Piers Morgan Uncensored - “Could Go HORRIBLY Wrong!” Konstantin Kisin vs Dave Smith on Iran-Israel & Trump

Episode Date: June 19, 2025

Nothing divides opinion more than war - and this week the Iran crisis is being boiled down to some big themes, such as morality versus reality and idealism versus pragmatism. For a big picture debate on a world at war, Piers Morgan is joined by author, satirist and co-host of ‘TRIGGERnometry’ Konstantin Kisin and libertarian commentator, comedian and host of ‘Part of the Problem’ Dave Smith. Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent and supported by: Cozy Earth: Luxury shouldn't be out of reach. Go to https://cozyearth.com/PIERS for up to 40% off Cozy Earth’s best-selling temperature-regulating sheets, apparel, and more Ridge Wallet: Upgrade your wallet today! Get 10% Off @Ridge with code PIERS at https://www.Ridge.com/PIERS #Ridgepod Tax Network USA: Call 1-800-958-1000 or visit https://TNUSA.com/PIERS to meet with a strategist today for FREE Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Why is it, by the way, that this is always a one-way street. A Rand said this, around threatened this. This is about a regime-change war. Why are we doing this? Yes, I think it's quite clear that Benjamin Netanyahu wants regime change in Iran. But that is not the same as the regime in Iran wanting to destroy Israel. What was overthrowing Moumar Gaddafi? Was that simply replacing the leader?

Or was that destroying the country? Let's stick to Israel in Iran. No, no, no, no, no. The Israelis say we want regime change. Iranians say we want to wipe you off the map. Do you guys think Benjamin Netanyahu has been mistaken for 30 years, claiming that Iran is a year to three years away from a nuke? Or was he lying?

Israel was surrounded by many, many countries who don't believe that it has a right to exist. So I'm the moral relativist. But then when I point out what one side actually did, you run away from it. Are you in Israeli? Why are you constantly running cover for them? Because I believe in speaking the truth and being honest,

instead of dragging in stuff that is irrelevant. So the American government, government is so gullible that they just go around invading countries on the say-so of Israel. This isn't a secret. He's advocating that we fight more wars. And I'm telling you that this war, which we do not need to fight, which is not in our interest, has the potential to be devastating. Nothing divides opinion more than war, and wars are often both launched and ended on the strength of popular supporter opposition. When the stakes are so high and the consequences are so significant, everybody gets to say. In my view, that applies even if you haven't been,

to the place where it's happening. Much of the debate about the Iran crisis and others seems to boil down to some big themes. Morality versus reality, idealism or pragmatism, intervention versus isolation, populists or lobbyists. For a big picture debate on a world at war,

I'm joined by two of our favourite unscensored contributors who often trade respectful babes on these matters and more. Constantine Kissen is an author, satirist and co-host of Trigonometry. Dave Smith is a libertarian commentator, a comedian and the host of part of the problem. Well, welcome to both of you.

Dave, great to have you back so soon. As you know, after your last appearance, I got chewed up and spat across cyberspace, which I felt quite an amusing thing to watch go down. What did you make of it? Oh, I thought it was just so pathetic. I mean, you know, I had mentioned this before, but if you, as I'm sure you do recall,

but after my friend Daryl Cooper was on Tucker Carlson's show, and he made some comments that you objected to, and I was defending him and giving my point of view on it. You had me on a panel. It's probably the most contentious that me and you have been on the show. You had me on three-on-one with, it was Seth Dillon, and then a world-renowned historian from the House of Lords, you know, like the leading expert.

He actually is, Andrew Rollis, yeah. Yeah, and I, you know, I took my lumps. I tried to make my argument as compelling as I could. It was like, I didn't go online and just throw a bitch fest for the next week over how unfair it was. It's just pathetic. And I'm sorry, but Natasha was just lying through her teeth the whole time. And lies that, as you pointed out, insult the intelligence of the host and the viewers. And I thought you were absolutely right to give her pushback for that.

So it was, I thought, number one, I thought you were right on the show. Obviously, admittedly, I'm a little bit biased on the topic. But I thought the reaction on. online was just truly embarrassing. You know what was interesting? If they'd actually just said to me, you know what, Pierce, did you go a little bit too far in the interrupting? Could you have rate back 10, 20%.

I probably would have said, yes, probably. I conceded that to some friends of mine. Yeah, probably slightly overdid it. My mother's always a good litmus test. She was like, you did go at her a bit. You know, I was like, okay. But then I was reminded that A, she was telling massive whoppers with real consequential elements to them, denying, you know, appalling things like the killing of the

nine out of ten children in that one air strike and so on, or at least trying to cast doubt over whether it had been proven, which I just found so reprehensible. But also, I just felt this is somebody who purports to be an international barrister in this area who's clearly not, has got a horse in the race, right? Because it's lawyers for Israel as who she represents. If you can't handle a bit of interrupting from someone like me, you're probably in the wrong profession, is what I thought.

It's supposed to be part of your job, literally arguing with people often in an animated way. Anyway, let's get into this argument. Because this was precipitated for those who don't follow you guys as assiduously as I do. And I'm a big fan of both of you. Constantine, you called out Dave on X for accusing the actor Rob Schneider of talking with confidence on topics he doesn't necessarily understand. You said that's exactly what Douglas Murray had accused Dave. of doing when they had a spat on Joe Rogan. And you said, on X, I'm not trying to be a dick,

but this is exactly what Douglas was saying to you. He was saying, you talk about things you don't understand with a level of confidence that it's inappropriate, and you pretended he was calling for censorship. You can't have it both ways. Okay, you've got Dave sitting here. You don't want to be a dick, which I appreciate it, because I've had a festful of that from George Galloway this week.

So let's not get into Dick Measurement, Con. but this whole argument, really, about people who are supposedly ill-equipped to talk about things, whether it's Dave, because he's a comedian by stock-in-trade, whether it's Rob Schneider, whether it's anyone, really. Explain where you come from on that. Well, first of all, you say it's been precipitated by this. I think the disagreements between Dave and Iran-I-run about as long as the Iran-Israel conflict, and probably longer. So we disagree on a lot of stuff.

