Piers Morgan Uncensored - EXCLUSIVE: 'Netanyahu Is FASCIST!' + Ehud Barak Breaks Silence On Shock Epstein Claims

Episode Date: July 8, 2026

Benjamin Netanyahu could finally be facing the end of the road - with elections approaching, he faces difficult questions regarding the security failures leading to October 7, the Iran War, corruption charges, and a contentious ICC arrest warrant. As he plunges Israel into a constitutional crisis by refusing to abide by a Supreme Court decision on a media freedom case, critics are calling his latest move a "legal coup" and an assault on democracy. Ehud Olmert, Prime Minister of Israel from 2006 to 2009, joins Piers Morgan  to discuss these explosive developments, as well as Ehud Barak, who was Prime Minister between 1999 and 2001. 00:00 Introduction 01:35 Ehud Olmert criticises Benjamin Netanyahu’s government 05:35 Netanyahu and his government’s decision to ignore Supreme Court’s ruling 09:23 The execution of the Iran War and the relationship between Israel and the US 14:03 Ehud Barak discusses Israel defying its own rule of law 15:45 What will happen if Netanyahu loses the election? 18:30 Who can repair the damage Netanyahu has done? 29:30 Piers asks Ehud Barak about his name appearing in the Epstein Files  35:25 Ehud Barak being named in the defamation case between Virginia Giuffre and Alan Dershowitz  40:20 Professor Marandi discusses the funeral procession for the late Ayatollah in Tehran  42:35 The Ayatollah’s successor missing from the funeral processions 45:20 Crowds chanting ‘death to America’ and ‘death to Israel’ 48:00 The Iranian regime funding the Houthis, Hezbollah and Hamas Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On July 16th, the Hawk lands on Netflix. From the mind of Will Ferrell. Oh, mama. I'm back. Come in love! Comes a new original series. Get ready, get ready. That's it.

Did I stutter? When an iconic pro golfer. Lonnie? Hockey! Takes one last swing at greatness. You were a big shot golfer. I still am a big shot golfer. No one.

Dad, I'm the Hawk now. We'll stand in his way. That's how it's done. The Hawk, only on Netflix, July 16th. He has declared war on the state of Israel and the people of Israel. Fascistic, shubanistic, extremist, ayatollastry. They're outraged, the Iranians, and they want revenge. We've seen crowds chanting death to America.

He is shouldn't be taken literally. They mean death to the U.S. Empire. They mean death to this oppressive regime. He was a convicted pedophile. I'm not an expert on the rules of America. All due respect to Mr. Bright, it's the same rule pretty much everywhere. you sexually abuse a minor, you're a paedophile. I told you, I regret the fact I've ever met him.

The fact that the American society accepted him, probably blinded him. Benjamin Netanyahu is one of the most consequential and divisive leaders in modern history, but the great survivor of global politics elected six times as Israeli prime minister could finally be facing the end of the road in elections later this year. He's facing difficult questions about the enormous security failures leading to October the 7th, as well as the failure of the Iran War, he did so much to Stoke. And Netanyahu could lose much more than power. He's still facing corruption charges in Israel, as well as contentious ICC arrest warrant for alleged war crimes.

It's against his backdrop, but he's made his latest big move. He's refusing to abide by a Supreme Court decision on a media freedom case, plunging his country into a constitutional crisis. Critics are calling it a legal coup and nothing less than an assault on democracy. Well, Ehud Olmert was the Prime Minister of Israel from 2006 to 2009 and joins me now. Mr. Roman, welcome back to Uncensored. Hi. Benjamin Netanyahu, I believe, with the active participation of some of his ministers like

Benghavir and Smodridge, is making Israel globally more and more unpopular, which for somebody like me that loves Israel, knows lots of Israelis, as many Jewish people around the world. I find this really upsetting to watch. Do you agree with my categorization and what can be done about it? Well, I certainly can add to this. I think that he has declared war

on the state of Israel and the people of Israel. Well, the basic fundamental values which have characterized what Israel was in the way that Israel was perceived. in the international community, even at times that many different parts of the world didn't agree with us, criticized Israel. But there never was such a storm of protest across the world in the fendliest places that were so much connected to the state of Israel as it is now. And this is largely, almost entirely, because of the fascistic, schubanistic, extremist, Ayatollah type character of the major part of the government with the complete consent and inspiration of the Prime Minister of Israel.

