to rapidly shifting alliances, the situation is becoming increasingly unpredictable. President Donald Trump, who dismissed key allies, including UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, is now calling on the UK and NATO to help secure the Strait of Hormuz - warning of serious consequences if they fail to act. Meanwhile, geopolitical contradictions are mounting. Iran is strengthening ties with China and India to secure oil exports, while the U.S. deploys costly military assets against significantly cheaper threats. In another twist, Washington D.C is now seeking drone support from Ukraine after previously rejecting similar cooperation. With no clear resolution in sight, the conflict raises a critical question: as the U.S. and its allies struggle to define victory, is Iran’s primary objective of regime survival quietly being achieved? Piers Morgan is joined by panel guest; host of the Max Afterburner military analysis channel and a former US Air Force combat pilot, Ryan Bodenheimer, international security and counterterrorism expert Dr. Max Abrahms and Egyptian journalist and commentator on Middle Eastern affairs Rahma Zein. Special guests also include Iranian expat to the UK; chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, Massoud Shadjareh, political scientist Professor Robert Pape and president of the Eurasia Group, Ian Bremmer to discuss. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It may be that Netanyahu has taken America into something where he is quite comfortable about this going on for a long period of time, but it won't suit the American national interest. What we see after 17 days of war is the regime is now more powerful than it was. In fact, Iran has just achieved control of the Straits of Hormuz. This is a catastrophic failure. The United States has substantially reduced Iranian military capability. This has been the consistent action of Israel,

because they don't target, they destroy. Some of those might think if you care that much about what's happening on the streets in Tehran, you might want to go and do the same thing for the people of Tehran on the streets there. You do here. I find it very offensive. Okay, look, you find my question offensive,

and I find your support for the Iranian regime equally offensive, if not more so. So we're both going to have to end this interview. offended. One of the single biggest arguments against war, besides the cost in dollars and in lies, is the chaos of unintended consequences. Big changes happen fast. And sometimes things are never the same again. President Trump was quick to dismiss America's allies, none more so than Kyr Starmer and the UK, by saying he didn't need our help. He's now demanding help from

the UK and NATO to help secure Australia for Moose, warning the alliance faces a very bad future if it doesn't comply. Now, it would have been nice, as they said to the Prime Minister of the UK, Osota was reluctant to put his two aircraft carriers into Parks Way. That would be two weeks ago. And as soon as we demolished, essentially, pretty much demolished them, not over yet, but pretty much we're in great shape. It's one of that ways everybody knows.

He said, we'd like to send our aircraft carriers. I said, I don't want them after we win the war. before we start the war. So whether it's whether we get support or not, but I can say this and I said it to them, we will remember. Well, Trump's flip on NATO is not the only irony here, far from being swept away in a revolution.

The Iranian regime is now making side deals with India and China over safe passage for their oil. The US is sending multi-billion dollar naval vessels to fire $3 million missiles at $300,000. at $300 Iranian drones. And the US is now asking Ukraine for help with those drones after earlier rejecting a deal to buy their drone technology and telling President Zelensky he held no cards.

It's also a fact that the US also sent or sold many of the weapons it now needs in Iran to support Ukraine's war against Russia. And by lifting oil sanctions on Russia to stabilize gas prices, it's essentially paying Putin to make weapons that can use against its own weapons in a war that was supposed to be ended after 24 hours of presidency.

Well, amid all this turmoil, it's increasingly difficult to see how the US and Israel can plausibly declared victory anytime soon. Iran's regime, on the other hand, has a singular mission, survival. By that measure, whether we like it or not, it may be that Iran is currently doing the winning. Well, my excellent panel is standing by to discuss all this. We'll begin today's coverage with Robert Pape. He's a leading professor of political science at University of Chicago. and the founder and director of the Chicago Project on Security and Threats.

Mr. Peake, welcome to Uncensored. Thank you very much for having me, Peir. So, you know, my kind of overview sitting here in London at the moment, back in my studio, actually, for the first time in eight weeks, since I managed to be extremely foolish and fall over a step at a restaurant, I'll break my femur and need a new hip. It's good to be back. Nothing to do with you, Robert Pae, but it's good to be back in my old studio.

It seems to me sitting here and looking at everything that's happened in the last two weeks, that two things can be true at the same time. One is that militarily, the combined American and Israeli military, I mean, I would imagine, arguably the most powerful in history, has affected enormous damage on Iranian military. And overtime would be overwhelmingly, obviously, able to defeat it. However, the Iranians are fighting a slightly different war, it seems to me. They're fighting an economic war in which they have effectively closed Australia for

Moose, where 20% of the world's oil flows through on a daily basis, and they've systematically targeted a lot of places in the neighboring Gulf states that would deter tourists, for example, or expats living in those places from wanting to stay there or visit there. And the combined effect of this is having a very significant. dramatic effect on the global economy. And those two things can be true at the same time. You've caught it exactly right.

So, peers, just so you know, I have spent years teaching for the U.S. Air Force, help them stand up, an entire school dedicated to air strategy. Just a week before, the bombing started, I was giving a presentation of the U.S. Army War College. I spent my years. I have military officers coming getting their Ph.D. under me. So I spend a lot of time here with the U.S. military. We are as a military performing superbly at the tactical level.

And I want to just emphasize that. And you see, in the smart bomb age, it's especially true that bombs will hit their targets within about five meters, 90 plus percent of the time, which means you will destroy the missile launchers, which means you will kill the leaders. But that does not guarantee strategic success. And in this case, the goal was to take down the regime, not just simply kill leaders. The goal was to weaken Iran its power. And what we see after 17 days of war is the regime is resilient and more dangerous than ever than it was before the bombing. And Iran is now more powerful than it was. In fact, Iran has just achieved what we have spent 50 years in the U.S. military in America trying to prevent,

which is control of the Straits of Hormuz. That was the number one goal of American grand strategy in the Middle East, not Israel. This was the number one goal, and this is a catastrophic failure. And it is what I call the escalation trap peers. It's completely, I've seen this for decades. with the Clinton administration. This is not unique to President Trump, but he has fallen into being mesmerized by the power, the exquisite power of our military into thinking it's omnipot that it can do any, achieve any strategic objective. The fact of the matter is we have failed

strategically and we're getting deeper into the trap, which is why none of those allies, as you just pointed out, perhaps maybe the UK will see, want to go down the tubes with us here. This is a very, very, very serious problem. And I don't say this with any glee. If I could just say one more thing. This is one of the worst regimes we had in history. So I have no way supporting this regime in Iran. In fact, I've been offered many trips to go to Iran.