You've invited me on your show many, many times over the last year. I've always said no when talking about the stuff, because I don't consider myself an expert on these issues, which is why I've consistently turned it down. The only reason I'm here tonight, by the way, is you said to me, I'm not going on your show until you come back on mine, and I thought that was actually fair enough. So particularly given that you have me here with somebody who's also not an expert,

this is essentially two guys in a bar, in a pub, chatting about their opinion. So that's fine. However, I think the reality is that, an issue of this complexity and series, and it should not be addressed by a former comedian and a current comedian. I don't really think that's a right approach. But my point to Dave is something else. My point to Dave is whenever he wants to take a shortcut and disagree with someone who's saying something that's different to him, he will resort to exactly the same thing that Douglas said to him, which is, you actually don't really know what you're talking about. You don't have the

expertise to talk about this. You haven't been to the region. You haven't read enough. You haven't done this, you haven't done that. And that's exactly what Douglas was saying to Dave. Now, you can agree or disagree with whether that's right or wrong, but the fact that Dave is violating his own standards, it seems to me to be pretty hypocritical. Dave, you're a rank hypocrite. That's what Pierce is saying and not me. I did not add the word rank. Yeah, you would have done. Okay, that's true. A bit. No, I'm sorry. There's, for the record, I just want to say me and Rob Schneider made up. I've always been a big fan of his. We message back and forth and we're cool. but no, I'm sorry. Obviously, this is ridiculous, and there's no hypocrisy here at all.

It is, if we were to come to a debate and what I brought to the debate was I just said, shut up. And that was all I did for the debate, was just tell you to shut up. And I had no argument, and I didn't counter any of your arguments, but I just told you to shut up. And you were to say, man, that was a really ridiculous way to debate. And then I pointed out that you had also told someone to shut up once in your life. That wouldn't mean you're guilty of hypocrisy. It's a completely different standard to be dismissive to someone on Twitter than to agree to debate them on the biggest show in the world, show up in front of tens of millions of people, and your argument essentially is just to dismiss them. Your point doesn't matter. So no, and also, clearly,

I wasn't telling Rob Schneider, because he's a comedian, he can't have an opinion on this. I was telling him that I don't really think he knows what he's talking about on this issue. Which is exactly what Douglas said to you. Yes, but he didn't back it up. with anything. That's the point. By the way, I don't... No one would have had a problem. The whole point was that Douglas had an opportunity to demonstrate

his superior level of expertise and did not. And this is the overwhelming opinion. Not his mind. I don't think that's quite true. I think on a lot of the subjects you debated, he actually did give very good reasons why he disagreed. Now, as you remember, I wrote an article at the time

talking about that situation. I did concede that I thought Douglas should have lent more into the arguments. The way you and I have always debated has been on that basis, right? And I think that is true. But I don't think this argument about Twitter really works because when you go on our mutual friends Joe Rogan show you in front of millions of people, when you and I are exchanging, or you and Rob are exchanging arguments on X, we're also in front of millions of people. We're also having a debate. I don't understand what the difference is. You don't understand the difference

between like dismissing someone on Twitter and agreeing to debate them and showing up with nothing You've made the series of arguments on Twitter to you in front of those same millions of people that saw you on Joe Rogan, and instead of addressing his arguments with counter arguments, which is the standard that you normally apply, and you demand that other people apply to you, you instead basically said, shut up, Rob, you don't know what you're talking about. Just because you read one book doesn't mean you know what you're talking about, which is exactly what a lot of people said to you and you got very upset about it and pretend that they were trying to censor you. No, okay. There's a couple different things here. Number one, Pierce, as I told you, I think you, I believe, were my first appearance after the Douglas Murray debate on Joe Rogan.

And the first thing I said to you was that I go, look, there's been a lot of people who have been challenged to debates who say, I'm not going to debate that guy. He's beneath me. I've done that with other people. And then there's been people who accept and show up to the debate. I said, Douglas Murray's fatal flaw was that he did both. He accepted and then showed up and said, I'm above you. I shouldn't even be debating you. And it backfired on him.

Now, as far as your... I'm sorry, what was your second point there? I had another response to that. What was the other thing you said, Constantine? I don't remember the sequence of the points that I made. What do you mean exactly? Well, I'll tell you what, I'm going to save you both because I think we've probably dealt with the element

about whether you should be debating or talking about these things. You're both here to talk about stuff. Enough about nine to five. What about the most important bit? The five to nine. It should be the most comfortable part of your day. And today's sponsor can help.

Cozy Earth's bamboo sheets are temperature regulating and designed to wick away both heat and moisture so you can sleep several degrees cooler. They're soft, breathable and guaranteed to give you a more comfortable night's sleep. They also have high-quality breathable clothes for all-day luxury. You can try it all risk-free with Cozy Earth's 100 night sleep trial

and a 10-year warranty. If you don't love their products, you can return them hassle-free. But trust me, you won't want it. luxury shouldn't be out of reach. Go to cozy earth.com and use code peers, P-I-E-R-S, but up to 40% off. Cozy Earth's best-selling, temperature-regulating sheets, clothes, and more. You will feel the difference on the very first night.

That's cozyEarth.com. promo code Pears. Stay cool. Costa, let me start with what you said. Donald Trump, you believe, has played an absolute blinder in the Middle East. Dave, to put it mildly, does not agree and thinks he should now be impeached for betrayal. So first of all, Constantine, why, in your estimation, has Trump played an absolute blind?

Just to put this in context, I said this, I think, on Friday. I spent that week when these initial strikes happened in Washington, D.C., and the point that I was making is, I don't think that certainly none of the people I met in Washington, D.C., with any insider knowledge,

thought that Benjamin Netinjahou who'd ordered these strikes without, at least the, wink in the nod from President Trump. So President Trump is doing something that I, from what I remember, he said it between 30 and 40 times on the campaign trail, which is Iran must not be allowed to get a bomb. And he's achieving that outcome while not taking any of the blame or any of the flag for it. That was the case on Friday. Obviously, the situation hasn't evolved since then, and there's now a much bigger debate. But at that time, he had absolutely played a blinder in allowing Benjamin Netanyahu

and the Israeli military to achieve the military objective, while also sort of claiming that he's not involved and kind of at that time getting away with that. If he now gets involved, as the jungle drum seemed to be suggesting, that is a massive moment for Donald Trump, I would say. I mean, you could argue that is the most important decision he will have taken as a president, and maybe the most important decision he ever takes.

If he actually starts bombing with American forces, Iran, that is a massive thing to be doing. Do you think it's, as Tucker Carlson says, something that could imperil his presidency? We are in the unknown, so nobody knows how this is going to play out. I think we should all be honest about that and be fair. What I think it really fundamentally depends on this, what you mean by the word involved. If you mean that America is going to help Israel shoot down ballistic missiles, I don't know that that will be such a major decision or will be seen.