I know that lots of good, innocent people and Jews across the world complain about the growing wave of anti-Semitism. And certainly there is anti-Semitism. There was anti-Semitism throughout our history, throughout our lives. We all were victims of it. But five years ago or 15 years ago, 20 years ago, when I was fighting at a time I was prime minister with Lebanon, There was a certain criticism. There were some voices of discontent, but there was not anything similar to what it is today. And there was anti-Semitism also then, but there was not any such voice of hatred to the state of Israel.

And the only reason for it is when you look at this government, what can you say? When you see this Benghville, running the Israeli government and talking about the Gaza to get rid of everyone there because everyone is Hamas and everyone who is Hamas is doomed to die. And everyone in Gaza is Hamas. And the obvious interpretation of it is that he calls for a genocide of these people. and what the settlers are doing in the West Bank without the Israeli police stopping it, in fact, in some cases, supporting it. And the Israeli army is indifferent

or sometimes actively supporting it. And this is obnoxious, totally intolerable and unacceptable and unforgivable, and it is all done under the auspices and the responsibility of the Israeli people. government. So what do you want people outside of Israel who think? I can't tolerate it and I'm an Israeli and I live here. Well, also I think, I also think, yeah. Right. And I would say that the really disturbing development in the last few days is it appears that Netanyahu and his government are now

prepared to ignore a Supreme Court ruling. And, you know, I remember in the months before October the 7th, because I actually interviewed Netanyahu in London, in April, I think it was, of that year, when there were huge protests on the streets of Israel about his attempts to, you know, reduce power of the Supreme Court. But if now you have a government in Israel, supposedly the only democracy in the Middle East, a government that is prepared to actually ignore a Supreme Court ruling because they actually want more control of the media, then what does that say about Israel's claim to be a democracy? They are actively fighting to destroy the status,

the authority of the Supreme Court. The fact is that they don't even recognize the president of the Supreme Court. Not tacitly, not quietly, not behind the scenes, publicly, officially, the Minister of Justice says that he doesn't recognize the person. President of the Supreme Court because he is not certain that the selection or the appointment of the President of the Supreme Court was done in a proper manner, which is nonsense, of course. It was done precisely as all their former presidents of the Supreme Court's were appointed.

And the Prime Minister doesn't actively recognize him. And so this process which deteriorates towards the destruction. of the Supreme Court, non-compliance of the government to the ruling of the Supreme Court is moving rapidly. And we

are really come, we are coming very close to fight to defend the soul of the state of Israel. The soul of the nature of Israel. When you say that Israel is the only democracy

in the Middle East, There is a question now. Are we still that kind of democracy? We definitely are not that kind of democracy that we were. You can't be a democracy and do not recognize actively, publicly, in the biggest volume of your voice, the Supreme Court, and consider yourself to be a democracy. We are not. So this is really the coming elections. We have some fears, by the way.

that with the assistance, possible assistance of the Benghville's police, he's the Minister of National Security is in the Israeli police, when the police is not what it used to be years ago. So there are some voices in Israel that are scared, I mean, they are scared, and they voice it out, that if the outcome of the elections will show a defeat to Netanyahu, he may mean, not recognize it, and he will not allow the enforcement of the outcome of these elections with the assistance or the lack of participation of the police in favor of the, of this outcome. And if the Supreme Court will rule out something again, he may not agree to abide by it. So we are coming close to a very unique moment in the history of the state of Israel.