I refuse to go. So this is not coming from some sort of doveish support or something. I've sport many, many uses of force. My book's called Bombing to Win. I titled the substack, The Escalation Trap, and it's a tragic trap. And I'm trying to be clear so that we can stop making mistake after mistake after mistake. Now, let me paint another scenario to you of how this may have played out. And I base it almost exclusively on what the Secretary of State Marco Rubio said,

before he was probably rudely corrected by the administration, maybe his own boss, into reversing his position dramatically in 24 hours. But he was caught on camera saying that the reason the Americans had preemptively attacked Iran was because they got information that another country, clearly Israel, was about to attack Iran, and that Iran's response to that would be very likely to attack American interests, the bases in the Gulf states, whatever it may be. And therefore, because of that knowledge of the Israeli attack,

the Americans would have to preemptively go in to protect themselves from whatever retaliation came back, which seemed a very convoluted excuse for a preemptive strike. But if that is what happened here, and we know from the former Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, that Netanyahu had tried to persuade both Obama and Biden to do the same, saying, I'm about to go in, and then when they said, no, he didn't go in,

that potentially and possibly Donald Trump got played by Netanyahu here in the same way he tried to play Biden and Obama. And that the reason why Israel might be more relaxed about how this all plays out is that really what they want is a bit different to what America needs out of this. Israel just wants to cause maximum damage to Iran, to its regime. they'd be quite happy with chaos as they were when it happened in Syria. Whereas chaos in Iran, if it involves closing the straits of Hormuz or attacking the Gulf states next to them or whatever, that does not suit America.

So it may be, and I don't know the answer to this, I'm just hypothesizing based on what I heard coming out of Marco Rubio's mouth, if that was why the Americans joined this, then it may be that Netanyahu has taken. taken America into something where he is quite comfortable about this going on for a long period of time, but it won't suit the American national interest. Let me just make two points about this. Now that this is becoming a strategic disaster, peers, the blame game is already in full throttle here.

So you're going to see that. And I don't do politics, okay? But nonetheless, second point, which is, let's assume you're right here. That's not a good enough excuse for one. a disastrous campaign. So what that means, what that tells me is we really thought we had escalation dominance. We really thought they couldn't do anything. Even when apparently General Kane warned President Trump they would take the straight of

form moves, even though that was our number one planning scenario for 50 years here, 45 years here, he dismissed that. So, and yes, maybe Netanyahu's on the phone, but let me point out last fall. President Trump came down hard on the President, on Netanyahu's plan to cleanse Gaza of hundreds of thousands of people. So if President Trump wants to, he can stand up to Israel. In this case, we have to do something that's strategically smart. Yeah, I mean, look, and it may be that Donald Trump, when he was informed, the Ayatollah was with all his top people in a place that could be hit,

took a view that a bit like with Venezuela and Maduro, that he could get in, they could take out the leadership. It would dramatically change the dynamic, perhaps, if they got somebody who wasn't quite as fanatical, replacing the Ayatollah. But of course, even if you take that argument, which might well be the case, I'm not saying for a moment

that I think Donald Trump can be easily railroaded by Netanyahu. But if he got involved for that purpose, very quickly, he said, look, we want regime change, we want to see the people rise up. He spoke directly to them. We've seen none of that, probably because the people remember being slaughtered in the street when they protested in January, and there are loads of bombs flying over the street.

So why would they risk their lives? We've also not seen, well, we believe the Supreme Leader has been replaced by his son, but there's no sign of this son still being alive. There are reports he's gone to Moscow to have urgent surgery, all sorts of stuff about this guy. whether he's alive or not, we don't know yet. But either way, there's no doubt the regime remains intact. The people are not arising up. And so you're left with looking back at what Donald Trump said

in the immediate aftermath of launching the attacks. And none of that is manifesting itself. So I just think if I was advising Donald Trump, I'll be like, look, you've got to do something quickly here because your original mission statements simply aren't happening and are probably unlikely to happen. So it's important to know, peers, that I've studied every air campaign since World War I. I've modeled the bombing of Iran for 20 years. So I know quite a bit about all these details. And it's important to know that in over 100 years, air power alone has never, and I'm choosing my words carefully here, never toppled a government. The usual normal response, such as when Ronald Reagan tried to decapitate Gaddafi in 1986, or when Bill Clinton try to smash Milosevic's regime in March 1999. The usual response is a lashing back on the schedule

of the target. And so what you are seeing here is the normal failure of leadership decapitation attacks, including in the precision age. And the problem is not that the bombs fail to kill the leader. The problem is the replacements become much more aggressive because that's how they get legitimacy inside their inner circles, peers. So just imagine you're fighting for the next rung up, right? And if you're not aggressive, you're going to get a bullet in the back of the head. That's the real issue here. Well, also, if the new Supreme Leader is the Ayatollah Khomeini's son,

as has been reported from Iran, if that is the case, and he is alive, this is somebody who's just seen his parents and his wife and as many as two of his children killed in the initial strikes. And if that's not an incentive to wreak havoc and revenge against the Americans and the Israelis, I don't know what will be. So I completely concur. And recall, peers, we said that President Bush,

the son wanted revenge for assassination attempts against President Bush, the father. Right. So we understand this. You don't need to be Islamic to think you want to defend your father and your family. We have really elevated. This is why I say this isn't just rearranging of deck chairs. This is a more dangerous regime.

The Revolutionary Guards are more in control. And what you see is they have also been preparing. They had their plan mosaic for how to handle the death of their leaders. It's gone according to. plan. They have a what I call horizontal escalation strategy. They're using precision guided drones. These are not just haphazardly attacking targets. You effectively have two precision air forces going at each other. And that's not happened before. So we're really seeing an Iran that has been preparing, just as we in the military have prepared our strategy for 20 years, which we have. We prepare the tactical strategy

They're picking up a North Korean, I'm sorry, North Vietnamese version, long war, go at the soft underbelly, which is politics. And they may be trying to bring down President Trump's presidency, which is why I don't think they're going to give up the straits just say, oh, yeah, we're going to stop now. No, I mean, they may well sense an opportunity to drag this out long enough that Donald Trump in the November midterm elections, loses both the House and the Senate,

becomes the lamest of lame duck presidents, and then has two pretty powerless years, which would drive him completely nuts. And I just want to say, peers, I've warned about this before the war. I started the substack with all these detailed scenarios before the war. As the war unfolded,

I've warned here in foreign affairs, most read magazine explaining President Trump has a choice, get out now, or get deeper in where the political price And so I'm not here with taking any glee about what is happening to America right now. More of the opposite. I want us to do better, but we're not going to do better with victory narrative. Because victory narrative is meeting escalation reality.