Well, let me play in the picture where they use a B-52 bomber and they drop one of these buster bombs to try and get it. to the nuclear sites that the Israelis can't get to because they haven't got that technology. If they were to do that, in other words, directly use American forces to do the bombing, would your calculation about Trump change? These are all hypotheticals, because the one thing that I do know, and I think Dave will tell you this himself, is the thing that people in the United States, from talking to people there, are most concerned about, is any sort of boots on the ground scenario. They do not want American soldiers in the Middle East.

I think they're right not to. I genuinely think that. And so fundamentally, it really depends on what happens and the way that it happens. And you're right, it is a big decision. But I think it's, you know, all this stuff, I mean, Dave's calling for President Trump to be impeached over this. When this is something that he promised the American people 30 to 40 times on the campaign. Well, okay. On that, I would clarify that.

He said that number of times that Iran should not be allowed to have a nuclear bomb. That is indisputable. He also has consistently portrayed himself as a man who wants peace, not war. I'm going to solve the problem in Ukraine, solve the Middle East and so on. This would go against all of his claims to be that person. And, of course, the big debate behind all this is that Tulsi Gabbard, his own director of national intelligence, the IAEA director last night, they both said in very recent times, including 24th. hours ago in the case of the atomic agency, that there is no evidence that they've seen

that Iran is anywhere near progressing to an actual nuclear weapon. Yeah. And I think that's the key point of this. So I like Tosigabad, we've had her in Trigonometry. I think she's a great human being, which is why I did her the courtesy of watching the full clip of her testimony that she gave. And what she says in that testimony is that Iran is not pursuing the nuclear weapons program, but what Iran is doing is enriching uranium to 60% and beyond, which is a clear indication of their desire either to actually make nuclear weapons or to move much, much closer to a position to be able to make them. As I think Dave would concede from all the nuclear scientists, what they're saying is you need about 3 to 5% enriched uranium for civilian purposes. They are now enriching

uranium to 60%. And by the way, this is also in the IAEA report, and no one's talking about this. they're using their 20% uranium to make 60% uranium, which is, again, an indicator of the fact that they're moving either towards attempting to make nuclear weapons at some point or to be in a position to do so. And that is the threat, and there is no other reason for them to be doing that.

So, yes, they don't have the exact bomb ready to go, but they're moving in that direction, and Israel is in a position to deal with that threat for the first time in a very long time, and I understand why they're doing it. Okay, Dave, before we get to your response to that, just explain to people why you have called what Donald Trump is doing a betrayal and why you think he should be impeached? Well, I think he has brought us into a war with Iran. Now, how much this war escalates, we will see.

And I think that this is the, it is the most profoundly risky and reckless policy he could have pursued or just about. I think this is very likely going to lead to a catastrophe, much like all of the other terror wars, including the one, Pierce, that you heroically led the opposition in the UK to in 2003, of course, referring to the war in Iraq. And as you remember well, Pierce, from that war, the justifications just kept constantly changing. And then when one fell away, they'd move to the next one. Oh, he was in on 9-11. Okay, he wasn't in on 9-11, but he's got weapons of mass destruction.

Okay, he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction, but we have to liberate the people or bring democracy. And I've already seen that it's remarkable how sped up it is. I've already seen so many of the warhawks bouncing back and forth between all of these different justifications. But of course, in the end there, all of the justifications failed. Not only did he not have weapons of mass destruction, not only was he not in on 9-11, but we also didn't liberate the people. The worst thing that ever happened to the people of Iraq was George W. Bush's war there. And as far as Iran enriching up to 60 percent, yes, it's true. that they only need, I think, between 3 to 5% for civilian nuclear purposes and maybe

like around 20 to 25% for some medical needs. But that is what is known as a latent nuclear deterrent. There is another reason why they would have that they want to demonstrate that they can get the bomb, but they don't have it right now to stop something like this happening. But the bottom line is that since 2007, our CIA has said they're not, they don't have nuclear weapons and they're not striving to achieve them. Tulsi Gabbard, not only in her testimony, but in the Director of National Intelligence, as her capacity serving that role, in the annual threat assessment just put out a couple months ago, reaffirmed the same thing. And so is the global community. Iran has been willing to negotiate this entire time. And maybe the negotiations haven't been successful. But even Benjamin Netanyahu, in his interview with Brett Bayer the other day, couldn't even manage to lie and say that they've broken out and they're pursuing. He said maybe a year. The same thing he's been saying, I was seven years old, lying over and over and over again because he wants a regime change

war here. And he said this in his own words, and so have all of the neoconservatives. Look, right here on your show, Pierce, which I think might be the most fascinating moment in the history of uncensored, when General Wesley Clark reaffirmed that not only had he seen the plans to overthrow seven countries in five years, but that it went all the way back to the early 90s, and that it was revived in his words in a study paid for by the Israelis. They've gotten the six other ones. This is the seventh one. This is not, this war is not about nukes that Iran doesn't have. And just one more point I would make, as the great Scott Horton said the other day. Look, I mean, even if they were developing nukes,

which they're not, you know, Truman knew that the Soviets were developing nukes. He didn't launch an aggressive war against them for it. And Johnson knew that Mao Zetong was developing nukes. He still didn't launch an aggressive war against the country. And the point is that you could sit here and say, just like they did with Omar Gaddafi in Libya, you could sit here and say, no, no, no, no, we're just going to have a no fly zone. We won't have boots on the ground. We won't have this. Look, Iran has already demonstrated, already in a few days that this war has been going on, that they're more capable than all of the other countries we picked on in the terror wars. They've already hit Israel and killed people there. What's going to happen when a few Americans

get killed? Hopefully this doesn't. But what's going to happen if that happens? What do you think Donald Trump's going to do? Many of us carry around bulky worn-out wallets that are uncomfortable and are full of junk. The big question is why. Ridge wallets can hold 12 cars plus cash with zero bulk. They're made from premium materials like aluminum, titanium and carbon fiber. And they're built with RFID blocking technology

to defend your cars against digital theft. Ridge offers a lifetime warranty, so this might be the last wallet you ever need. The same lifetime guarantee applies to their key. cases, suitcases and rings. All of them come with free shipping and a 99-day trial. For limited time, get 10% off at Ridge

by using code peers, P-I-E-R-S at checkout. Let's head to ridge.com and use code peers. After you purchase, they will ask you where you heard about them, so please support our show and tell them I sent you. I think that is

an amazingly big question. Constantine, your response to that? Well, it's fascinating. So the Iranians are willing to negotiate, to negotiate, but the negotiations aren't going anywhere. That's a very strange way of looking at it. Look, there's so much to address there. First of all, you've got to think about this and understand this from an Israeli perspective in the situation.