And we're fighting to the same our country. There's no other term that I can use. At the same moment, you've also seen this extraordinary situation that's been unfurling between the United States and Israel, where it would appear from a very deep dive piece in the New York Times quite early on that Donald Trump was persuaded by Benjamin Netanyahu that this was the best time to attack Iran. And that unlike previous U.S. presidents, Trump,

decided to go along with this, and that Netanyahu presented a set of circumstances that would happen, which were, you take out the Ayatollah and some of his top people, the IRGC collapsed from within, the people rise up, there's a natural revolution, and everyone's too preoccupied to worry about the Strait of Almuz. Now, as we know, the first part of that happened,

but he got replaced Yatollah by his more radical son anyway. None of the rest of it's happened. This has created a lot of distrust with President Trump, who obviously feels a bit humiliated, I think, by what's happened. It's clearly been, at the moment, a failure. And there are people now openly calling, you know, you've seen people who have always been supportive of Israel. You know, I'm thinking of Rahm Emanuel,

who's looking to, you know, perhaps run for a president, talking about its time for America to stop supporting Israel financially and so on. This feels to me like this Iran war and the way it was executed and the failings involved with it could be the beginning of the end of this relationship between the United States and Israel. Do you fear that could happen? Well, I tell you, I read the same book

I think that you read in the new book, The Regime Change. Issued last week by Hage Eberman and Jonathan Swan, who wrote already before a couple of books about Trump. And what they say there and what they tell there is really my bongling, is staggering, is stunning, how unfortunately President Trump was convinced and persuaded to join in with the Israeli attack. He didn't do it in the very first evening of the June of 95, but he subsequently joined in,

And then he was convinced again in February, 28th of February this year, to join in with the Israeli attack. And what I asked myself then, and I said it out loud in American media, on the 28th of February, right after the president, I happened to have been in Washington at that time, and I said, okay, I'm not unhappy when an enemy of the state of Israel was eliminated. and that the President of the United States of America supports the Israeli needs for security and is prepared to fight against our enemies. But I wonder, was there a thought about the next step? What are they going to do? What do we want to achieve?

Do we sort out a strategy of how to move forward in order to achieve something which can be tangible, which can be effective, which can make a difference in a situation. And apparently, other than blah, blah, and inflated rhetoric of Netanyahu and his group of thugs that surrounds him, there was not any strategy, there was not any thought. There was really a childish belief that, arrogant belief, that with the first try, which was very successful from a military point of view, And considering that the objective was to really eliminate the group of leaders, including the Ayatollah, it was quite successful. But again, there was nothing that was thought about what's next.

And there was this belief, the childish belief, that the regime in Iran will collapse rapidly and that the Kurds from the east will flood into Iran and will destroy it. I mean, it is so childish, it is so pompous, it is so irrelevant, that you ask yourself, are these guys responsible for the well-being of hundreds of millions of people? This is how they manage themselves. This is how they handle the most extremely significant and sensitive things that can change the lives of so many millions of people. people. Unbelievable. It is. Oh my, thank you very much indeed for joining me. I really appreciate it. Thank you, peace. Here we go. Someone's already claiming this is our year. Someone else said that

last year too. A round of James and ginger and lime arrives at the table. Smooth enough for kickoff, smooth enough for extra time. New friends pulling up a stool. Debates about whether that was a handball. Cheers rising like a roar around the room. Because match day are about the shared moments. Added Jameson to your match day lineup. Jameson, it's what you bring. Please enjoy our products responsibly. Well, join me now is the former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak.

Mr. Barak, welcome back to uncensored. How significant do you think it is that Benjamin Netanyahu's government appears to be preparing to ignore a Supreme Court ruling in Israel, thus in many people's eyes, defying its own rule of law? I seriously think it's a major blow.