And we've got to push aside these victory narratives because we need to be much, much more serious about what we're up against. A hundred percent. I just want to just finally mention that there's some interesting kickback coming. now from within. David Sacks, President Trump's artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency Tsar, has warned on the podcast All In that, quote, Israel could get seriously destroyed. And then you have to worry about Israel escalating the war by contemplating using a nuclear weapon. I mean, it's a pretty apocalyptic fear he's raising there, but that is one of Donald Trump's top people. Is that a potential scenario? So I laid out on my substack, a 30-minute video.

video focusing on the uranium, enriched uranium, that may well be dispersing inside of Iran. That is 1,000 pounds of 60%, 10,000 pounds of 5 and 20%. There's no guarantee that will only disperse inside of Iran. So if you thought of radio, I don't mean nuclear atomic bombs, but radiological bombs in Tel Aviv, now we're talking really escalating this up. So I don't know what Mr. Sacks is talking about. I've never met him. I haven't talked to him.

But I know what I have studied for 20 years in the modeling here. And the modeling is there are a lot more cards for Iran to play. And the idea that maybe Netanyahu could be tempted, maybe Netanyahu could be tempted to use a tactical nuclear weapon, but that will have blowback, radiation blowback, in the Gulf. Fascinating stuff. Professor Robert Paine, great to have your On Uncensor making your debut.

Please don't leave us along next time. We'd love to have you back soon. Thank you very much. Well, I'm joined now by Ian Bremmer. He's the president of the Eurasia group. Ian, a great to talk to you, a regular guest on Unsens that I'm pleased to say. You know, I just, I've got a real sense of foreboding about this. And it's mainly because I just can't get out of my head the increasingly firm

that Donald Trump has miscalculated quite badly here, that he thought this would be quite easy in the way that getting Maduro out of Venezuela was quite easy and so on. And actually, it's turned out to be incredibly difficult. And, you know, when you hear the rhetoric coming out of someone like Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of War, and it's all like, we're about to win,

and Donald Trump, it's all over soon. And, you know, we've beaten them so badly, and then you wake up and, you know, and you see Dubai airport's being hit again. You're like, really? Because it doesn't look that way to me. It looks like the straight-off almost is pretty well closed, causing enormous global economic damage.

And it looks like the Gulf states are under constant attack, which is obviously acting as a massive deterrent to tourists, to expats and so on. They're all fleeing in the droves. I don't see much sign of a victory here. And I do see a sign of Iran potentially getting more emboldened because their only mission is to survive. but they're not just surviving at the moment.

They're causing wheel damage. Well, Pierce, first of all, it's good to see you. Let's start with the most important. Thank you very much. Thank you. And look, the Strait of Hormuz, as you know, is actually open. There are plenty of Iranian tankers that are getting through the strait and that are bringing their oil to China for which they are being paid a handsome sum.

and that is going to the Islamic Republic. It's going to the regime. And the United States has the military ability to interdict those tankers, but has chosen not to, partially because they don't want to annoy the Chinese, and partially because they don't want prices any higher. But aside from that,

I think the way you just frame that is pretty spot on. Trump clearly believed that this was going to be Venezuela. By the way, he also believed it was going to be Iran, but Iran lack of response following his engagement in the 12-day war last year, or following his order of the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Quds force at the end of his first term. But this, of course, is a much, much bigger military operation with far more capacity to go very badly.

And it's not just about Iran being able to block the straits or mine the straits. It's just their ability to cause enough discharges, that the tankers and other ships don't feel safe going through. And that they have the capacity to do for quite some time going forward. And this is, Trump is clearly looking for someone to blame, right? I mean, you could tell. He's like, well, you know, the Europeans need to support me because why am I even there? They're the ones that need the oil.

I've got more than enough oil. The Chinese need to support me. Why am I even there? They're the ones that need the oil. But he doesn't have anyone to blame. It's on him. And he's incredibly frustrated that there doesn't seem to be a way

for him to have an off-ramp that he can effectively portray as a win. And you and I both know, we have enough experience with Trump as president, that when that happens, he tends to escalate. When he can't frame a win and he has no way out, then he'll punch. He'll punch.

And that's so, I mean, he'd like to be able to wrap this up and move on to the next thing. But right now what we see are 5,000 American troops that are heading to the Persian Gulf and they'll get there in just under two weeks. And I think that the timing of that is interesting and connected with why Trump is talking about maybe postponing

his much-anticipated summit meeting in Beijing with Xi Jinping. Yeah, I mean, you know, On that, you've got Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Arachi. He said that Russia and China are aiding Iran in a number of ways. Let's take a listen. Can you confirm or deny whether Russia or China is providing military support and intelligence to Iran? Well, Russia and China are our strategic partners, and we have had close cooperation in the past, which is still continues.

And that includes military cooperation as well. I mean, you know, sort of almost defy belief when you read that sanctions got lifted on Russia because of this crisis, which helps them economically. At the precise moment, absolutely nobody who wants Ukraine to try and survive in their war with Russia would want Russia to get a massive economic boost. Correct. And of course, it's one of the great ironies here

is also the Ukrainians are providing a lot, more direct support for America's call in the Gulf than the Europeans are. I mean, they're the ones that have the interceptors. They're the ones that are sending military advisors to help train Gulf troops on how to bring these Iranian drones down and do it effectively and do it cheaply. So, I mean, it turns out the Americans need the Ukrainians right now more than they actually need the Europeans in the Middle East. Who had that on their bingo card a year ago? But yes, Russia, of course, is in a better position, better because oil prices and natural gas prices and fertilizer prices are much higher, better because the world needs those resources and the

United States is suspending their sanctions on the Russians. And also better position because Trump is talking about, well, if you're not going to help me in the straits, Europe, for a war that I didn't ask you about. I didn't coordinate with you. I didn't even give you a heads up until after I started the bombing, but now that I'm going to fix, I want you to help get my chestnuts out of the fire. And if you don't, NATO is in serious trouble. I mean, Putin could be scripting that. Right. Right. And what about the Gulf States? Because clearly they've been severely rattled by Iran's attacks on them. Iran says, look, you know, we didn't want to attack you, but once we got attacked in the way that we were, we have to

attack the Americans in the way that we think will cause maximum damage, and that includes attacking all their bases, which, of course, you guys all have. But it's gone further. They've been hitting hotels and tourist areas and so on. And obviously, the Gulf states are enraged by this. We've heard the Prime Minister Qatar publicly condemning it and others also briefing how angry they are. But at what point does that anger become self-preservationist concern expressed to Trump, you've got to end this because our whole business model, which has been moving away from reliance on the oil that's running out into tourism and sport and entertainment and lifestyle, that is all literally going up in smoke, if we're not careful here, in a way that increasingly

could be for a very long time. And then you read about potentially Iran threatening to hit the desalination plants, which if that happened in places like Riyadh, you know, I don't know how long their water reserves would be in that eventuality, but not very long, I suspect. So it's got to be a point. And the Iranians only get 2% of their water from desalination. Right. So, so... Big majority.