A lot of people think that Israel has just launched the war on Iran. That's not how Israel sees this at all. Israel has been at war with Iran since October the 7th when an Iranian proxy Hamas attacked them. On October the 8th, an Iranian proxy, Hezbollah, began to fire rockets into Israel. Then the Houthis, another Iranian proxy, began to attack shipping and also Israel, right? Now, what has happened since then is Israel has eliminated those threats to, I was going to say deballed, but decapitated Hezbollah.

They dealt with the threat of Hamas, and they are now in a position to deal with the threat they've always been concerned about. Now, why is Israel so concerned about this? Well, first of all, Iran has been saying for a very long time, they don't want regime change in Israel. They want the state of Israel not to exist. Now, think about the fact that in the post-October 7 world, they cannot take the risk that they're only enriching uranium to 60% because they want to threaten to have nuclear weapons. That is not something they can do. And by the way, Pierce, there's something that people don't seem to understand about. You know, we struggle in the West.

I really do think we all struggle in the West to understand the fundamentalist mindset. And let me give you an example of what the regime in Iran is like so that we can all understand what the threat here is. After the Islamic revolution happened in Iran in 79, the war broke out between Iran and Iraq. And in that war, Iran was at a disadvantage. It was militarily backward. It wasn't financially able to deal with that. You know what they did? They attempted to mitigate that by recruiting as many child soldiers as they could.

We don't know how many because they didn't bother to count, but it's hundreds of thousands. And because some of them were too young and too weak to fight, they didn't send them to the front line. They sent them to sweep minefields with their own bodies. That is what this regime does. Now, if those people are willing to do that, to their own children, 9, 10, 11, 12-year-olds, what do you think they would do to the children of their enemies if they get a nuclear weapon or if they get it close to, or if they're allowed to continue funding proxies around the Middle East in order to attack Israel as they've already done?

Dave Smith. Okay, can I respond to some of this peers? Because as I always insist when I come on your show, It's always, I'm always, ironically, I get called a moral relativist when I criticize Israel, but I'm the one who's always asking for an objective standard here that we can judge all sides on. Because it's just, yeah, you can just focus on the horrible things that Iran did in the 1980 war with Iraq, which Saddam Hussein launched and the U.S. backed Saddam Hussein as he was using chemical weapons. So that justifies using children to walk into minefields?

No, that is not what I'm saying. Let me finish my point here. Instead of just straw man, well, I was about to say, so let me finish. Okay, by the way, Israel never killed any children, as you know, Pierce, right? They have the most respect for- Israel is not sending its own children into minefield. It's a massive difference. Okay, let me, Constantine, let me finish my point, and then you can respond to it and see if you can, you can take it on. Now, when you sit here and say that they've been at war with Iran since October 7th because Hamas is their proxies, what exactly, you know, proxy means that I would think

you have operational control over them or something like that. Well, let me explain what I think that means, because I've been arguing that point in terms of understanding where Israel comes from on this, which is there can be no doubt. I don't think, Dave, you would cast out on this, that Iran has financially and militarily given active and sustained support for a number of years to Hezbollah, to the Houthis,

and to Hamas. I mean, you wouldn't dispute that. Right. So, Pierce, then, By your logic and Constantine's logic, is Israel our proxy? They just attacked Iran. Well, I would say that Israel is actually, you could well argue, given the amount of support that America gives Israel militarily and economically, yes.

I think, I think, I mean, look, one person's ally is another person's proxy. Can I make some points on this? Well, hold on, hold on. Let me just. Yeah. So I think ally proxy, they're not. Can I flesh out your, Dave, I'm very happy to hear a counterargument. Can I just flesh out Pierce's point a little bit if that's okay?

So here's what we know. According to the State Department's own figures, Iran gives Hamas about $100 million a year, latest figures. They've been funding Hamas since the early 1990s. Yahir Sinwa said in 2017 that Iran is the single biggest military and financial backer of Hamas, Hamas's military wing. In September 2023, a month before October the 7th, 500 Hamas fighters and Palestinian Islamic Jihad fighters were being trained by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard abroad.

I can't remember if it's in Lebanon or in Iran proper. And there are numerous chronicle documented meetings between senior commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Hamas and Hizbullah fighters in the lead-up to it. What do you think that we're doing, talking about world peace and swapping hummus recipes? This is something that they've been involved in very heavily, and they can, continue to be involved in. And Hamas and Hezbollah are the sword hanging over Israel's neck that Iran has used in order to prevent the very thing that's happening now. Dave? Okay. So to be clear here, it's an outrage that Iran has sold weapons and given

money to Hamas, and therefore Hamas is their proxy. Yet, as we all know, Pierce, and me and you have discussed this, two weeks before October 7th, Benjamin Netanyahu sends the head of Mossad to Qatar to make sure that the funding to Hamas continues. Yet is Hamas now a proxy of Israel? Is Israel at war with itself? I think on that point, I certainly think that Benjamin Netanyahu, when this is all over, is going to have a monumental day of reckoning, not just in the corruption courts,

but I think he's going to have a monumental day of reckoning about how he allowed this to happen on his watch, how Mossad so spectacularly dropped the ball. No one can give me a good explanation for why they can carry out this kind of attack on Hezbollah with the pages and carry out so precise an attack in Iran. But didn't know, didn't apparently know that Hamas were spending 20 years building a tunnel system

and didn't know 3,000 on them were about to pour over the border. I will never defend Netanyahu in this. I think he's going to be a busted flush. I suspect he sees this attack on Iran as being a chance to avoid being a busted flush for a little longer than it might have been the case. but there's going to be a day of reckoning for him, and the fact that he actively encouraged billions of dollars to be funneled to Hamas to create a divider rule strategy between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority

has also turned out to be one of the most catastrophically wrong things that an Israeli leader could possibly have done. So, look, that's where I think we're down. None of this makes Hamas an Israel proxy, right? Okay, fine, fine, fine. Well, yeah, I mean, it did kind of by the definition you guys gave me, resource of their funding or support. Oh, okay, fine.

Okay, it's got to be primary, just being, okay, fine, whatever. Anyway, the point is this, right? Obviously, right now, Israel has taken out much of the Hezbollah leadership. The Houthis have been bombed. I think there's still a bit of a problem for them. They've been absolutely leveling Gaza. And so they think this is the moment. And of course, Bashar al-Assad fell as well.

So now they think this is the moment for regime change in Iran. It's the same reason why people like Ben Shapiro were celebrating when Bashar al-Assad fell. Yeah, now the Shiite crescent is no longer supplying weapons from Iran to Hezbollah. But I'm not an Israeli. I'm an American.