It's kind of to our democracy. It is an attack of the government on the Israeli democracy in a very dangerous manner, unprecedented. There is no way to run a model democracy based on the idea that the executive branch can impose its judgment on judicial issue over the Supreme Court. So it's a direct attack on democracy and there is no way

but to block it and stop it. A government that dares to attack this way, the relevance of verdicts of the Supreme Court might even ignore the results of election in Israel. And you can't impose anything on it. Well, that is a very significant point, that if it gets to the elections and Netanyahu was to lose the election, then given what he's now doing with the Supreme Court, many people fear he will simply refuse to accept the result of that election. What happens then? No, I don't know. The all-living formal chiefs of the Supreme Court issued a statement today saying that, that accepting this new norm will be the last nail in the coffin of Israel as a democratic advanced country. And I really think that this government under Netanyahu, even before the war of 7th October, that's almost three years ago, they started an attack on our democracy.

They brought us to the verge of their beach, and they seemed to be determined to keep moving forward. And the former Chief Justice, Barack, not a relative of mine, told the public very honestly, we are defending democracy, but you, the people, should not expect the Supreme Court or the Attorney General to solve it to you. It's up to the people to solve it. And that's very tough warning.

I think that the only way is for the people, president of the country who are immune against any steps to take the lead and call upon the people to step out, to go out to the streets, to establish a siege on the Knesset and the Prime Minister office, paralyzed the state until this government kind of resigned. And I don't believe that the president will do it based on his behavior in the last three years. Then it comes to the heads of opposition. The heads of opposition should announce call upon the people to stop everything that's moving in the country in order to make sure that the government will understand that it has no

choice but to resign. I don't believe in any even in free and fair election under this situation. and I don't want to dive into all alternatives that Netanyahu has to try to torpedo a fair and white kind of executed elections. Who is the best potential next Prime Minister of Israel? Who can repair the damage that Netanyahu and this government, with people like Ben-Gavir and Smodrick saying ever more outrageous things, doing ever more outrageous things,

Who is going to be the person that comes through to save Israel from what is going on? I don't want to point to a name. I want to ask in a different way. We have five heads of opposition. Eisencourt, a former chief of staff, leading general, Bennett, a former prime minister for about the year. Lapid, who was a prime minister for three months. Lieberman, who is the head of kind of a good right.

party but against Netanyahu and Jair Golan who wants the Democratic Party. Each one of them and any permutation of these five people, one of them prime minister, one minister of defense, one minister of foreign affairs, one minister of treasury and one Minister of Internal Security or of justice. Any permutation is ten times better than the present government, led by Netanyahu, is totally derailed from the normative behavior of the prime minister, and the group of dwarfs, yes men, which are totally kind of, I know, something that no country will will nominate to run a bus station in a major city.

And these zeros in terms of political power are running the country into a disaster. They include some Jewish supremacy, mezzanic fanatics, and some others who are ultra-religious, good Jews, but totally detached from realities of politics and basically blackmailing, or Netanyahu, who is very weak these days because of his corruption court case, because the demand

to establish an inquiry committee, national inquiry committee, to check what happened in the 7th of October, even before and after. And his main problem with Trump when he now loses his support and even the objective results of the war, in spite of unprecedented achievements of the IDF of our Air Force, our intelligence and so on, after almost three years, not a single objective of the war had been achieved, not in Gaza against the Hamas, they are still on their feet and having their weapons, not against Hezbollah in Lebanon, we are still alive and kicking, and for sure not in Iran. There is no toppling down of the regime, no end to the nuclear military program,

no end to the ballistic missile problem, and no end to the proxy system. So it's a, not an absolute victory, it's absolute failure. And it's time for the world to realize. Netanyahu and Israel are not the same. The interests of Netanyahu and security national Israel are not the same. Netanyahu by now is a, is a, you know, driven by his personal interest of survivability as a prime minister in order not to face the day of reckoning when he will have to take accountability for all the damage he cost in the recent years. And he's behaving as a private individual that want to survive, not as a responsible leader of a nation in deep trouble. How damaging has the Iran war been, do you think, to

Israel's credibility as a government to the relationship with the United States. The attack, the 12 days of attack last year in June 25, was in a way justifiable blow to their nuclear military military plan to their missile industry and so on, not obliterated, not pushing them backward for generations as Netanyahu and Trump tried to exaggerate the result, but it was, let's say, give and take it was justifiable. The new attack this February of 26, 28 of February 26, is an absolute failure. It was based, the whole idea was based on fantasy

that by eliminated a single person or probably half a dozen of leader, Hamanae and his entourage. And some other illusions, you can topple down a regime. The idea, without admitting it publicly, was to topple down the regime, but any professional would have told you that it's not going to work.