Right. So what is the calculation there for these Gulf states in? I mean, are they going to be starting to pressure Trump to bring an end to this for that reason? You might be surprised, Pierce, but it actually moves in the other direction. Now, they did not want this war, but now that the war has started, They're very concerned about what a wounded but capable Islamic Republic run by the IRGC and maybe by Mushtaba Hameenie or not would mean for them going forward. So, I mean, what I'm hearing from Gulf leaders is enormous anger, particularly at Israel,

incensed about the way that they've conducted themselves and some of the targeting. but they don't want the United States to stop tomorrow and leave Iran with all of these capabilities that in a sense are saying you need to kind of finish the job. Now, what finish the job means differs for the various Gulf states. Also, the UAE, which has talked about needing to retake occupied lands, there's a lot of discussion right now about these three contested islands that are small that Iran occupies in the straits,

that the Emirates are kind of interested in taking, and that I think if they decided to go, the United States would support that. So believe it or not, Pierce, as of right now, there is an escalatory impulse, or at least a continuation impulse, because the Gulf states feel that they're kind of damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Finally, Ian, what advice would you give President Trump right now? He clearly wants to bring an end to this. I think that much is obvious. But what is the best way to bring an end to this, where he can emerge with some kind of victory, albeit a fairly pyrrhic one, if the regime remains intact and there's been no uprising by the people and so on?

What kind of victory could he realistically gain now, which allows America to get out of this? If I thought that there was a realistic route to remove this regime at this point, I would support him taking it, not because it was a good idea from day one, massive risk and the damage economically, human costs and the rest.

But I mean, this is a horrible regime, and it's responsible for far more death and destruction in Iran than we've seen over the course of this war and the 12-day war combined. But I don't think that's plausible. And if regime change is not plausible, that the Americans are certainly not going to put the boots on the ground that would be required. The Iranian people do not have the wherewithal to rise up against this regime with that repressive capability and willingness.

Then I think the best thing for Trump to do is declare victory and stop. Stop now. Because there's massive international pressure outside the U.S. to get things through the strait. And there are many countries that are engaging in negotiations directly with the Iranians to that end. India already, Pakistan already, a number of other countries have reached out. And I think that pressure would ultimately reduce the economic fallout, which is going to be massive. I mean, even if you were to stop right now and there was no further cost and we reopened the strait, we would still have, you know, a couple of quarters of major knock-on economic damage because of all the supply chain challenges. You and I remember this from the pandemic.

You know, it took us a while to understand that when you cut off all of these shipments and you don't have fertilizer in a growing season, then your food prices are going up months and months later. If you don't have petrochemicals that are coming for all of your artificial fabrics in Asia, then your textile prices. are going up. I mean, consumer goods go up because packaging all of those inputs come through the Straits of Hormuz. Automotive parts. It's not just about the price of oil. So every day that this continues is weeks and weeks of knock-on economic cost. And this is going to affect Trump for the rest of his presidency. It's going to be a legacy issue for him. So as much as it is painful for him to declare victory that obviously no one is buying, except for his hardest, hardest supporters, I think that is the right thing for him to do. And I don't think that's his impulse.

I don't think he's likely to do it. I do think he is likely to escalate. But I hope that his advisors are able to talk enough sense into him that he finds a way out of this. Ian Bremmer, as always, extremely astute analysis. I actually read your email, your weekly email, on the way into the studio today. And if people aren't reading it, they should sign up and register because it's fascinating. It gives a weekly overview of all that's going on without any great agenda. That's what I like about it. You know, you're a very independent voice on this.

And that's so important, I think, right now. I appreciate it, Ian. Thank you very much. Good to see you, yeah. Well, let's hear from my panel now. Dr Max Abrams, an international security and counterterrorism expert Ramazane, Egyptian journalist and commentator on Middle Eastern Affairs, and Ryan Bodenheimer.

He's the host of the Max After Burner YouTube channel and a former US Air Force Combat Pilots. So welcome to all of you. I'm not sure if any of you've been on before, maybe Rammer. I think you may have been. But let me start with you, Dr. Max Abrams. Well, look, I've just had two experts. Neither is what I would categorize as politically partisan or tribal,

but both are very concerned about the way this war is going, particularly for the United States. What is your response to that? You know, I don't really buy into a lot of what I heard, particularly Robert Pap's argument. He talks about a so-called escalation trap. Now, of course, escalation depends on the metric you use. It depends on the dependent variable for evaluating, you know, escalation and success from the Iranian perspective.

But if you look at Iran's actual military capability, we are seeing the exact opposite of Iranian escalation. If you look at their usage of ballistic missiles, if you look at their drones, if you look at their ships, if you look at their nuclear capability, the United States has, in a short amount of time, substantially reduced Iranian military capability. So I do not see escalation in that sense. Like, there is literally less. violence being generated by Iran over time. It is the opposite of escalation in a traditional military sense. Right, but that's... I also think... Well, okay, let me stop me there.

Let me stop me there, Dr. Revers, because actually, you've sort of hit the nail on the head in a military sense. You're completely correct. I've seen all those numbers. There's been obviously a massive slowing down of Iranian missiles and so on. The problem is, simultaneously,

you've had this strangulation of the Straits of Hulmoos, and you've had the persistent attacks on the neighboring Gulf states in a way that is driving many people to leave and really terrorizing the civilian populations of those Gulf states. And who knows what that means longer term for the business model there of safety and sunshine and the good life. So my point being... Here, could I just say one other thing?

Well, yeah, let me just finish my question, which is for you, which is it could be that you're completely right about the military side of this war. And it may be that was the calculation Donald Trump made when he joined in, which was the overwhelming superiority in the air from America and Israel. But unfortunately, there's a simultaneous war going on, which is an economic strangulation, which is causing incredible damage globally. I just want to disabuse audience members, though,

from believing in that David Sachs tweet that you messered, that you mentioned about the possibility, the risk of Israel going nuclear. And I just think that that's irresponsible and silly, particularly given what we're actually seeing empirically in terms of this massive reduction in Iranian military capability, in terms of both its missiles and drones, something like a dozen Israelis have been killed. That's by the Iranian national military. That's like a lone wolf attack. In the United States, we see lone wolf attacks that kill more people than Iran has managed to kill Israelis.

So militarily, they are way, way down. With respect to the economy, there's no question that there have been negative externalities. But I do think that your two previous guests are overstating the costs. If you had money in the S&P, as so many Americans do, from February 28th until today, they'd be down about three percentage points. Three. That is not a correction. A correction is about 10 percentage to 20 percentage points.

