Piers Morgan Uncensored - "Clearly A War For ISRAEL!" Iran Crisis Sparks ERUPTION On Piers Morgan Panel

Episode Date: February 24, 2026

The United States is assembling a formidable arsenal of warships and aircraft in the Middle East - the biggest military build-up in that region since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Iran wants to build long range missiles which could strike the continental US and is governed by fanatics who butcher their own people. Is the US planning a surgical strike against specific facilities or powerful men? Or is this something more decisive and risky, as the military build-up implies? Piers Morgan speaks to former US national security advisor Ambassador John Bolton before turning to his panel; The Young Turks’ Cenk Uygur, Part of The Problem host Dave Smith, Iranian-American attorney and activist Elica Lebon, former Canadian lawmaker and Iran activist Goldie Ghamari plus former NATO supreme commander General Wesley Clark. Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent and supported by:  Incogni: Take your personal data back with Incogni! Use code PIERS at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan: https://incogni.com/piers Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

John Bolton, okay, we've been on Ms. Rodeo before. Does that not give you pause for thought now with Iran? No, my position would be that we are entitled to and should use enough force to help destabilize the regime and get the opposition and the power. General Clark, hold on. They have cost us trillions of dollars. And you know that. And they have cost us blood and treasure.

And it's Israel doing it, General Clark. Be a patriot. Be a patriot. Santa for America, not for Israel. Can we have some respect for the general, please? This isn't about what the facts are. This is about how you are looking at the facts. And this isn't, no, no, we don't interrupt.

You're not my teacher. As we speak, the United States is assembling a formidable arsenal of warships and aircraft in the Middle East. It's the biggest military buildup in that region since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. And none of the talking points are very familiar too. Iran must have built long-range missiles, which, could strike the continental United States. Iran is governed by fanatics who butcher their own people. They hate us. They're misogynists and they don't share our values. All of these things, as far as I can see, are true, but do they justify a United States war which currently looks inevitable and may

even have begun by the time we air this debate? There are big practical questions which haven't been answered. Is the US planning a surgical strike against specific facilities or powerful men, or is there something more decisive and risky, as the military buildup implies? Is the aim to bully this regime in negotiations, or is it to change the regime altogether? Protesters are calling for the return of Reza-Palavi as monarch, but the monarchists don't have the guns. So who is really going to govern a new Iran? And the biggest question being asked in the United States is simply, well, why are we doing this? Seven in ten Americans don't support a war with Iran.

many sympathize with the plight of the Iranian people, but as with Ukraine, on nothing to do with the conflict happening thousands of miles away. And many others are making the case that the United States is again doing Israel's bidding. I'll be joined by a panel to debate all this shortly, but we start with the former national security advisor, John Bolton. John Bolton, welcome back to uncensored.

Would Donald Trump be right, do you think, to launch a full attack on Iran? Well, I don't think anybody's contemplating American boots on the ground. I think we're talking about some kind of air attack. I think we have for too long ignored the Iranian opposition. We haven't coordinated with them. But I also believe at this moment that the regime in Tehran is at its weakest point since it took power in 1979. And I think there is no chance for a peace and stability in the Middle East or really because of the nuclear

terrorist threats that the regime poses around the world until it goes. So my position would be that we are entitled to and should use enough force to help destabilize the regime and get the opposition and the power. But we saw recently in Venezuela the removal of Maduro, which was a very surgically precise military operation, which involved no American loss of life. And he was taken to a United States federal prison. This is very different and much more complicated to get in anywhere near where, for argument, say, the Iotelries or the senior regime leaders in Iran, is not going to be anything like it was with Maduro and Venezuela, is it? No, no, it won't. I don't think it should be. I think we made a mistake in Venezuela and not

getting more of the gang of criminals running the country rather than just Maduro. And I think, in fact, Iraq today, I would argue that the real rulers of the country are the commanders of the Revolutionary Guard. I think the Ayatollahs provide a religious legitimacy, a kind of ideological camouflage, but the real powers in the Revolutionary Guard. And in fact, it's the bases and headquarters of the Guard that really should be our principal targets. There are lots of people, as you know, who will say, well, John Bolton, okay, we've been on Rodeo before rhetorically, it was in the build-up to the Iraq War in 2003. And the rhetoric then was that Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, all the things were saying about the Iranian leadership now,

that he had weapons of mass destruction, that he was representing a direct threat to the United States and to the UK and others, and therefore he had to be removed. And we all know that that turned out, well, not to be true in the question of his ability to have weapons of mass destruction, they never got found, but also that it caused total carnage in Iraq and the wider Middle East. It led to the rise of ISIS and everything that followed from there and was pretty much a catastrophe. You were one of the leading lights at the time saying we should do that. Does that not give you pause for thought now with Iran? No, I think you have to look at each circumstance on its individual facts, and I think you can

start with Iraq or you could go back a little bit further in World War. two, we determined that removing Adolf Hitler and the Nazis from Germany would be a good thing, and we did it. And it turned out Germany's okay these days. So, you know, there's a lot of history here. We don't have time to discuss. I think in the case of Iran, that there's no regime worse than the one that's in power now. And that what they recently did to their own citizens, if you're not worried about nuclear weapons and terrorism, look at how they massacred tens of thousands of their own citizens. But that would be an example, I would argue, to counter your point, about they've never been weaker,

that we've seen over the, you know, since 79, when they took control the Ayatollahs and Revolutionary Guard, we've seen a number of uprisings, all of which have been quashed in similar, ruthless fashion. This seemed to me to be particularly bloody, even by their standards of quashing rebellions, but didn't suggest to me that they've been as weakened as people think. Well, I think the support for the regime has disappeared across the country, and what supports it really are the elements of the Revolutionary Guard and some of the conventional military, which is why the opposition, which by and large is without weapons,

needs outside help. So that's why if we target the instruments of Iranian state power, which threaten us, Israel, the Arab states, and which repress its own people, the Revolutionary Guard, the besieging militia, the nuclear and ballistic missile programs, then I think we can help convince people, even inside the regime itself, in the regular military, that this is not going to end well for them. This question may have been overtaken by events when this airs, but is Donald Trump potentially playing a game of bluff here with the Iranian leadership?

is he got this huge military buildup primarily to force them to the negotiating table to unequivocally declare they will not pursue nuclear weapons? I don't think he knows what he wants to do. If you look at comments by his lead negotiator Steve Whitkoff over the weekend, he said, we can't figure out why with all these air and naval assets, they're not ready to make a deal, which sounds like the reaction of a Manhattan real estate dealer. The fact is that that may be what Trump was hoping, but I don't think he's made a decision to strike either to vindicate the red line that he drew for the aettoll is against killing any more of their own people, on the one hand, or a strike hopefully coordinated with the opposition to destabilize the regime.