I'm not cheering when the Emir of al-Qaeda takes over in Syria. And listen, whatever you put the risk at here, which if this thing keeps escalating, the risk of this going to a real ground war, another war in the war on terrorism, let me be very clear when I say this. I don't know that America will survive

this. We went into the terror wars in a much stronger place than we're going into this one, and this is a much tougher opponent than Saddam Hussein or Omar Gaddafi. We didn't go into the terror wars $37 trillion in debt. We didn't go into the terror wars with the cultural and political and racial divides. We have mass protests in the streets right now over Donald Trump trying to enforce his immigration policy. This is going to be, this has the potential to be an utter disaster. And why should any American or British person for that matter, why should any of us support this war

because Israel thinks it's in their interest? Israel has attacked five or six people in the last year. I would argue it's not just in Israel's interest. I think Iran is an evil regime that oppresses its people that has funded terrorism. So was Saddam Hussein? I agree, I agree.

But in Saddam Hussein's case, I never believe. Saddam Hussein never funded terrorism. I never believed the Saddam Hussein had WMD. I said that before he said funded terrorism. There was no time. terrorism in Iraq until we got rid of Saddam, actually. Tax Day has passed, but for millions of Americans, that's where the trouble begins. The IRS is now ramping up enforcement for those who miss the April deadline or still owe back taxes.

Well, today's sponsor, Tax Network USA can still help. If your books are a mess, if you're self-employed, or if you're a business owner, Tax Network USA specializes in cleaning up financial chaos and getting you back on track quickly. It's so the IRS is applying enforcement pressure at levels they've never seen before. But even after the deadline, it's not too late to take control. The consultation is completely free. Acting now could stop penalties, threatening letters, and surprise levies before they escalate. Call 1-800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com slash peers. That's tnusa.com slash peers.

Let Tax Network USA make the next move, not the IRS. No, no, no, no, I'm sorry. Just to be clear, I said that before I heard Pierce Morgan make that point, I was saying about being a brutally oppressive dictator. I think you can't hold any truck for this Iranian regime. I think a lot of Iranian people would agree with that. I think they would love to get rid of them. I think that Israel has every right to feel threatened by Iran's tentacles

in the way they supported three different terror groups right on their border. So I'm not saying that you're not right that this might all backfire. Let me just ask you. I'm not saying it may not back five. I'm just saying I do understand why Israel has decided to do it now. I think they sense that Iran's regime has never been weaker because of what's happened in Syria, because of what happened to Hezbollah?

What's been the most significant moment of the last week? Probably Hezbollah saying we're not getting involved in this, right? That, to me, was a very significant moment. And that may well have emboldened, not just Israel, to continue pummeling Iran, but also may have emboldened Trump to think, well, actually, if we're ever going to deal with this regime, now is the moment.

Now, that's not to say, Dave, that you're not right, that this could all backfire horrendously. And if America gets sucked into a ground war, then it will be a complete nightmare. I've got no doubt about that. But would you also concede, though, If you allow Iran to enrich uranium, that also could backfire. Yes.

I was about to say that. And also I was about to say that Russia is now making pretty worrying noises, that if America gets involved, it's not going to tolerate it. So you can't ignore that, given what's happening in Ukraine. But yeah, I think in your point, Constantine, yes, when I saw that IAE report, I read it, and I thought they've gone from 3% to 60% uranium enrichment. and there's only one reason you would do that. Either you take Dave's view,

which is they're doing that because they want to have a form of nuclear deterrent without actually having a bomb. Or if you're Israel, you're like, these people have been funding terrorism against us for decades, and now they've gone from 3% to 60% way more than is needed for any civilian use. Clearly, they are on a fast track here to be a nuclear power.

And we cannot allow that to happen. So I do, well, let Constantine respond first, But that's why I do understand why Israel feels the way it does. Well, exactly. And let's be honest about something here, Piers. The three of us are sitting in comfortable air-conditioned studios on the other side of the world from the region where this is happening. We have the luxury to pontificate the real reason that Iran is enriching uranium to near weapons grade.

Israel does not have the ability to get this wrong and then go, well, I apologize, I got this one wrong as Dave has done with President Trump. he supported him being elected, and now he's going, I got it wrong, guys, let's impeach him. Israel, if it gets this wrong, gets annihilated. They do not have the luxury of that. Now, Dave, I think the point you make about the American people,

I have the greatest respect for the American people, and they should determine the course of America themselves. They've elected Donald Trump, and that is the reality. No one here, Pierce found out, I think, with some history, that Americans don't like being told what to do by foreigners, and I'm certainly not going to do that. It's up to the American people.

I know the American people don't want boots on the ground. And neither do I. And neither do sensible people, I think. I think the extent of Americans' involvement should be to help Israel defend itself against the missile attacks and let them get the job done themselves. I agree with you. This is Israel's war.

They should prosecute it to the best of their ability and they should deal with the threat that they face from Iran. I don't want a massive involvement of the West. I don't think that's what we need. And by the way, Piz, just one quick point, slightly tangential, but that's very important. for those people who care about what's happening in Ukraine, this is brilliant for Ukraine because Iran has been one of the biggest supplies of drones, suicide drones, that have been

raining down in Ukrainian cities and killing civilians and military personnel there. The fact that Iran and Russia are now having to deal with this situation takes a lot of pressure of Ukraine, and it's good for that reason as well. All right, Dave, the one thing I would quibble with about what you said earlier was about the way that Iran has responded. They always threaten annihilation when they get attacked, right, or when they're involved in any kind of skirmish. We've heard it towards the end of last year, and nothing really happened. We've heard it again now.

And, oh, yes, they've got through the Iron Dome several times. They've killed some civilians in Tel Aviv. This is indisputable. So they technically have done better in terms of their revenge attack than other countries have fared against Israel. I accept that. But I also think we are far removed. from seeing any kind of, you know, huge resistance coming out of Iran. In fact, what you're seeing is their bluff potentially getting called here,

that a lot of it has been rhetoric, built on sand, literally, and that they don't actually have the military capability to even tackle a country one-tenth its size in terms of population, let alone if the United States was to get involved. So I think what you're seeing is actually the opposite of the way you characterized it. I don't think you're seeing a massive response from Iran. I think you're seeing as good as they can do, and it's not very much. Well, look, I mean, this is what remains to be seen, and we don't know.

But in 2007, when Dick Cheney was trying to push George W. Bush into war with Iran, it was the Pentagon who stopped George W. Bush from doing it. And it was them who said that we do not have escalation dominance over Iran, essentially meaning that we have, you know, we still have thousands of troops in Iraq, right? now, we have bases and embassies all throughout the region that they can touch. Now, we'll see, I guess, Pierce. I guess we're going to play this game. I guess we're going to play this incredibly risky game.