And I'm not saying it in retrospect. Many people in the room said it, both here and in Washington, and Netanyahu insisted on doing it. He succeeded to convince Trump against the judgment of both Jay DeVans, Rubio, and many professionals as I assume on the CIA or NSA and so on.

And when it started, the fantasies kind of blown up, exaggerating, and collapsed immediately. And there was misreading of how how kind of stable is this regime. There is no understanding

of the reason that in order to win Israel and America has to win in a way that every teenager in the free world will see it. It means something like

Venezuela to Trump and something like the Six Days War for Israel. But to the Iranian and in a similar way to Hezbollah and Hamas,

it's enough to survive. It's an asymmetric war. If they survived, they had won. If after several weeks or months of a war, they can still stand up and keep fighting, that's mean that they've won in their own eyes, but also in the eyes of the world community, in the eyes of the region, in the eyes of history in a way. So that's something that should not have been missed by anyone who is serious strategist in this region. Not to mention the fact that everyone should realize in advance that the first step that they will do is to close the HUMU's way.

There was not a single war game in any capital in the world around the issue of Iran in the last generation where the next or something, where the next or second step of the Iranian side in the war game was to close the Hormuz Straits. The idea that it was not considered that something that will inevitably happen and will be needed to give answer to is I don't know how to call it

a total clumsiness on the strategic level. And then the idea that the Kurds, the Kurds will be encouraged to cross the border from Iraq to Iran, and move toward Tehran. It's ridiculous. There are 300 miles from the place where the Iraqi Kurds would meet the Iranian Kurds

and along these 300 miles to Tehran, there are about a million armed people who back the regime. How the hell you can even dream that it will work? And the ridiculous idea that leaders from the West, the leader of the great Satan and the leader of the little Satan, could call upon the Iranian people to stand up and take their destiny in their hands is also ridiculous. Try to imagine what would have happened if Hamenei, the dead one, would have come on TV and call upon Israelis to topple down Netanyahu because he tries to destroy democracy in Israel. It will unite even the protest again Netanyahu behind him.

And the same happens in Iran. So you cannot explain it by the only by the theory of a gambler that failed and try to double down on his gamble in order to save the case. No justification for the failure of Netanyahu. Netanyahu misses the very way that military campaigns are won. You have to have a clear objective. They should be achievable. You should have the means to execute them. You should have the political will to stand up the ups and downs of a real war.

And you should have a vision of how you're going to translate your achievement in the battlefield into sustainable political diplomatic results. This political diplomatic leg is essential for any war. and they should know both in Jerusalem in Washington that a war, especially war that you initiate has always to follow the rule from macro economy of diminishing returns. The first day is dramatic.

Everyone get happy and applauds. Then you have one or two days more when you can deepen the damage. Then comes the time of diminishing returns. And later on, you will. find yourself muddling through and sinking into the mud of a war. America had it in Vietnam, they had in Iraq, they had it in Afghanistan. We had it a generation ago or two generations ago in the Eurasian war with Egypt and Syria.

That's the rules and they should have been clear. No way to explain it. It's a major failure. And in Israel, at least, the prime minister and his government should be accountable. and be removed from power, even independent of their attempt to destroy democracy, which started, they should admit before the war. So it's much more crazy than I thought.

You cannot just relate it to the fact that there is a war. And as a result of the dire straits, they got into, they raised this idea of dictatorship. They had it when they started the government nine months before the war started. Yeah, I would say that since you last appeared on my show, your name appeared many times in the Epstein files,

including regular correspondence, multiple visits to Epstein's Manhattan apartment, one to his private island. And your critics have said, you must have known what he was like and what he was doing. What do you say to your critics? That it's not true. I knew him.