For Trump, making decisions is very hard. He likes to keep his options open. and the mere fact we've put a lot of capabilities out there for Trump does not necessarily mean he will use them. If you were a betting man, maybe you are a betting man, but if you were a betting man, would you think that the United States will attack Iran this week? My bet is that at a minimum, Trump has to vindicate that red line. Otherwise, he loses credibility. And it's very much in Trump's character to have a pretty significant strike, a won and done affair and say, that's it, I declare victory and now we're going home,

as he's fully capable of doing that. John Boulton, thank you very much indeed for joining me. I appreciate it. Thank you for having me. One thing that I've in common with Harry and Megan is that we all value privacy. If you've ever Googled your own name, discover bits of your address, phone number, and employment details hanging around. You'll be aware that your data privacy is under siege. That's because your data is purchased and sold by data brokers without your consent. Today's sponsor has a solution. Incogni contacts those shady websites and gets your personal data removed automatically. No forms, no emails, no ransoms. They handle all the back and forth for these brokers

and update you on their simple dashboard. Incogni does not stop after the first sweep. They monitor and keep on removing your data if it pops up again. If you care about privacy and you want fewer spam calls, fewer junk emails and a reduced risk of identity theft, this is a smart move. We've teamed up to give you a 60% discount on an annual plan at incogni.com slash peers. Use code peers when you check out. That's incogni-in-c-c-o-g-n-i.com slash peers, P-I-E-R-S. Use code peers when you check out.

Turning now to my panel is the founder of CEO of the Young Turks, Cheyuga, the Iranian-American attorney and activist Elyke L-Libir. and former Canadian lawmaker and Iran activist Goldi Gamari and Dave Smith will be joining us shortly. So welcome to all of you. Eleka Labon looks increasingly, well, welcome back to Unsensored, first of all. Just in terms of where we are with this, the scale of the buildup of the military on the United States side suggest that a military strike is almost inevitable. is that a good thing?

Yes, it is absolutely a good thing. We have a regime who we've just witnessed committing an unprecedented massacre, one of the worst atrocities in modern times, and there really is no way for this regime to go down by just simply relying on the Iranian people. They do not have weapons, they do not have any means to take this regime out. The idea that the Iranian people should free themselves is as absurd as saying a person who is,

and held hostage in somebody's basement without any weapons should free themselves. And so there really is no other means to take this regime out. And so now we're in a position where this regime has gone as far as it can possibly go. It's funded its proxies across the Middle East. It has supported massacres such as October 7th. It has shown unrelentless signs of committing its empire expansion across the Middle East. It has embedded and entrenched in its ideology its intent to do so. it has killed Israelis, Iranians, even Muslims,

and there really is no better solution for humanity than to remove this regime with targeted strikes on military basis, which, by the way, is a rescue operation and really doesn't need to be framed as a war. Cheung Yuga, welcome back to the census. Always good to have you. When I heard someone like Elegger talking in such an emotive way about this, I completely understand why a lot of people.

people who have a vested personal interest in Iran and have so many people they know there, obviously, feel this strongly about it. But I'm skeptical when I hear people like John Bolton because it reminds me exactly of the buildup to the Iraq War, which I opposed as Edith of a Daily Mirror in the UK. I led the media campaign against it over here and was very sad and angry when I failed in that campaign. I wish they'd been successful. But it's the same kind of jungle drums beating. And the problem, the problem. The problem is, once you go into a place like Iraq, as it turned out, or now Iran, then it's very hard to control the sequence of events that follows.

I don't see this as being as clean a situation as, say, Venezuela, where you just take out Maduro and everyone goes home. I think this could be a real hornet's nest. Yeah. So Young Turks is the longest running show in online history. So we were on the air during the Iraq war buildup. We were one of only two national shows screaming. No, don't do it.

Don't listen to people like John Bolton. The neocons have always been wrong, preposterously wrong. They said, oh, Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. It's so dangerous. We have to go in. They said it was connected to 9-11. It was all lies. Now here comes the same liars lying to us again on behalf of Israel and saying,

oh, my God, Iran is so dangerous. Weapons of mass destruction. Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's the ticket. We'll use that same BSR. And then the second argument, coming from John Bolton and the Israelis, is hilarious. We care so much about the Iranian people. Those Muslim lives mean so much to Israel and to the neocons. That's why we have to bomb them and kill them.

Get out of here. Nonsense. So, look, for the folks on here who are Iranian, there are plenty of Persians who say, yeah, we hate this current government. I don't blame them for that. I have great sympathy for them in that regard. But you could say, hey, You could say, hey, the Iranian people would like this. Trust me, bro.

Maybe, maybe. The Israelis can say, we demand another war in the Middle East on our behalf. Iran is four times the size of Iraq. And that one cost you a couple of trillion dollars, and hundreds of thousands of people lost their lives. But we demand that America listen to our orders again. And that's exactly what they're doing. Or we can listen to the American people.

How is this a difficult choice? You've cited a poll where 70% of Americans said, we don't want this. There's another poll out that says 85%. So if we were having a panel here that was representative of the American people, it would be at least eight people saying, no, don't go in. It has nothing new with us. And two people going, yeah, we need it for Iran. And one person for Iran, one person going, we need it for Israel. So we don't need it at all. It's going to be an epic disaster if we get in. Unfortunately, the president's a bit of a child. So the Israelis lead them around by the nose. Attack their sights. Now, no, get their uranium. No, get their ballistic missiles. No, make sure they don't support the proxy groups. constantly pushing and pushing the American people into their stupid, endless wars, where we waste so many lives and the entire American treasure. We did $8 trillion on the global war on Israel's enemies. Enough.