Even a pullback is like 5 percentage points. But you know why that is? You know why that is? Just to come in there. The reason for that is that the markets believe, that Donald Trump, when he keeps saying this is going to end quickly, they currently buy into that. The problem will come if Iran thinks that this strategy

involving controlling the Strait of Hormuz, if they can keep that pretty well shut to everyone but maybe a bit of Iranian oil go out and oil going to China and to Russia, if they can control that Strait of Hormuz in a way that really causes longer-term damage with, as Ian Bremas said, the knock-on effect in a few weeks and months on food prices. You know, Trump's got to think about this politically with the midterms coming out,

that if he's still in this position in June-July, right, which he could be, because I don't think he's got a way of controlling it, this could be really damaging. Yeah, maybe in the long term, but Americans really have not been hurt that much financially, and you don't get that impression from the previous guess. The final thing I'll say,

I want to show the stage with my, and a panelist is that the Israeli stock market since February 28th is up. If you invested in February 28th in the Tel Aviv stock market, you would have made money. So I'm really not seeing this huge escalation, certainly not militarily. And the economic consequences have been overstated so far. Okay. Let me bring in Ramaze. Welcome back to Unsensor Ramay.

You posted this. Israel is making us watch yet another cycle of that. Every day they're attacking civilians in Lebanon, promising another Gaza. Israel is a plague. And in this region, it is the sole entity to blame for this endless violence. But it's so versed on pitting us against each other so it can continue to kill our children. You know, the part of that I would certainly question is that in this region, Israel is the sole entity to blame for this endless violence.

I mean, clearly Israel has itself been, you know, exposed to a lot of violence, whether it's from Hamas, whether it's from Hezbollah, whether it's from the Houthis, or funded by Iran. I mean, to deny that, I think, is to deny reality. So if you could explain why you believe that, I'd be quite interested. But, Piers, you have to be realistic. I mean, Israel has been bombing Lebanon since before Hezbollah. Israel has been occupying land since before the formation of Hamas.

So when are we going to start speaking about the root cause of the issue? For example, we now have, this is Muhammad, this is his daughter. Israel killed Muhammad and his daughter. This is not a sole scenario. This has been the consistent action of Israel because they don't target, they destroy. They go, they level cities. They're boasting about conducting another Gaza. And unfortunately, this is an I-Told-you-So scenario.

It's interesting that you mentioned that when I was on the show, because I told you, and not because I'm some kind of prophetic or someone who would know, but this is what everyone has been saying. The dangerous relationship between the U.S. and Israel is putting the region in danger. What ends up happening is you get the top gun, Pearl Harbor Hollywood packaged versions of what these escapades are doing in the region.

We end up with the dead kids. We end up with Muhammad and his daughter. Dead. For what reason? And U.S. following in its footsteps. This is a third grader, an Iranian child third grader. His mother is rightly worried about him losing his glasses. This is why you see she's attached his glasses to him. That's what a mother should be scared of, not for her kids to be torn from limb to limb. Interestingly, and lastly about Israel, just yesterday, you mentioned Hamas, yes? Yesterday in the West Bank, or before yesterday, sorry, in the West Bank. They shot at a vehicle with civilians in the West Bank where there is no resistance. So, some Palestinians are sitting ducks. They killed the parents of these four children.

and two of their siblings. And then they took two of the sons, stripped them and interrogated them. A 12-year-old child called Caleb, looked at the Israeli soldier, at the Israeli, and asked him, do you have a mother and a father? The Israeli said, yes. The child answered him, why did you kill mine? And his answer was to punch him in the face. this is the entity that has nuclear power.

Okay, but let me ask you. This is who we should be addressing. Let me say, first of all, I'm not aware of all the facts around all of the cases you've been mentioning. We will look into all of those, as we always would in this situation. But let me ask you, okay, you're very critical of the Israeli government. Sorry, Pierce, can I just add one thing? I'm so sorry, can I just add one last thing? Because this is honestly what hurts about something like this.

If this child wasn't Khaled, if this child was Johnny and William, and this happened in London by an Arab soldier, I really believe the world would be in more of an uproar. And I think this is sometimes the root cause of the issue that people in this region are expected to be killed. I think it's a perfectly valid point. I do. But what I would ask you in relation to that

is what is your view of the Iranian regime, which has been waging a despicable repression? of its own people since 1979, which has been sponsoring terrorism all over the region through all these proxies, which is an incredibly malevolent regime. Do you feel the same way about the Iranian regime? That's an excellent question.

I would have loved to see Iran and how it would have evolved without foreign intervention. Same as the case with Palestine. I would have loved to see when they actually had a democratic leader, post-Shah, if he had been left alone, even though he wanted to nationalize the oil, if this man had been left alone, I wish to have seen what this Iran would have looked. I wish to have seen this region without meddling. But unfortunately, you cannot, and this is,

this is always the interesting thing. You cannot meddle in countries. You cannot meddle in their leadership. You cannot cause civil, you cannot arm certain factions against one another. You can't pit people against one another as the division that has been caused in Lebanon due by the occupation. You cannot do these things and then cry wolf when there's a mutant leadership that's been created out of this meddling that has been a root cause. So, for example, interesting enough when your first question, what I would say to that is that obviously,

This regime in Iran didn't arise from anybody else's meddling. It arose because the people of Iran rose up against the Shah. There was a rebellion. And the hardline Islamist regime came in. And we've seen the result of that over the next few decades. And it's not been very pretty to watch. So I don't think that was to do with outside meddling in Iran. And I do think Iran itself, this regime, is a master at meddling in other places

and fermenting discontent. and civil uprisings and so on. That's the whole modus operandi. They want to get rid of Israel. They want to wage war on Israel through its proxies. They want to repress their own people. They killed thousands of their own people back in January when they dared to protest.

So I just think it's, no one should give this Iranian regime a pass for what it is. You can certainly have legitimate criticism of the Israeli government, and I've voiced many criticisms of it myself. But I don't want to lose track of the fact that this is an appalling Iranian regime. Let me bring in Ryan here. Ryan, you're a former US Air Force Combat Party. Before we get into the big picture here, one thing that's I really disliked as it's gone on

is the way the White House keeps putting out these kind of promo videos, making out this is all some kind of glorified video game like a movie. And actually using movie clips and so on. You know, I've got a lot of family of mine have been in combat and been in war. I just find it incredibly distasteful.

I don't think most American servicemen and women would feel comfortable portraying what's going on here as a movie because actual lives are being lost on all sides. What is your view? Yeah, hey, Pierce, thanks for having me on and hello to the panel. It's good to see everybody. I think it catches me off guard at first

when I see some of those videos. At first, it just kind of makes me step back. But then I try to think of the strategy and what they're trying to get across and communicate. when you're communicating, as you know, being in marketing, you know, marketing your show, trying to communicate to millions of people and you have three seconds to do it with a meme or a short clip, you know, that's going to look different than what it would look like if you could sit down a full podcast with the administration. Yeah, I guess. I just think it jars with me and I suspect

I get it. I think it jars with a lot of people actually. So let me ask me, look, again, it's a constant mixed messaging coming out of the administration about this because we were told, right, we're going to go in, we've taken out the leadership, there's going to be a regime change, the people are going to rise up, we're going to get rid of all their nuclear capability forever, and so on and so on and so on. None of which has really happened other than they killed the Supreme Leader and a lot of top people in the Iranian administration.