I agree. It's high risk. For no reason, essentially, from the United States of America's interests. And, you know, look, this stuff, I'm sorry, I just find this to be too ridiculous. All of the intelligence is saying that they don't have nuclear weapons and they're not pursuing nuclear weapons. There is one country, one government in the Middle East that is not a member of the non-proliferation treaties that has nuclear weapons secretly.

And it ain't Iran. It's Israel. It is so ridiculous. Well, I agree. It's absurd. As you know, I agree. I don't understand how Israel is allowed to continue pretending they don't have nuclear weapons. And also, what are you saying?

Are you saying Israel should develop nuclear weapons to compensate for that reality? No, no, no. What I'm saying is this, okay? Whenever you guys talk about this, even already, and Pierce, I got to say, I thought you were a little bit guilty of this right. after October 7th, understandably perhaps so. But even right now, whenever we talk, it's all about the Israeli perspective,

as if we're all Israelis. Oh, Israel can't take the risk that they have 60% in Richmond. Israel can't get this wrong the way I could change my mind about supporting Donald Trump. I guess Israel can get it wrong when they lure America into a war, when they pump out propaganda saying that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. That's okay when they get that one wrong, but they can't get this one wrong. Okay, fine. Why are you blaming Israel for that?

It was your own government lying to us about it. that. I was protesting against the war in Iraq exactly the same way you and Pierce were. We all opposed. But he was our government's line to us. It wasn't about Israel. Why is everything that happens in the world the fall of Israel day? This is such a blatant straw man. I didn't say everything in the world is the fault of Israel. I'm saying they were also guilty of this. But why are you putting the emphasis on them when George W. Bush and Tony Blair were using their bully pulpits to make this point to a far wider audience and some guy in the Middle East called Benjamin Netanyahu? If you think that I am removing

any of the blame from George W. Bush? Kind of sounds like it. I assure you, I assure you you're wrong and you don't know what you're talking about. I've been blasting them for years. The war criminals who should be in the hay. I agree. That is not the issue. We are talking specifically about the nation of Israel right now, so I'm talking about their responsibility. And why is it, by the way, that this is always a one-way street? You know, I hear all the hawks constantly being like, Iran said this, a ran threatened this. What about the threats in the other direction? Maybe Iran feels like they don't have a choice to know. Look, MoMA Kada. Iran is on the list of seven countries that are supposed to be overthrown.

The U.S. government went and overthrew both of their next door neighbors, invaded the countries and destroyed them after putting Iran on the axis of evil list when they had nothing to do with 9-11. And then when Omar Kodafi denuclearized, they went in there and overthrew him in the most violent, brutal way was sodomized to death by a pack of madmen. Maybe Iran also feels that they can't get this one wrong. Why are we doing this? This is a country that poses no threat to the United States of America. And if you guys want to try to hang on the fence here and go, hey, I'm not telling Americans what to do.

I think Israel should do it on their own. But that's just a fantasy land. They're not doing it on their own. They're doing it with our weapons, with our intelligence support, with our money, with us protecting them from a retaliation strike, and at least possibly, with our president using negotiations to dupe Iran into thinking. that they weren't at risk. I mean, that's what Benjamin Netanyahu says, and that's what some other reporting says. Maybe that's not the case. But either way, he pretended like he was afterward.

So no, none of this is being done without America. This is about a regime-change war. All of them said it in their own words. They're on record. Do you guys think Benjamin Netanyahu has been mistaken for 30 years, claiming that Iran is a year to three years away from a nuke? Or was he lying? Well, I think, listen, I think the reality is the thing that, the thing that struck me was going from 3% to 60% suggests an intent. It suggests an incontrovertible. Yes, they're not the only country that does this.

But nobody disputes that Iran has gone from 3% to 60% in Iranian-inishment, right? So that's correct. So that is all, unlike with Saddam and the WMD that didn't exist, that is indisputable. It's just how you interpret what they're intending to do with that. Let me ask you. Can I just one quick thing on this? So first of all, all, all, Those regime wars you're talking about are the fault of the U.S. and other Western governments

who pursued them. That's who's responsible. That's who should be to blame. And as you say, should be prosecuted for that. But the reason people rightly call you a moral relativist, Dave, is that you don't seem to understand the difference between, yes, I think it's quite clear that Benjamin Netanyahu wants regime change in Iran. But that is not the same as the regime in Iran wanting to destroy Israel. There's a big difference. If the Mueller's in Iran wanted a different Prime Minister of Israel. That is not the same as wanting to destroy the entire country. And the reason Israel is as paranoid about these things as it is, let's be honest, it's surrounded,

or at least wasn't until recently when opinion in many Arab countries changed towards Israel, thanks to President Trump's Abraham Accords. Israel was surrounded by many, many countries who don't believe that it has a right to exist. And that's the difference. And that's why people call you a moral relativist. Well, okay, well, that's totally ridiculous. and makes no sense at all. And it only works. I'm about to answer, Constantine. Let me get to finish. Because it only makes sense when you only say, I ascribe the worst of intentions to this regime

and the best of intentions to this. What was overthrowing Omar Gaddafi? Was that simply replacing the leader or was that destroying the country, turning it into a failed state. You've got in a different conflict. Let's stick to Israel and Iran. No, no, no, no. The Israelis say, we want regime change. The Iranians say we want to wipe you off the map. Oh, yeah, yeah. That's pretty different. Hold on. So I'm the moral relativist. But then when I point out what one side actually did, you run away from it and say, oh, no, no, no, we can't talk about that. Talk about something else.

It's your government that destroyed Libya. It's not Israel. It's your government. Israel was lobbying for us to do this for years and years and years and years. Our government and I hold them criminally responsible. So blame them. Constantine. Constantine, why are you, are you in Israeli? Why are you constantly running cover for them? Because I believe in speaking the truth and being honest. instead of dragging in stuff that's irrelevant.

No, no, no, no. It's not irrelevant at all. What are you talking about? Yes, my government is criminally responsible for the war that they launched. And the Israeli government is also responsible for constantly trying to lure my government into more wars. That's what I'm standing up against right now. So the American government is so gullible that they just go around invading countries on the say-so of Israel. Again, what a straw man, dude. Benjamin Netanyahu came to America in 2002 and testified before Congress that the U.S. should overthrow Saddam Hussein, Omar Qaddafi, and the Iranian regime.