Serve America. Going into this war would be absolute madness, and it would turn into disaster. On behalf of the American people, I say loudly, no. Okay, Goldie Gamarra, you fled Iran as a toddler. so no one is more personally invested in its future than somebody like you. What is your response to, to Chek, Yuga? I mean, this whole Jews control the world trope is just becoming very old. This is, please don't interrupt me, Chank, I let you spout your jihadi propaganda.

I don't have the time of patience to deal with your nonsense. All right, you know what? Pierce, I actually just sent you a couple. clip of the Islamic regime state TV airing your interview from last time where they are defending Cheng and they're attacking me. I just

sent that clip to your producers. So, you know, you have to ask yourself, when you have the Islamic regime defending the arguments of someone like Cheng, it makes you wonder is Cheng working for the regime or is he being a useful idiot

for them? All I'm saying is that you know, these anti-Semitic tropes. No one's buying them anymore. Ultimately, the finding people have made it very clear what they want. And as you can see, the fact that even I'm speaking is threatening Chang so much that he feels the need to laugh and interrupt. But, you know, I do not listen to the words, or I don't even want to legitimize the words of anyone who is being defended by the Islamic regime. Because you don't go on the Islamic regime state TV unless you're basically sanctioned. by hominy. So it's very strange to me that someone who claims that America first is being

defended by the Islamic regime. Well, to be clear, I don't think Chek has gone on Iranian state TV. They've used a clip of him, right? He hasn't gone on. Exactly. They used, they use a clip of him to defend his arguments about how Israel is behind everything. So again, when your arguments line up with the brutal dictatorship, does that mean we agree with you? When the Islamic regime is basically relying on the arguments of someone like Chank Yugar, especially with these anti-Semitic tropes. I think it just goes to show how strange the situation. Okay, let me bring in Dave Smith. Dave Smith, welcome back to, welcome back to our sense of me.

You don't go to war for Israel. Yeah, nobody's buying that crap anymore. Go fight your own wars. Besides which you obviously work for the Israelis. So who should, why should we listen to anyone who worked with Israelis? Chank, last time I checked, your name is not, Chank, your name is not Dave Smith. You may like it to be, but it's not. So let me come to the actual Dave.

Dave, I'm seeing a lot of this pushback, actually, from people on the Iranian side saying this whole debate gets quickly framed as this is what Israel wants to do in Iran. When actually there might be perfectly legitimate reasons why the United States, for its own defense and for its own geopolitical reasons, may want to dismantle this Iran. regime. Well, okay, but this is an argument I've seen. What is your response to that argument? It's not just Israel's bidding. It actually suits America to do this. And indeed, I've seen people like Saudi Arabia and others saying, you know, they've been reported as saying they're perfectly happy if the US wants to do this. Well, I mean, well, first off, I'll defend Jank on say, I don't know, I think I'm the only Jewish guy on the panel here. There's nothing even remotely anti-Semitic about what Jank said. And I mean, I mean, well, first off, I'll defend Jank on say, I don't know, I think I'm the only Jewish guy on, I'm

Obviously, Pierce, there's no, I don't. Do you speak for the Jews? No, I think all this, I, no, I don't. I think actually all this identitarianism is pretty stupid, but I think it was pretty stupid to call Jank anti-Semitic for saying that obviously is. I mean, Pierce, it's just completely undeniable that Israel wants this war every other week. Netanyahu comes here, and when he does, that's all they talk about. And if you want to say that, I mean, look, of all the wars, in fact, you know,

John Meersheimer and Walt wrote that great book, the Israel lobby, and they had a couple great anecdotes in there where U.S. officials were saying during the Iraq war to the Israelis, like, hey, like, shut up because you're making this look like this is a war for Israel. Like, you don't want to reveal that too much. In this case, this is clearly a war for Israel. I mean, that's what the geopolitical motivator is here. And listen, for both the you guys, I'm an anti-government guy across the board. I'm anti-all governments, including the Mullahs and the Ayatollah. But if you want, if you're actually arguing that U.S. foreign policy moves based on humanitarian impulses.

It's just too ridiculous. I mean, we back the Saudis in their genocide of the people of Yemen. We back Israel in their genocide of the people of Gaza. We back all types of just brutal regimes, the United Arab Emirates, and they're role in Sudan right now. That doesn't stop us from backing them. So the idea that this has anything to do with, like, the treatment of the Iranian people, that's all just ridiculous.

It's not about that. And Pierce, all those people, all those same people who you correct. directly stood up and fought against who wanted to lie us into Iraq, they've all in their own words admitted that Iran has always been the goal, that eventually we get regime change there too. And as far as the idea that, well, we can do a regime change without boots on the ground. It's possible, maybe. Maybe they can locate where the Ayatollah is and take him out. And maybe that does, unlike the situation in Venezuela, actually take out the regime.

But there's every reason in the world to think that that would be the worst thing for Iranian people. You look at examples like Libya or Syria where we were able to orchestrate regime changes without massive numbers of troops on the ground. And it's a disaster for the people. Libya is a failed state to this day. And that is what Benjamin Netanyahu is quite happy to make Iran, because they see that as advantageous to them. And so, yeah, that's all a big part of this. And why any sane American would want to support this policy, it makes no sense. As Jenks said, No one wants this war. None of the other states in the region want it.

Europe doesn't want it. Your own country, Pierce, has been given pushback to the U.S. over the last 48 hours about it. The American people don't want it. The only people who want this war are Israel and the Israel lobby, essentially. That's not true. Elyke, I can see you frowning there, Erika. What's your response to Dave Smith?