Now we're seeing, after two weeks, an expeditionary force of several thousand Marines, being sent aboard three warships towards the region. I'll be there in two weeks, suggesting there must be at least a possibility of some form of boots on the ground, which, again, Donald Trump has always said he would not do. You know, from a military perspective, how do you think this war is actually going?

Yeah, I think that's a great question. And, you know, I see the passion with Rama that she has, and I think that's great. You know, having been in combat myself, I don't glamorize war. And I think anybody who's been to combat, doesn't glamorize war. And what I try to do on my channels glamorize the bravery and courage of the warrior, not necessarily the war. But what I see here, and this is something that actually goes back,

Pierce, to what Robert Pape was saying. And I sat in many classes with professors just like him. And there's a reason why he's not on the tactical end, right? He's the theory, the strategy, and things like that. And so I got to take that knowledge and then go into classified vaults with the US Air Force and then apply it to, okay, if we use the strategy that is learned from a professor, will it actually apply on the battlefield? And that's the whole thing I did for 10 years, was study this specific scenario as well as North Korea and the Taiwan Straits. But what we're seeing now is an operational plan being executed, and the operational plan doesn't take place in the course of a week. I can't tell you the exact timeline that it takes,

but weeks, potentially a couple months, but there's phases to the timeline. And so as we saw, hour one, we went in and struck down the surface-to-air missile systems, right? Military victory of the IADs, the integrated air defenses. And now you start to target C2, command and control nodes. So there's a plan that's being executed and played out, and you can't tell the enemy exactly how long the plan is. It'd be great if we could just snap our fingers and it was like Venezuela, but this is an entirely different conflict. So now we're at the point where, you know, something I disagree with with Robert Page, as he said, this is two precision air forces going up against each other. I mean, clearly it's not.

90% of ballistic missiles, 90% of drones being taken down. And so, yeah, there'll be an additional phase now where we have to protect the Straits of Four Moose. And a lot of that comes down to naval power, air power, but we're seeing that phase now that's not going to happen in the blink of an eye. It's going to take a couple weeks to secure the Straits of Four Moose, in my opinion, maybe a little bit longer. and it's a patient strategy that I know is difficult for people to see play out. I mean, the reason I'm sort of concerned about the boots on the ground is that Marco Rubio said when asked about what would happen in trying to get the remaining enriched uranium that's thought to be in Iran, he said people are going to have to go in and get it.

Now, that just suggests clear use of boots on the ground. And at that point, it becomes, I think, politically, never mind then anything. else. I mean, I think militarily, but also politically, very hazardous for America, you know, in a way that you're going to commit boots on the ground. I have a long memory of the Iraq War, my brother fought in the Iraq War. You know, these things can go wrong very quickly. And politically, it could be very, very toxic for Trump if it ends up that he puts boots on the ground in Iran. Yeah, so I flew in Afghanistan. I flew 70 combat missions in Afghanistan, and trust me, I'm the last person that wants to see a massive force on the ground.

However, there was very effective strategic boots on the ground pretty early on. I don't know how much you know about the early days of the war, but basically strategic scalples going in, taking out high value targets. We're talking Delta Force, Navy SEALs, teams that are likely keeping the Iranian regime up at night right now. And that's completely different than a massive force on the ground. And you team that up, you team of those top teams. Tier one teams with tier one aviators from the Navy, Tier one aviators from the Air Force.

And that's a different scenario. But I'm with you. I do not want to see a massive force and boots on the ground. And I can tell you stories about things that I've seen, how that can go wrong firsthand. And that's not a strategic victory at this point. Surgical scalpel is what I see winning right now. Okay.

Let me come to just a quick fire around, really, just of how we think this is going to end. Max Abrams, what is your prediction for what now happens, how this ends? I think that where I agree with a lot of the guests is that we don't want this war to go on indefinitely. Time is of the essence. We live in a democracy and Americans don't have a stomach for much more of this. I do think that Donald Trump needs to find a social. called off-ramp. And I actually believe that he can. I do not think that he is stuck. I think what he

needs to do is highlight how effective the Americans and Israelis have been so far at degrading Iranian military power, throw a whole lot of different metrics at the American public, maybe privately reach some sort of deal with the Iranian leadership that there will be the end of kinetic operations insofar as, you know, oil prices can, you know, go back down. And to not spend any more time dealing with the regime change goal of this mission, which I think was ill-advised from the stock. So take the gains, highlight what they are and the war quickly. And I think that Americans will be able to see that we had some mixed successes, but this was not, you know, a massive loss for the president. Okay. Rahma, what's your view of how this ends? I think it is very dangerous

that you have a leader who's susceptible to his ego and the haunting background of files, and I believe that Israel is very able to manipulate this ego, and it would be very dangerous for them to have boots on the ground. It would be very dangerous for them to attempt to open the strait of Hermuz by force. It would be a suicide mission for them. It is insanity that you have $11.3 billion that have been spent on this war in just six days, and I understand that Trump doesn't want to end now because it would be a total embarrassment for him. But maybe he's needs to let go of that and actually put a stop to this because it's going to spiral. And when I talk about Israel in this case, it is something that you had even stated before in

the show. They obviously have very different intentions. Because, for example, in Jerusalem, in Al-UTS, Israel has closed Al-Aksa Mosque, and this is a hostile attack towards Muslims everywhere. And I'm going to say something that ironically is going to appeal to some of the Uxsah Mosque. of the nationals, even in your country. You don't want immigrants. Many of the people that are being displaced are going to end up in your countries. These are people who've lost their families.

And you're never really going to wrong a father whose daughter has been shot in his arms. So if people really want their countries to be safeguarded, to not have people who have lost their families for absolutely no reason, for a war of choice, then I would really urge people to start speaking up and taking action

because it is going to spiral. It is going to get dangerous. Over 800,000 Lebanese have been displaced. This is an insane number for two weeks. 700 people killed by Israel. They killed this family in the West Bank. They are continuing their expansion in the West Bank.

We're finding Muppets like Lindsay Graham boasting that he's talking to BB on the phone every other day. And it says even in Marvel villain movies, you'd get one maximum two villains. Now you have a cabinet filled with people like Pete Hagsworth, who's a prominent woman abuser, and he thinks he's in a modern day crusade. If these are the people that have Trump's ear, who are the Mar-a-Lago crowd, who make him believe that he's actually winning when he is evidently not,

and putting us once again all in danger, then something's got to give. and I feel that he doesn't have an exit tram. He's looking to other scapegoats, and at one point, people need to grow a backbone and actually tell him that enough is enough. Okay. Ryan, quickly, if you don't mind, your view of how this plays out now? Yeah, for sure.