This isn't a secret. He's advocating that we fight more wars. And I'm telling you that this war, which we do not need to fight, which is not in our interest, has the potential to be devastating to our country, let alone the region. What is the moral relativism in any of that? I'm not saying the Iranians are good people. One side wants to wipe the other one from the map. The other side wants not to have people who want to do that in charge of that

country. But Pierce, do you not get my, let me just see, Pierce, do you get my point here? This is what they said from the very beginning of the war in Gaza. Israel doesn't want to wipe Gaza off the map. Israel just wants to retrieve the hostages and get it, but they are wiping it off the map. So why do you just get to have this standard where you decide what they want to do? I can't base it on their track record. We can't look at Iraq. We can't look at Afghanistan. Evidently, as all the hogs can see, we can't look at World War II. Everything is just like World War II. But it's not like the last 25 years of total. These guys have White countries off the map left and right. It's what they've done. It's their track record.

As you know, I've been increasingly critical of the Israel strategy in Gaza. It makes no sense until you hear people like Smodrich talking brazenly and openly about ethnic cleansing. I mean, it doesn't make any pretense. And at that point, I do think that there are certainly people in that government at senior level who absolutely want to get all the Palestinians out of Gaza, out of the West Bank. And if that has been their plan all along from October the 8, than I was duped, and people that feared that were correct. And we'll have to see how that plays itself out.

I hope that is not going to actually be the case. And the people who say on the Israeli side, they say to me, well, you know, Smoddrich isn't the government. Well, he's a pretty senior member of that government, and he's not even hiding what he thinks should be happening. Before we finish this, guys, I want to talk about the politics here for Trump as well, because it's really interesting to me, Constantine.

You've got the conservative right in America absolutely split down the middle. You've got Tucker Carlson on one side, a lot of people who agree with him that this could be a disaster for America, for Trump. They shouldn't be doing it. Obviously, Dave and Tucker Carlson, now unusual bedfellows on this,

but there's always a first time for everything. But you also have a lot of people on the conservative right, Lindsey Graham, John Bolton, others who are absolutely gung-ho to get stuck into Iran here. Is there a danger that political, this really does fragment Trump's base support. And what does that mean for the Republicans, for MAGA, for Trump, for the future, for J.D. Vance,

and people who are aligned with Trump, maybe at the next election, and so on. Well, I should preface this by saying, I'm an outsider observer in the United States. I do go there a lot. I spend a lot of time there. I speak to people there, but I certainly wouldn't claim to be,

you know, the greatest expert in the world about what's happening in America. My sense, an expert sense of this, that actually I think your presentation of it is a very online focused presentation. I think if you look at the polling, the vast majority of people in America are basically in the position I described earlier, which is they don't want Iran to get anywhere near or continue to get closer to developing nuclear weapons,

and they don't want American boots on the ground. And that's the dilemma that Donald Trump has to navigate. And if you can do that... Well, there's a third dilemma. You say this is where it's more complicated because I don't think he's even thinking about boots on the ground, but I do think he... is thinking probably as we speak about whether he allows an American B-52

to take a 30,000-pound bomb and drop it on the nuclear sites which Israel hasn't got the ability to get to. I think that is probably more likely than not right now to be what he may order. If that happens and it's successful and it doesn't lead to an escalation, everyone's going to love it because Americans love to win and they love to bomb shit, right? Let's be honest, that's the history of the last 20 years.

And if that happens, they'll be very happy. And if it goes in a different direction, they will be very unhappy. So you're right, it's a big call. And I don't think anyone's sitting here or, frankly, anyway, knows how it's actually going to play out or whether it's a good idea. And, you know, I'm not sitting here advocating for that necessarily. I think Israel seems to be doing enough damage to significantly degrade any attempts Iran is making to have a nuclear enrichment program.

And I hope that's the thing that we pursue. By the way, I think – I don't think it's – split mager down the middle at all. That's what it appears like on X. I really don't think when you talk to ordinary people, that's a situation in America, especially in the Republican Party, which is overwhelmingly pro-Israel and has been for a very long time. Okay. Dave Smith. There's no question. I mean, I largely agree with Constantine there. I think if Trump can thread the needle here and not lead to a catastrophe that he can survive this politically, I do think he's downplaying the split a little bit. It's against,

And it's not just about like polls about how people feel about boots on the ground, which obviously the American people are largely opposed to. And yes, it is true that most of the Republicans do support Israel, although poll after poll has demonstrated that this is really changing with the younger generation. But look, I mean, you have a situation right now. And, you know, yesterday, like I started the day by denouncing Donald Trump and I was, you know, taking a lot trending on Twitter and getting a lot of praise and a lot of insults. and all that stuff. But by the end of the day, it was like Tucker Carlson was being insulted by Donald

Trump for not even criticizing him, really, just criticizing the policy while heaping praise on Donald Trump. But Steve Bannon, Charlie Kirk, I mean, some of the most influential conservative voices in the United States of America have all come out and really drawn a red line that we do not want to have another war here. So the point is that if it does get to that, and that's a big if, but if it does come to that point, like a real boots on the ground war, Donald Trump will absolutely destroy his coalition and his legacy along with it, as well as his entire domestic agenda. I mean, you need as much political capital as you can get when there's people out on the streets protesting against his immigration policies.

And he's risking, squandering all of this for something that's absolutely no threat to the United States of America at all. On the side of the country who secretly developed nukes and is not a nonproliferation Treaty against the country who doesn't have nukes and is in the non-proliferation treaty. It's the most reckless madness of a policy could possibly be. Well, he's not pursuing that policy. This is the point I keep making to Dave. What you keep doing, Dave, is taking to the extremist position.

No one's talking about boots on the ground except the usual Lindsey Graham's, who no one in the Trump cabinet takes seriously on these issues at all. I don't know about that. They don't. The conversation that's happening is about what is the right level of America. America's involvement. We will see what that is. And by the way, look, I haven't seen Charlie Kirk, who is genuinely influential, I think, within the MAGA movement, criticized President Trump. I think he's been kind of balanced in his commentary. All the other people, the Candace Owens, the Tucker

Carlsons, et cetera, the vast majority of people within the conservative movement in America are not taking their opinion on this issue. And the polls bear that out. Tucker, though, I would say, hold on, I would say people in power may not be huge audiences. I'm not saying they don't have huge audiences, but I'm saying a lot of those audiences are not within the Conservative movement in America. But when Tucker chewed up Ted Cruz, for example, and did it pretty skillfully, I have to say,

made Cruz look pretty ill-informed about Iran, that's got a massive amount of mainstream media attention today. I think you can't ignore me. It's interesting to me, look at the split. The MAGA names against Trump, Candice Owens, New Dave, Audrey Taylor Green, Alex Jones, Matt Walsh, Tucker Carson, obviously. Then he got the ones first.