First of all, you know, the idea that Israel wants this war, and therefore that negates everything else in the universe, just proves that this anti-Zionist, ideology makes Israel the sun around which they orbit. And when they orbit Israel like the sun, nothing else exists to them anymore. It is perfectly possible for multiple people to align in a shared goal. Of course Israel wants this war. Why would Israel not want to take out a regime that has been terrorizing them through their proxies, not just for the past two years, but for the past decades? Of course, it is in Israel's interest as it should be, because why wouldn't you want a terrorist

state that has an eschatological vision of eliminating you for justice to arrive on earth to be eliminated. Yes, we all understand it is Israel's goal and good for them that it's their goal. Second of all, the Iranian people also have their own sovereignty, their own national interests in mind, and those are aligned goals. Now, it isn't just the Iranian people. It isn't just the Israeli people. If you do not eliminate the Islamic regime, you end up in a forever war that ultimately implicates the US. And so if you don't want war, you take out this regime. You said you could do diplomacy with the regime all of these years. You tried to do the JCPOA. You tried to do this Obama-style diplomacy. And then what happened down the line? Their proxies just kept getting stronger. They

continued to do their attacks all over the Middle East. They did October 7th. And what happened when October 7th happened was that Israel had to go to war with Hamas. And guess what? The US had to be implicated to defend its ally. So if you don't want a forever war, forever and ever and and ever and ever and ever and ever, you have to eliminate the source of the forever war. You have to eliminate the people. You have to eliminate the people who make war inevitable. Israel has only ever responded to the acts of the regime and policies. And to go even further, it was actually very popular at the time to say no to war with Germany, to say no to war with the But guess what? All of those deaths that ensued, those were deaths that made were made inevitable by the Nazis because they were relentless.

You had the peace for our time, the Munich Agreement, where everyone was like, finally, we're going to have peace. Then they invaded Poland. And you can see these people who are ideological extremists will always inevitably pull the entire world into war. So if you are anti-war, fantastic, let's eliminate this regime so there's no more wars and no more threats to the United States and the rest of the world. Okay, let me just take a short break from the panel. I'll come back to you in a moment. I want to just move now, because Dave Smith referenced the infamous list, which held that Iran was always the aim in the Middle East,

and we're now joined by the former NATO commander, General Wesley Clark. General Clark, great to have you back on Unsensitive. Thank you. There was, of course, this famous Pentagon memo, which you saw shortly after 9-11. You said it described a plan to take out seven. countries in five years, beginning with Iraq, ending with Iran. The other countries were Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan. You know, some will look at this and say, well,

this is the fruition of the plan, and Iran is the last one standing. Lebanon, of course, a bit more complicated, but the others have all gone through regime change. What would you say to people that think that? Well, I'd say that it's, that was over 20 years ago that that had been was written. And the U.S. government doesn't really have plans that extend that far. So it wasn't really a plan. That was a concept that came out of the neocons. And maybe it was a plan that they thought they could eliminate all those regimes that might be hostile to the United States in the region. But it never really resolved itself into a plan per se. It just happens. And when you are a country like the United States and you find opponents around the world and, and particularly Iran,

calling us the great Satan and so forth. You know, Iran's been on the warpath against the United States from the very beginning. They targeted the Marine barracks in Lebanon, killed 283 people with a truck-mounted bomb. It was a terrible tragedy. They went after the French embassy. We actually, in the United States, we held back the Shah in Iran. We sent a four-star general to Iran in 1978 to tell the Iranian generals don't interfere with the emergence of real democracy in Iran. And so they blocked the Iranian military that was loyal to the Shah from keeping the Shah in power. We actually helped Khomeini get to power. Now, we didn't intend that. We didn't intend that. We thought a man named Shapura Bakhtiar was going to take the reins, but he was quickly overthrown by the fundamentalists like Khomeini.

But the point is that the United States didn't begin this fight with Iran. Iran decided, Khomeini decided, to purify his regime, to have a moral purpose in life. and for the Iranian people, he wanted to go after enemies. And so he picked two enemies, Israel and the United States. So the fact that after 40-some-odd years, we're turning now to Iran and people are talking about regime change. Yeah, it's sort of a natural course of events. General Clark, from a purely military perspective,

the sheer size and scale of the American military buildup here around Iran is reminiscent of 2003 and the buildup before they went into Iraq. Is there a point where, as someone put it to me, back in 2003, the American military train

has left the station. In other words, it reaches the point when it has to do something. No, I don't think that's the case. These assets are deployable and they can be redeployed quite easily. Two aircraft carriers,

they sail off. the aircraft squadrons redeploy. It can be done. It's not a use it or lose it kind of situation. Putting those forces there doesn't inevitably mean they'll be used, no. You know, in terms of... When people talk like that... The obvious question...

Yeah, sorry. You had ground troops that were over there in 2003. You don't have any ground troops there. So you can sail off, fly off a problem. And in terms of what a... an American attack might look like, and it may even be, you know, by the time this post, America has done something, what is the most likely form of attack? It presumably won't be anything like we saw in Venezuela with a very quick surgical strike, which removed Maduro and got him out,

and presumably it won't be like the strikes we saw last summer on the Iranian nuclear facilities. So what would this one look like? I would suspect that it would be first. Of course, you've got to clear out the air defense radars and whatever residual air defense is there. So you have freedom of operations in the skies. And that includes going after aircraft that could be used to intercept you at air bases and so forth. But I don't think there's that much left. It seems to me that could be done very quickly. Maybe a few sorties during one night could handle most of what's there.

and then you're going after the ballistic missile systems. Where they're stored, where they're produced, where the launchers are, where the underground storage is, that's a tougher problem. That might take several days, maybe weeks. And then you start on the headquarters of the IRGC, and finally you go after the nuclear. So if you're going to do a limited strike, probably you take out the airspace. You take out any air defense radars and you start on the ballistic missiles. But night, maybe two days.

But if your mission is to affect regime change, how would that come about? I don't think that's the mission at this point. I think President is looking at a limited strike to try to get a negotiated settlement. But what the United States is asking for is something more than what we obtained. in 2015 through President Obama's efforts. So we'd be looking at no nuclear enrichment or minimal nuclear activities at all. Maybe that would be a compromise. And then stop the ballistic missile program and get rid of that axis of resistance. And on these latter two points, Iran doesn't seem to be prepared to compromise. And so there may not be a compromise in this.