I never denied it. I knew him for years since 2003. And I met when I used to visit the United States several times a year. I used to meet with him, usually for a breakfast or lunch. I met American leading figures from politics, both sides of the aisle, from the academy, from diplomacy, from business, from philanthropy, leading players, I never witnessed or had been exposed to any kind of improper behavior, not with young women and not with any other situation.

And it's true that I spent some time when I came to New York, some time in a building where he had a dozen or two dozens of apartments. And I never saw anything of this nature. I visited his island one time together with my wife and Israeli detail, security detail. We spent three hours in certain afternoon. There was no one there except for Epson himself and several locals who were. who were working in gardening and maintenance. So, of course, I regret the fact that I ever had met him

and would be happy if I would have been feeling anything. In fact, I knew that he was in a prison for about a year, an open prison in Florida, for attempting a girl for relationships, something like this. but I judge him based on what I've said, the American society judge him. I kept meeting more scientists, leading politicians, even a journalist, respected the people. But he was, as you know. Okay, but he was, as you know, he was a convicted sex offender.

I mean, he perpetrated a sex crime against a minor, and everybody knew that. And the question that people have for people like you who continue to be so friendly with him is why would you choose to be friendly with somebody who was a convicted sex offender? You know, I am not an expert on the rules and norms in America, but from what have I seen, the kind of people that were meeting in his place

and meeting with him very regularly. I was only four or five times a year in America, and the people I made there left for me no doubt that the American society, even the upper kind of privileged layers of it, strata of it, understood that he made certain crime. He served some time in an open prison. he paid his duty, whatever, to society. And the American society, as a matter of fact, kept treating him in what seems to be the same way.

So I didn't feel that I have any external... I mean, he was a convicted pedophile. He was? A convicted pedophile. He was, I, you know, once again, I'm not an expert on the rules of America. Well, I think it's a pretty... I know the people having a crime.

All due respect to Mr. It's the same rule pretty much everywhere. If you sexually abuse a minor, you're a pedophile. I mean, he pleaded guilty to state charges in Florida for soliciting a child for prostitution. That's what he was found guilty of. You know, I told you, Pierce, I told you, I regret the fact that I ever met him.

I did not see any significant difference in the way that Americans, leading politicians, heads of universities, kind of a retiring diplomat, leading philanthropist and businessman, where I would see them. And the fact that the American society accepted him probably blinded me to understand that something more kind of serious behind it. I learned about the weeds and the depths of his. activities only when in

2019 it became a second round of the same kind of the whole story came to another scrutiny of the judicial system in America before then I did not understand it as something that America is rejecting just finally on this because people have asked the question in 2020 there

The Miami Herald reported that your name appeared in court documents in the defamation case between Virginia Dufray and Alan Dershowitz. It alleged that Dufray claimed she was trafficked to several men, including yourself, you were named two. She later dropped the lawsuit and said she may have made a mistake when she accused Dershowitz of abuse. you've always denied all allegations of impropriety and misconduct. Do you continue to maintain that denial? I'm not sure that I understand the end of the question. Well, simply that Virginia Jouffre made these allegations. She then dropped the allegations against Dershowitz.

But the fact you were named in that court document in that case was obviously embarrassing for you. How do you feel about that? Look, first of all, technically, Ms. Joufrey could never meet me. I was introduced to Jeffrey Epstein by no other than Shimon Peres in some social event in Washington, D.C.

Only in May 2003. And I did not meet Epstein in a person, until November of 2003. By the end of 2002, Mrs. Jouffer was already in Australia, married and totally disconnected from Epson according to her own testimony, to her own book,

and to the Netflix series that I've seen, of course, only many years later. And so technically, she could not have ever met me. And beyond that, I should tell you that she never, never mentioned my name in any document known to me. Not in her book and not in any other place. In her book, she described me as a former defense minister who was one of the people around Jeffrey Epstein. She mentioned that she had been tortured and attacked by a former prime minister that she never gave his name

and technically could not have been me under any way. So, you know, my name basically was raised by Ellen Dershowitz at a certain point, not by her. There is not a single document of the court or a single document. kind of issued by her when she said Ehud Barak had sexual relations with me, tortured me, or even met me.