So the regime right now is not more resilient than they've ever been. That was a comment made by Robert Pape earlier as well. They're as weak as they've ever been. They're on the ropes, and they're desperate. that's why they're doing what they're doing in this rates of four moves. So if it was me and I was tactically in control right now, and this is essentially what I see happening, I'd focus fully on opening the streets of four moves for everyone.

It's a soft closure basically right now. So the third carrier is on the way. That's a good step. The MEU, the Marine Expedition is on the way. And you would be putting your own American soldiers' lives in danger. That's what you should be doing. So Israel's just pointing where people to go. Can I respond?

Okay, Rom-A. Israel's pointing where to shoot. And the U.S. is sacrificing their soldiers and their weapons. Your frustration is real, and I get it. But at the end of the day, I think... Okay, I think what President Trump is doing is, you know, he's not perfect, but I think he's actually doing the world a favor because we're seeing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps having 2,500 ballistic missiles.

And look what they did with 2,500. Their goal is to make 100 every month. So they were going to get to 10,000. And then at that point, you know, what do we do at that point? Lack of culture and lack of geographical awareness is really going to put all in danger. When you killed their supreme leader, you have to understand that there's an indoctrination. This is not a Venezuela incident. You have radicalized the people. You have replaced the one man that was using the fatwa, not to use nuclear weapons.

By bombing an elementary school with 150 kids, by bombing 150 children. 35,000 of them were just killed, Rama. You know 35,000 of them were killed. And that's part of the reason why the U.S. is there, is to give the amazing, smart, charismatic. Iranian people, the ability to stand up and live a life finally that represents their character. You're not going to liberate people by bombing them. When has that? Does that work in Iraq? We're not bombing the IRGC, which is a terrorist organization. You cannot destroy. You are bombing a terrorist organization. And Israel will eventually have the opportunity to have this is, this stuff under the thumb of terrorists. This man, this daughter, this daughter.

Okay. In Lebanon? There's one more thing I wanted to add, Pierce. Yeah, finally right. So at this point, I think focusing on the Straits of Form moves, making sure that that can be opened up, and that's what I see the Trump administration doing, again, they're not perfect, but the strategy that I see, especially from Pete Heggseth, is something that I think is going to work. Okay. I appreciate you all. I was in the south of Lebanon, by the way, and it's interesting because I was there.

I was at the war zone. And even during the ceasefire, Israel was shooting. We were on the south side, and they sent a drone within 10 minutes of being on this. side. Yeah, I've been in a war zone as well. I've had mortars hit around me in a war zone. I get it. War is terrible. You're right. War is not great. This is something that we should try to end as quickly as possible. And I think maybe people need to, people need to believe the PR, because if you take away the PR, you realize they're just shooting at kids. And now, if you don't care about the dead kids, you're going to care about the economy that's going to hit you hard. Okay, Roma, just to be clear, Ryan is not actually part of the current military strike himself. So,

let's just keep him one removed from your... I know, but still, you cannot defend it. this. It's insane to defend children and just call them terrorists. You made your point. Honestly, you want to kill the... Romer, you've made your point very forcefully and very passionately, and we hear you. But I've got to end the debate now. I'll have another guest waiting. But thank you all very much indeed. I appreciate it. Thanks, Spears. Well, this weekend, a pro-Iranian regime protest took place in London.

It was curtailed by authorities and limited to being a static gathering, not a march. But the controversy shone alight on some of the perhaps surprising views are so obvious organizers. One of them is Masoud Shadjera, Iranian expact of the UK, and chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, who met the previous I told of the Supreme Leader. Welcome to uncensored, Mr. Shadjera. You were part of this mass static protest against the war in London. How much of that is because you object to war

and how much of it is genuine full-throttle support for the Iranian regime? Well, if you look at the whole history of this, this demonstrations are being held for over 47 years and stands against the illegal apartheid regime and in support of the Palestinians, but also support of all those who are being targeted by the colonial system anywhere and being oppressed. And the reality is that, you know, it's not just once a year that likes of me go out. The fact of malaria is that we have been out against Iraq war. We were out and stopped the war during the two years' genocide, which took place and is taking places still in Gaza. So really, as for one, myself and every single other person who came yesterday are committed against war, war criminals, genocide and use of weapons and war in terrorizing civilians. Okay, but you were able to protest peacefully yesterday. I think there were

12 arrests, but there wasn't any of the widely anticipated conflict that people fear between rival groups yesterday, which was good. But you were able to express yourself freely and democratically on the streets of London. When Iranian civilians tried to do this against the Iranian regime in January, many thousands of them, perhaps as many as many as 35,000, we haven't had a verified number of casualties, but many thousands were slaughtered by the Iranian regime. So would you condemn what the Iranian regime did to the Iranian civilians back in January? First of all, let me say that, you know, if you look at the whole history of Al-Quds demonstrations in London over 47 years, you see that there is not even a single case.

of anyone being charged, let alone found guilty. So really expecting that something unusual would happen this time and people would go crazy and start doing the stupid things which they have never done in the whole history of 47 years. It was something in the imagination of very few people who all support the genocide and there are genocide. Okay, but what about the answer to my question? Right.

Well, as regards as, you know, the figures that going around that Iran has managed to kill 30,000 and some say 40,000 people in a matter of a week, it's pathetic. If indeed, I believe such a thing could possibly happen, I will be outside the Iranian embassy demonstrating against them. How many were killed? Outside any, outside any embassy. How many were killed? who kills 40,000. Right, so how many work you? You know, it was announced two and a half thousand,

and it was, it wasn't just peaceful demonstration. People were using Klashtikovs. They're using Monitor Cotel. Indeed, even in London. And these opposition group have used Monacoctail against the mosque and put fire to it. And they put five of our police officers in London, in hospital. So, you know, how do you deal with that?

What would you do? You know, you may have noticed that you were able to protest in London and nobody got killed. And when there were protests in January against the regime, you say at least two and a half thousand people were killed. Let me tell you, if two and a half thousand people, well, hang on, hang on, if two and a half thousand protesters had been killed yesterday amongst your group,

what would your reaction have been? Well, you know, if they were using monumental cocktails and using weapons, automatic weapons against the police officers, I would have said they should have been using... But you talk about oppression, Masu Shedgera. You talk about oppression in relation to... Hang on, hang on. You talk about oppression in relation to what you call the occupation of Gaza,

by Israel and so on. And that's fine. You can have that view. But what about the oppression of the Iranian people, your people, by the Iranian regime. Look, look, I'm not an ambassador of Iran or representative of Iran. I'm an Iranian who have lived here since 1970. And I have, you know, I am not answerable for that.

But do you condemn it? Look, I am saying as a human right activist, if indeed was proven that 40,000, even 30,000, even 20,000 people were killed, I will be in the street demonstrating again. For two and a half thousand wasn't enough for you. Sorry? Well, even if we take your very low number, which nobody else seems to agree with, two and a half thousand people were slaughtered on the streets.