But I think the president wants to go at this, hopefully, and get diplomatic solution rather than pound away at Iran with air power. I spoke to Ambassador John Bolton earlier who was saying that he believes the Iranian regime has never been weaker and therefore there's never been a better time to try and take it on. Would you agree with that? I think the regime is weaker in terms of public support, in terms of the economic structure. But actually, this regime has shown itself to be pretty well structured internally. It's as far as we know, we haven't really turned any

major figures. There's no major disagreements within the regime. People in the regime have loyalty, plus they've been bought off. Sometimes their children are in Europe or even in the United States. They're relatively well off compared to the rest of the population. So they're living off the fat of the land, so to speak. And we haven't been able to turn them. If you're going to get regime change, you need to crack the wall of resistance of the IRGC. We need a general or two who says, you know, this is gone, this is crazy. Why would you have a government that 85, 90 million people hate that kills tens of thousands of its own people? Why would you do that? So, presumably there are responsible people somewhere in that Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps who can see past

the ideology and the bribery that's going on, the corruption, and maybe look for the good of the Iranian people. And that's what we would be hoping for. Now, I wouldn't have access to those people, being outside the chain of command right now, but hopefully we are in communications with people like that. And that's the way you would get regime change. And finally, before we go to the panel,

and you're going to stay with the panel, thank you for that. There are several members of the panel who believe this is all being done purely at the behest of Israel, that it's not an America's national interest to be doing this, and that Netanyahu has railroaded Trump into potentially attacking Iran. Do you think there's merit to that argument? Well, not as much merit as you might think. The United States has continuously said that we're against the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

And Iran has, really since the days of the Shah, had a nuclear program, and the Khomeini regime kept it going. There was a fake in 2007. They fooled American intelligence into issuing an estimate that said they had stopped it, but I don't think they stopped it. And so we know now they're very close to getting the materials to use the nuclear weapon. That's destabilizing the whole world, and especially the Middle East. So it's not just us. It's our friends and allies in the region that don't want it.

And the Iranians themselves are working on longer and longer range missiles. So we don't need another hostile state that has sworn its purpose is to destroy another state to have nuclear weapons. It's not just about Israel. It's about global stability. Okay, let's go back to the panel. Chank Yuga, I mean, there's your answer from a former commander of NATO forces, which is it's not just about Israel wanting this to. happen. It is in America's strategic interest to prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons.

Nonsense. So, I mean, I really respect General Clark. I don't know what's happened to him. That letter was very clear. They did, the neocans and Israel First did execute it. They have knocked out six to seven of those countries just like they said they would. They've gone to Iran at the end, just like they said they would. If we're talking about a country that is destabilized, the region on the world with endless wars, that country is Israel. I mean, look, this whole thing is topsy-turvy. The whole framing of the discussion is ludicrous. Israel has attacked seven of its neighbors, not Iran.

Israel forced us into the Iraq war, and they said it would be easy, and it was a disaster. They said they were doing it for the Iranian people, and then we wound up killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. We lost thousands of our own men. And the fake weapons of mass destruction evidence came from where? It came from Israel. They pushed us into the war with Libya. Now there's modern day slavery back in Libya. Every war they have pushed us into it has cost us trillions.

Hold on, General Clark. Hold on. They have cost us trillions of dollars. And you know that. And they have cost us blood and treasure. And it's Israel doing it, General Clark. Be a patriot. Be a patriot.

Santa for America, not for Israel. I'm not going to go to another war. We're not going to spend trillion war for Israel. We're not going to lose America's soldier for Israel. Chek. And Israelis have bought 94% of Congress. The Israelis have bought Donald Trump. And this is a fact.

And you guys keep obfuscating these facts. Can we have some respect for the general, please? I think it doesn't deserve to be screamed out. General Clark, you want to respond. He should have respect for the American people, 85% of whom do not want to go. General Clark, why are you pushing us into this war when 85% of Americans

don't want it. And you yourself know that the neocons have wanted this war for 20 years. Our interest, what interest? We said nuclear, and then we got rid of their nuclear facilities. Then now all of a sudden, ballistic missiles, General Clark, tell me with a straight face that we have a right to demand that any country and their ballistic missile program. Why don't you? The ballistic missiles, we'd have to get rid of the whole world for Israel if we're going to get rid of the military. Let him speak. Let him respond. Let him respond.

Now, you want to hear what I say? Listen, first of all, there is no they there. We've been through the Bush administration. There were neocons. We've been through the Obama administration. There were no neocons there. We've been through the Trump administration. He didn't want a war.

We've been through the Biden administration. Now we're another Trump administration. When you say, they, there's no they. There's no secret plot behind this. The Israeli lobby is the number one donor to every single person you made. Biden, Biden, everyone of them. The Israeli lobby has been here the whole time, General Clark, wakey, wakey.

Chek, please let General Clark finish his point. It's not going to be common courtesy. I agree, I agree. I agree, check, let the general respond. And I'm going to say it not just to you, but all the other panelists. So there's no they there. This is about national interests. And you can go through these states one by one.

First of all, I was against the invasion of Iraq. I knew it was a mistake, and it wasn't going to work out well. I was against it. But it's the men and women in uniform. Of course, you're not against your own soldiers fighting. You want them to succeed. But the mission was a bad mission, and I called it for that. Syria, there was a revolution there.

President Obama said, Bashar Ashud, Assad shouldn't stay in charge. But unfortunately, he did until Turkey got rid of him. On Libya, I warned the United States not to intervene because there was no follow on for that, and we've still got a mess in Libya. We've never been able to come to terms with Darfur, Sudan, and what's happening in the center of Africa. Now, when you turn to Iran, Iran has been a continuous problem for the United States. They killed Hunts. hundreds of our soldiers with the explosively formed penetrators when we were in Iraq. They started this thing back in the late 1970s, early 80s.

They assassinated a bunch of Iranian generals because they'd been to school in the United States. So what's their beef with the United States? They want trouble from the United States. That's their race on detra. That's what keeps the... You can shake your head. but I'm telling you, look at the propaganda. So is Israel concerned?