Charlie Koch's been pretty balanced, like you said, Lindsay Graham, Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin, Mark Levine. I mean, I've not seen that kind of split on many issues, and this is potentially the biggest issue of all. Can I just responding to what Constantine just said because I thought I made this point pretty clear at the beginning, but let me try to make it clear. You can sit here and say nobody's talking about boots on the ground all you want to.

This whole thing is about a regime change, and all of the major players have it. committed this in their own words. Even Benjamin Netanyahu wasn't saying that Iran was on the cusp of having nuclear weapons. But that could be regime changed. But that could be regime change as we saw in Syria towards the end of last year in December, when after a long and bloody and awful civil war, suddenly the downfall of Assad happened incredibly quickly.

And it didn't involve boots on the ground, any conventional sense. It involved actual Syrian boots from civilians. That's right. That's right. They were able to say that's why I see, you know, I don't think it can be ruled out that if enough Iranian people feel that their regime has been humiliated, has actually been exposed for not being able to hit back in the way they've always vowed to, feel that they're weak and disgraced and so on. You know, why couldn't there be an uprising like we saw in Syria at the end of last year? I don't think it can be ruled out completely. I mean, listen, so Pierce, just to be clear, because you are right about that.

are the models like Libya and Syria, where it didn't require long occupations in nation building, and all you got was a failed state with open-air slave markets, a massive refugee crisis into Europe, and now you have Al-Qaeda in charge of Syria. And excuse me, as an American, my beef is with Al-Qaeda, not with He is not behaving like a member of Al-Qaeda. Now he's a leader of the country. He appears to be... Oh, so that's okay. I'm not taking any... I'm not, listen, I don't take any... As Donald Trump once says, I don't trust anyone, right? So let's see how it plays out. Let's see how it plays out.

Hold on, hold on, on that. Pierce, I'm not saying trust. This man was fighting against America in the Iraq war, part of the insurgents, killing our boys. So why am I supposed to care about the people who kill Israelis, Nelson Mandela? Listen, Nelson Mandela was on the UK's prescribed terroristist, terroristist under Margaret Thatcher,

and went on to become one of the greatest people in history and let his country to a more unified place. In other words, Trump is taking a bet that this new leader in Syria actually is a reformed character, and certainly so far, you would have to say that these signs are reasonably encouraging

given the apocalyptic feelings that some people had, that he would simply be Mr. Al-Qaeda presiding over complete mayhem. And one thing is worth adding, by the way, on this, is that Iran has a history. Iran, just a quick point, Dave, very quick. Iran has a history of 25 years or maybe 26 years of living in a secular and relatively liberal-free society.

So the people of Persia have a very different history to the countries you're talking about. This is not to say that regime change or the change of a regime does not lead to catastrophe. And there's no obvious – someone wrote a very good piece about this week. There is no obvious savior waiting in the wings other than the Shah's son who is a quite divisive character. I've interviewed him, I like him personally, but divisive character. But there's no like Mandela figure that you could point to and say is waiting in the wings to potentially come and rescue Iran. That person so far hasn't been identified. Can I just make a couple quick points on this?

Okay, so like number one, we launched 25 years of what they are dubbed forever wars on the justification that al-Qaeda came over here and murdered innocent American citizens. And now I'm supposed to make up with al-Qaeda and forgive them for that because he put on a three-piece suit while I focus on Israel's enemies. I just find this to be like a crazy ask of the American people. And then, you know, look, it's real easy to sit here and say, oh, yeah, they had a strong tradition, a tradition of liberalism and everything's going to work out this time for the first time. We're going to have a regime change that's going to work out really smoothly. Iran is so weak. The people hate them so much. This regime has been in power since 1979, spending the vast majority.

of that time, having the most powerful governments in the history of the world, hell bent on ousting this regime. And they've survived this long. Maybe you guys are right this time. But, you know, Pierce, come on, man. I mean, you remember the mission accomplished banners? You remember, remember when they had the first elections in Iraq and it even fooled John Stewart?

And he was celebrating, oh, I guess George W. Bush was right. And then we went on to the most brutal and bloody eight years of civil war that saw a million innocent people die. The country absolutely destroyed, massive displacements and horror stories. And so, you know, it's like, I don't know if you guys have noticed this, and maybe it'll make you a little bit uncomfortable, but the amount of people celebrating this thing, four, five days into it, like, oh, my God, Israel took out all their targets. Look how easy it was. We've been here before. I've seen this movie. I'll be honest with you, Dave, someone who's not pushing regime change or American involvement,

as I've said, in the way that you think people are trying to do. I am celebrating the fact that Iran is no longer enriching uranium to 60%. I think that is worth celebrating. I think that's a good thing. I think we should all be relieved that that's happening. Yeah, I kind of agree. But I also agree with Dave Smith when he says this could go horribly wrong. But that's what we're all saying.

I'm saying that too. Yeah, I agree. This is war. No one knows how it's going to turn out exactly. I agree. I agree. I mean, I've gone as far as saying. Of choice.

Well, I've gone as far as saying, I think, that unlike the Iraq war in 2003, I feel like this seems a justified action by Israel to protect its people from what is clear, fast-moving acceleration of uranium by a lethal enemy that is wedded to terror groups all over its border that want to kill it. I understand that. It seems justified. Now, does that mean I think it's going to work and isn't going to cause huge problems? No.

And I think the jury is very firmly out on that. and it's going to be an extremely fascinating and turbulent a few weeks and months ahead. And I think right now Donald Trump, probably the loneliest man in the world, sitting in the White House, working out what does he actually do now? And if he does press the button or attacking Iran, that will go really against pretty much everything he said other than specifically Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. But in terms of starting a war in the Middle East,

that is really antithical against everything he's said. So it's a really interesting, momentous decision for Donald Trump to be taking, and the consequences could be enormous. But gentlemen, I've really enjoyed this debate. Thank you both for agreeing to do it. I think it was constructed in the right toe. We didn't descend into ad hominem attacks. Can I just say, I have a much bigger penis than you, Pierce, and you, Dave. That's actually almost certainly not true. A reference to the Jewish Galloway episode yesterday. And Dave Smith, we all know, is the most well-hung.

over the three of us. So why don't we just leave it with Dave, Dave Smith for the win. Oh, thank you guys. Thank you, Constantine. Thank you, Pierce. Thanks, brother. I appreciate it, guys. Thank you very much. Pierce Morgan Unsensit is proudly independent. The only boss around here is me. If you enjoy our show, we also only one simple thing. Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Pierce Morgan Unsensit 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, uncensored media has never been more critical, and we couldn't do it without you.