Why did you not take, by your yardstick and your numbers, why was two and a half thousand people being killed not enough to put you on the street protesting? Look, I was happened to be there, visiting my daughter. And I was actually in midst of some of those demonstration and everything. Ordinary people, ordinary people who are, you know, in Tehran, in Mashhad, in Esfahan, were fearful of those who were rioting rather than being fearful of the security services because the rioters were shooting people,

putting petrol bombs on them, actually pouring petrol and putting them alight and actually shooting them. They were scared of that. They weren't scared of... So just to be clear, just to be clear, the 2,500 people that you say were killed

of the protesters, although many other... Well, it's not me saying. Many other reports say it was many, many times there. But even if we take your number, this very low number, victims. You're saying the responsibility for the two and a half thousand deaths lies with those who were killed? No, I'm saying the responsibility of that is with a small group of people

who were well trained. They were slaughtering people. Ordinary demonstrators anywhere in the world, not in London, not in New York, not United States or Paris or Germany or anywhere else will go and slaughter people. No ordinary demonstrators. Rutek-Klasnikovs, and they start shooting people. This has been well-documented. Videos have been shown. I myself witnessed the violence that was being unleashed. Why was the internet turned off?

Why did the regime turn the internet off if they had nothing to hide? Because they were organizing these processes through their thing. So they were deliberately repressing the protests? Why did they turn on? Why did they turn off the internet? on 7-7. It was rightly so to do that. You know, security services behave in that way anywhere.

Why is it sometimes, you know, they do it in other occasion because... So you're saying the protesters who were doing largely what you were doing yesterday, which is demonstrating on the streets of Iran, you were doing it in London, you're comparing that to the 7-7 terror attacks, right? That they're all terrorists. No, no, no, no. No, no, let me, don't put it in my mouth. What I'm saying is that the demonstrators had the right to demonstrate because of the economical situation and everything else.

I think they had as much right as we had in the streets of London yesterday. But those who were deliberately organizing to create violence have got no right, and they are the ones who were responsible. I support every single one of every single one of those demonstrated who died as a result of this organized chaos. I believe they're martyrs. And I believe they had the right and indeed the duty to stand up and speak out for their economical situation that they finding themselves. Do you condemn the regime that authorize their killing? I condemn those who created the environment which led to that sort of violence. So you're actually blaming the victims.

If tomorrow, look, if tomorrow, if tomorrow in London, that sort of chaos is created, people are shooting and our police officers, then they have to respond back. Right. So just to be clear, you are justifying, right, so you're justifying the deaths of all those protesters because they had it coming. That's what you're saying. No, no, I'm not. You are.

I'm saying that every, I'm saying every single one of those who went out to demonstrate against the economical situation that they are facing, they had the right and the duty to do so. And if indeed they died as a result of this, they're muttered. You know, I cannot put more value on their lives than that as a Muslim. No, but it's fascinating that you wouldn't blame the regime for any of those deaths. You're inferring that they all died because the protesters were violent, not the people who shot the protesters dead. If tomorrow, God forbid, people take arms in the street

and shoot at our police officers, what do you think they should do? I think what happened is the vast majority... No, no, no. I'm painting you the picture, which you don't seem to want to recognize, which is the majority of those protesters on the streets in Iran were peaceful protesters, right? So what you're trying to do is tile them all with the brush of violence, making out they were all armed, all dangerous,

all shooting at the authorities, therefore the authorities had no choice but to kill them. And I'm saying that's a grotesque misrepresentation. I'm asking you, if tomorrow, in London or in New York, people take weapons and go around shooting at the police officers, putting fire to individuals. Let me tell you, two and a half thousand protesters got shot dead

on the streets of London tomorrow, never mind 35,000. If two and a half thousand got shot dead, then the government would be toppled within hours from an outraged populace. I can tell you that. And that's the difference. I'm asking you.

Because instead, you're reluctant to criticize your regime because you're fearful for reprisals, which I understand. I'm saying very clearly, those who went to demonstrate because of the situation of their economy and economical situation, they find themselves. And my heart goes to that. They are right to do so, and they had the responsibility to do so.

They should have done it. I support them full-heartedly, but those who actually went armed, and armed, arms doesn't come growing as a grass. It was given to them, it was created, It was organized to create that havoc, to turn Iran into another Libya, turn Iran into another Syria and so forth and so on. Those created that environment.

God forbid, if that happens in London, then what do you think our police officers should do? I think if there were a few violent people in a very large group of protesters, most of whom were protesting peacefully. And the law enforcement response was to show. shoot dead, tens of thousands of them. Trust me, the British people would say that was an outrageous abuse of law enforcement power. And as I say, the government in that situation,

they would be overthrown very quickly because it would be seen as a disgusting attack on freedom and democracy. But look, we're not going to agree about this. Let me just ask you, I want to ask you a final question, if I may, which is just that it's been reported that you met the former Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Hameini. do you believe that the reported successor, his son,

is actually alive and is able to function as a new supreme leader? First of all, I have met Ardabon, I've made Mahatir. I have met our king, and as a matter of fact, he invited me for dinner while the rest of them just gave me a tea. So really, I would meet anybody and I would go places to explain the work of IHRC, at any time, anywhere. As regards as, you know, the successor, I don't know.

I'm not living there. But what I do believe, that it was actually amazing that they, at the time of war, being unleashed against them, they were able to organize themselves and put those processes to find the successor. Out of interest, why haven't you returned to live in Iran?

Why? Because I'm living here. My whole family is here. My whole friends are here. I've lived here since 70. I do go to Iran quite often. And, you know, I enjoy it every time I do. You know, I chose to live here and I'm here with my family. And I make a commitment and indeed contribution.

I have made a contribution in this country far beyond what you know. I have been part of the stop and search community panel, which was set up by Home Office. I've been part of the accountability for Schedule 7 by the Metropolitan Police. I've made a contribution any time I've been asked to do so, to make our lives better for the future, for ourselves and our children. That's the commitment I have.

And I find it very offensive you ask such questions. No, someone just might think if you care that much about what's happening on the streets in Tehran, you might want to go and do the same thing for the people of Tehran on the streets there. You do here. And that's all. That's all. I'm not passing judgment on you. I'm just saying, as you know, you've been criticized for making a choice that you have.

I find it very offensive. You know, I have been committed to a better life for all. It's okay. Look, you find my question offensive. and I find your support for the Iranian regime in relation to the deaths of many thousands of protesters equally offensive, if not more so. So we're both going to have to end this interview, offended.

But I appreciate you joining me, Masoud Shadjera. Thank you very much. Pierce Morgan Unsensad 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 Pierce Morgan Unsensored on Spotify and Apple Podcast. And in return, we will continue our website.

mission to inform, irritate and entertain, and we'll do it all for free. Independent on Sensor Media has never been more critical and we couldn't do it without you.