Of course Israel should be concerned. As the Ayatollah has said and others, when they get nuclear weapons, they're going to use them. Now, I've been all through the Gulf leadership. Maybe you've talked to those leaders too, but I have, and they don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. They can't do much about it, but they hope that we will. And unfortunately, the agreement that we solved, thought we solved it with in 2015 was thrown out in 2018.

And I agree that that agreement wasn't a great agreement. It didn't stop their ballistic missiles. And it didn't stop their axis of resistance. It didn't deal with Hezbollah, but it was an agreement. Now we don't have anything. And so we're on the precipice of another set of military strikes in the region. Is that a good thing? No.

No, it's not a good thing. It'd be a lot better if Iran would simply become a normal state, engage in trade, work with its neighbors, stop trying to take over the region, stop threatening Israel. But Iran doesn't seem under its present regime to want to do that. So that's where we're headed. Thank you, Pierce. Okay.

Wait one second. I will come to everybody. I'll come to everybody. But I want to get. I want to get Dave Smith's response to that. Dave Smith. Okay, well, I mean, if the general who is on the record, not just on that Amy Goodman interview,

but here on this show, Pierce, who said the plans went back a decade before that and that they were resurrected in a study paid for by the Israelis, if he's walking away from that or saying, well, yeah, that happened, but there were four different administrations in there. So there's no they there. Well, as Jenk was pointing out there,

Benjamin Netanyahu's been here pretty much the entire time. The Israel lobby's been here pretty much the entire time. And you'd certainly have to admit, sir, it's an awfully big coincidence that you saw that there was a plan to overthrow seven countries. And that since that time, now, obviously, none of us are arguing it didn't happen the way you said it was going to. It was supposed to happen in five years. And obviously, the war in Iraq ended up being a quagmire that was unforeseen by most

of the military establishment at the time. but Israel and or the United States of America have attacked all of those countries, maybe minus Sudan, which kind of collapsed without those attacks. That would seem to be a huge coincidence there, and it seems much more likely that those entrenched interests that were pushing for that, continued to push for that over all of these years, especially when the fact is that we can look at who's been advocating for all of these policies over the years. and it's been Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israel Firsters and the Israel Lobby and all of them. I think it's kind of crazy to expect us to somehow get them out of any responsibility for this. And in terms of, you know, Pierce, just last summer, I was on this show. We were having a bunch of arguments.

Everybody back then said it was about the 60% enriched uranium that I was crazy for claiming that this was about a regime change operation. And here we are a few months later, President Trump has boasted that he oblige. their nuclear program, that it's no issue, and yet we still need to go back to war with Iran once again. The fact of the matter is here is that the impetus for the global war on terrorism to begin with was our beef with radical Sunni terrorist groups. There's no reason for the United States of America to be at war with the Shiites. And you can mention, by the way, I don't think the general is correct in saying that Iran was responsible for killing that many, soldiers in Iraq. I think those, they were Iraqi Shiites, and I think most of those roadside

bombs were made in Iraq. My friend Scott Horton has demonstrated this. It is great book enough already. But the bottom line is just that we are $38 trillion in debt. Well, one second, General, and I won't interrupt you at all. Well, let me, okay, let me just finish my point. Okay. I don't think that's true, but regardless, yeah, okay, okay, anyway, okay, listen, we are, I said 38. Is it 39 or 40? I can't keep track anymore. We're close to 40 trillion dollars in debt. We have major problems in our own country, including a drug overdose epidemic, a homelessness epidemic. We have tens of millions of people who are in our country illegally. And yet we're flirting with what is obviously, definitionally, a war of choice, a war of aggression.

We're not responding to an attack from Iran and to move all these goalsposts. Oh, they support proxies in the region. They have intercontinental ballistic missiles. Yeah, in other words, they're a government. Yes, in other words, they haven't just completely, as, as Whitkoff said the other day that Trump was curious, why they haven't capitulated. In other words, they haven't completely capitulated to us and said they're going to make themselves entirely defenseless against the Israelis who attack them throughout the years with impunity. This is ridiculous. We have no need to fight this war. We're flirting with another catastrophe for no reason. Okay, let me bring him the two ladies to be waiting very patiently.

Elico, come to you one moment, but let Goldie Gamari respond first and then Elyca. Goldie first. Well, thank you so much, Pierce. First of all, I just want to thank the general for his service and thank all American military for everything they've done to defend democracy and freedom around the world. So thank you for your service general. So the way that we have to frame this and the way that we have to look at it, Pierce, is that right now, Now, we are in a forever war with the Islamic regime. And what happened is back in 1979, it was Jimmy Carter and the Democrats that backed the Ayatollah.

And that's what basically led to the Islamic coup d'etat. And so right now, Iran is unfortunately a failed state. And so what Iranians are trying to do is, you know, we're trying to rectify the mistake. Is regime changed the goal? 100%. absolutely we Iranians, we have been trying to fix Jimmy Carter's mistake since 1979. And this is the first time since the Islamic regime took over that we actually have a United States president who is standing with the Iranian people, recognizing full well that U.S. and Iranian interests are aligned right now.

And by Iranian, I mean the Iranian people. I don't mean the Islamic regime that's occupying us. As the general said, prior to 1979, Iran and the United States were allies. So right now, right now the country is currently in that failed state situation. And I can say that Iranians in Occupyed Iran are incredibly grateful that the United States is coming to help liberate them. This is not a war, Pierce. This is not a war. This is a rescue mission. The United States is coming to help rescue 90 million Iranians who have. have been held hostage by a brutal and savage dictatorship.

With respect to what Dave Smith was saying about the proxies, I'll leave that up to the general. Okay, Elyke. Nonsense. So when there's these constant examples of where the U.S. has failed in intervention, you have to wonder, why is it that they keep repeating the worst-case scenarios? Why don't they talk about the U.S. intervention in Iraq, sorry, in Kuwait, to stop Iraq's intervention, right?

Which actually led to stability. in Kuwait. Why don't we talk about Bosnia? Why don't we talk about Kosovo? Why don't we talk about the times where NATO and the U.S. have done tremendous work to bring stability with targeted strikes? The reason that they keep mentioning this is because they want to constantly frame this in the worst case scenario for the U.S. so as to defend the terrorist regime, which makes you wonder why. Second of all, this claim that we don't want to intervene in Iran because it's going to be a failed state and it's going to kill hundreds of thousands of people. I'm sorry, you don't care now that it's a failed state. You don't care now how many people are being killed. You want to talk about Iraq.

You want to say hundreds of thousands of people were killed in Iraq. How many people did Saddam Hussein killed? 18,000 Kurds alone. Chemical genocide against Kurds. The ethnic cleansing of Turks and we backed them. Of Shia Muslims. So you want to say that if we should have just left Saddam Hussein, and he's He's expanding his war in Kuwait, his war in Iran. And you want to say that what the US did was so bad, fine, it was bad. But before it was worse, and if it was left unchecked, how much worse would it be? So this isn't about what the facts are. This is about how you are looking at the facts.

And this isn't, no, no, we don't interrupt. This is an intentional. I was just going to ask a question. You interrupted me before, plenty of times. You can ask me my question after. You're not a, you're not my teacher, so don't like school me. Stop. We're not looking at this through the lens of fact. We're looking at this through the lens of how can we look at this in the most negative way so we don't support attacks on the regime? Second of all, this constant thing about Israel is the one that wants this war. We have all conceded and acknowledged that Israel does for obvious reasons. You're talking about you take Israel and you take the IRGC, you take this terrorist regime that has enshrined an eskological vision to eliminate Israel, in its charter and has repeatedly acted on that vision.

Any sane country in the world, whether it was U.S. or Israel, would obviously want to protect itself. So you're talking about a liberal democracy that seeks safety and protection of its own people, and you're talking about a terrorist state that wants to eliminate that state. And so to even look at this in any other lens is just to be out of touch with reality. You talk about Israel doing these strikes on Hezbollah, when Hezbollah is one that is throwing its rockets into Israel. You talk about it strikes on the Houthis.

You talk, think about this. The regime created the regime created Hezbollah as a second IRGC to station it in the closest order to Israel for the sole purpose of eliminating Israel and creating a second Islamic Republic in Lebanon. Now, you want to say that in response to that Israel should just bend over and do nothing. Of course Israel wants this war because it is. Oh, come on. How much more can Israel do? endless goddamn war because of Israel. Can I respond to this utter rubbish?

This garbage is Israeli propaganda. And you're a mind virus and you've lost your mind, okay? So just be quiet. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Anti-Semitism, blah, blah, blah, blah. We've heard that garbage over and over to shield Israel from criticism. We're not going to take it anymore.

You call the whole country anti-Semites. You think Israel is called all of America anti-Semites. 85% of us don't. want this war and then you come in and go, you dirty anti-Semite Americans, you'll have us more war, you'll have us trillions of dollars, we are beloved Israel, we want endless wars. Take one question for you, Jake, one question for you, what percentage of Germans were anti-Semites? Oh, oh, what is that happening with this? The real fascists are Israel. Is that really? You want to ask me what percentage of Israel are fascists? Unfortunately, the percentage is over 50 percent. You know what the point? You know what the

is chank the point is that it is a mind virus can i actually answer any of this garbage that they're putting out you're very you're very interrupting her she's got out for 10 minutes how long do you think you might okay let me change chink i'll give you a chank i'll give you a brief write of reply there and then i want to go to the general so guys this this is a total illusion the country starting all the wars in the middle east is israel not ira The ones that have the religious ideology of taking over the Middle East is Israel. They call it Greater Israel. It's a patch on their uniform.

It's a map in their Knesset. And their cabinet members say, we're going for Greater Israel. Greater Israel is most of the Middle East. The reason why knocking out their nuclear, so-called nuclear program wasn't enough for these war mongers is because they want every country in the Middle East defenseless so Israel can attack and take more land. And have they actually attacked and taken more land? Yes, they currently have 53% of Gaza. They say they're never going to give back Go-On Heights.

They keep talking about how Israel should exist. Israel already exists, already has nukes, and is super dangerous with those nukes. They already have Iron Dome. They already have the greatest military in the Middle East. It's the Palestinians who don't exist because the Israelis won't allow them. The Israelis are doing a fascist, a greater Israel project, and our press won't talk about it, even though the Israelis talk about it nonstop. We've shown video after,

video on the young Turks of how they're going for greater Israel. And the idea that Iran is taking over their neighbors, they haven't taken over any neighbors. Israel keeps taking land while our press keeps lying to you and pretending that Israel is the victim when they are their aggressor and they don't do it with their own money and they don't do it with their own troops. They force America to spend trillions of dollars and lose American soldiers for Israel. 85% of this country does not want it. When you hear this propaganda is telling you, Israel wants it. And if Israel doesn't get what it wants, we're going to call all of you anti-Semites. All you Americans are anti-Semites unless you get Israel $330 billion, spend $8 trillion

on the global war on terror, and we want another war and another war. And then they pretend Iran wants endless war. Israel is making us pay for their endless war. Don't listen to the liars. Stand up for the American people. Okay, you've made the point. Not the Israeli people. I'm going to look at this propaganda.

Now she's talking about how the Iraq war was a great idea. We're going to be greeted as liberators. That's what they told us in Iraq. No. The Iranian people also do not want to be bombed. That is an Israeli lie. Okay, we're running out of time. You've actually reminded me.

I want to come to Dave Smith quickly for this thing. Go to the General. Tucker Carlson interviewed the U.S. ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee this week. And Mike Huckabee said something that managed to get condemnation from pretty much every other country in the region because he said this. this particular area that we're talking about now Israel is a land that God gave through Abraham

to a people that he chose. It was a people, a place, and a purpose. We can look at it that way. Christian Zionism. I want to go back because that's where we started on this. I'm not going to let you off on this because you have said it three times that God gave this land to this people. what does that mean? Does Israel have the right to that land? Because you're appealing to Genesis. You're saying that's the original deed. It would be fine if they took it all. Take it all, Dave, was the U.S. ambassador to Israel. Oh, yeah. I'm so glad you played that clip. I'm about to do a whole show on breaking down that interview. I think one of the things that's so, I mean, aside from the fact that it's just like how insane and what a religious fundamentalist you have to be to

believe that God gave Iraq to Netanyahu or something like that, but was really wild about this, as I'm sure the general can back up, that since at least the 1970s, the official U.S. position has been that we support 67 borders and that we ultimately want a Palestinian state. The U.S. is officially, not that we're going to do anything about any of that, but we're officially against the settlement expansions in the West Bank. And here you have the U.S. ambassador to Israel. I mean, it sure seems like he's the Israeli ambassador, if you ask me. But his title is he's the U.S. ambassador to Israel just saying because of his religious beliefs that, no, he would be absolutely fine with Israel, not just taking the West Bank in Gaza and the Golan Heights, as they have since 1967, but evidently, Pierce, taking huge swaths of Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon.

And for anybody who does not believe that God promised Iraq to Netanyahu, that is just insanity. And you do notice on this panel how a lot of people beat up on the moas for being religious extremists. And like, I got no beef with you on that. It certainly is true that they are. But as Jank was pointing out, the level of extreme religious fanaticism that drives policy, both U.S. policy, toward Israel and Israeli policy at the top of their, at the top of their government there really is something to behold. We're not as secular and as one might believe.

And I just want to say, and then I'll shut up for the rest of the panel, but I do got to say, Mann, Pierce, as I know you've seen all the time, you know, this thing where like, if we start arguing that we shouldn't have war in Iran, then the response that we get is like, oh, you must secretly love the Ayatollah or something like that. The only reason you're doing this is because you want to protect that regime. This is like the lowest IQ, most bad faith form of political argumentation. And, you know, people did say the same thing about people like you, Pierce, and evidently people like you, General Clark, which I was unaware of, who opposed the war in Iraq.

You were protecting Saddam Hussein or spreading Saddam talking points. Over the last couple years, Pierce, isn't it amazing just on your show? I love Vladimir Putin and I love Hamas and I also love Iran and I guess I love the Houthis. But actually, I'm just like a Jewish libertarian from Brooklyn who doesn't want to see more people get killed and my country get bankrupted. That's really the truth of this. And for all of you guys, for all you guys, your response is always, oh, excuse me, excuse me, no interrupting. No interrupting. And for all of you guys, for all of you guys.

Listen, again, this is my... You don't want my opinion. Don't invite me on. Let me come to the general. General, before I come to you for the final word, because you deserve the final... You talked more than me, General. I mean, Dave makes a very good point.

I remember being called a Saddam Apologist because I thought the illegal war in Iraq was an atrocity that should never have been waged. And I've similarly been called an anti-Semi because I think that the Israeli government went way too far in Gaza. All of these things are propositions. and they're a deliberate attempt to stifle freedom of speech and genuine opinion.

I think it's a great shame. I've known Chink and Dave for quite a long time now. I've never heard a moment of anti-Semitism from either of them. And to say that that is what motivates it as a hatred of Jewish people is completely preposterous. Well, hang on, I'm sorry. I've got to, we run out of time. I just want to say that. About Chink, about Chink, that's very disingenuous.

No, it's not. He's not anti-Semitism. Who the hell he has a big problem with the Israeli government? Let's not get into it. Are we doing insults? Let General Clark talk. If somebody can, look, okay, for another show, but Eilke, if you want to go away and find me evidence of Chink Yuga saying anything which indicates a hatred to Jewish people, that's fine. If you want to find me evidence where he says he hates Jews people.

I mean, you want to talk about an Israeli point of view, show me evidence. My existence offends you. And I'm the person who's a bigot. I didn't say that. I said your existence is the evidence. You literally said that. I'm going to wrap things up. I'm going to wrap things up by coming to, I'm coming to General Clark.

So please give the general some respect. I can tell you that the money market, polymarket, says there's a 21% chance of a US strike on Iran by March the 1st, 57% chance by March the 31st, 73% chance by the end of the year. Over $370 million has been spent in this market. the smart money going on an attack by the end of March, would you agree with that, General? What I'd say is that when you start dropping bombs on nations,

and it's easier to start a war, it's not easy to finish it. So we don't know what's going to happen when it gets going. So there's going to be a lot of judgment calls between now and then, and we're just going to have to see how they go. But I will say this, that there has been. been a continuum of American interest to see a peaceful Middle East and that Iran has been the troublemaker in that Middle East since the overthrow of the Shah. And secondly, that in terms of Israel itself, I was there when Israel pulled back out of southern Lebanon. Some people said,

you're making a mistake. A Hout Barack said, nope, we're going to do it. Sure enough, it led to trouble. I was there later when Israel pulled out of Gaza. And they said, no, let's let Gaza be there. I remember when Condoleezza Rice advocated for democracy. Let's have the Palestinians vote, and they voted in Hamas. So there have been many, many efforts to head this off. And yet Israel finds itself in a very, very unfriendly area. The Abraham Accords, that was a good step forward.

But who's against the Abraham Accords? Iran, of course. They don't want peace in the region. Now, in terms of what's happening inside Israel, I'm a believer in the two-state solution. The same solution that President Clinton tried to get implemented in 1999, 2000, and was blocked by the PLO, Yasser Arafat, and probably by Iranian. money. So we've had many, many efforts to solve this problem. But letting Iran have a nuclear weapon, no, that's not a way to solve the problem. So while the United States has the power and the

influence, we should be doing what we can to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. And that's the end of the story, as far as I'm concerned, Pyrrhus. Thank you for giving me a chance. General Clark, it's always a great honor to have you on the program. one of the generals I most respect, and I really appreciate you coming on. Thank you all very much to my panel. It was a lively and fiery debate at times, but it's, you know, war is a fiery, lively business,

so it should be. Thank you all very much. Thanks, Pierce. Pierce Morgan Unsensored is proudly independent. The only boss around here is me. To 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 mission to inform, irritate and entertain. And we'll do it all for free. Independent on censor media has never been more critical, and we couldn't do it without you.