So just to be clear, because you've raised it, when she talked about being raped by an unnamed prime minister, as you know, it led to a feeding frenzy of rumors and conspiracies about who that prime minister might be. You've been emphatic in this interview,

that you don't believe you ever met Virginia, Eufrey, and that unnamed Prime Minister is not you. Do you know who she was talking about? I don't know. Of course, I don't know. And I don't know how it's created and what she knew. I can tell you for sure. I never met her. I could not have met her.

when I first was introduced to Epstein, and about a year before I ever met him, she was already married in Australia. So it's probably she was having some sort, probably she had something. You know, to the best of my knowledge, somehow a kind of a deal. I don't know what kind of deal

had been established between her and Dershowitz. I don't know. I cannot follow all these details, but it's clear. I even got, you know, my lawyers asked as Derchchowitz and Dershowitz

kind of verified for them in writing that he does not know of any claim of any document that claimed that I had any improper behavior with this lady

Joufrey or any other victim of Epstein. Mr. Bray, I appreciate you coming back on Oncensor. Thank you very much. Thank you. Well, join me now is Muhammad Randy, professor at Tehran University. Mr. Brandy, welcome back to Unsense.

Thank you very much for having me. Hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets in Tehran for the 10-kilometer funeral possession for Iran's former supreme leader, Yaitollah Ali Khomeini. What does that say to you about support for the regime? Well, it wasn't hundreds of thousands.

It was in the millions, and it was much longer than 10 kilometers, and Western journalists were here to see it, and you can see it through satellite imagery. So it was much, much larger than that. And it reminds me of once when I came on your show, and I gave footage to your producer and you showed it, and you brought this woman who claimed to be. Iranian who also said she will, when she's finished with me, though, the biggest part of my body

will be the tip of my pinky, my little finger. She said it was AI, and this was fake, you recall. And so, well, here it is. Here's the footage people can watch, and apparently we are all AI again. She, of course, after threatening me, was on your show repeatedly from what I hear. But the fact is, Pierce, that the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, or the regime, as you call it, is very high. And it shows that the Iranian people are extraordinarily angered by the fact that the United States and this ethno-supremicist regime, whose former prime minister just had on, who didn't. say a word about the genocide in Gaza or Lebanon. His criticisms of Netanyahu was that he failed. But the fact is that they're outraged, the Iranians,

and they want revenge. And we saw that on the streets, and so did many, many journalists. And if you had accepted my offer to visit Iran, you would have seen it for yourself. The curious aspect to the funeral scenes is that a huge number of the Ayatollah's family were there, including three sons, but not the son who's replaced him

or been named as his successor, Mosh Tabah, who is believed to be the new Supreme Leader. He's not been seen or heard since the war began, and since it was reported that he has become the new Supreme Leader. It does prompt the question, where is he and when can we expect to hear from him? Well, he's not presumably the leader.

He is the leader. And of course, when the United States bombs the country, slaughters its leaders and bombs schools and slaughter schoolchildren and the Americans, the Israelis, the Israeli regime and the West, and the collective West supports it, and the Chancellor of Germany, Germany would say that Israel does our dirty workforce.

That means that there are no rules anymore. The West has created the law of the jungle. And so we have to protect people in this country. People, the leader, the country has to protect its leader. The leader has to protect its citizen, the citizens of the country, the scientists, and so on. So obviously, until the situation normalizes, he is going to have to be very well protected. Because if Trump could, how do we know he wouldn't try to assassinate him?

If Netanyahu could, I'm sure he would try to assassinate him. That explains why we may not have seen him. It doesn't explain why there's been no audio yet. Why would any of this prevent him from issuing some statement where you can hear his voice and hear him talk about? about the current events, which would make it clear he's still alive. Many people think that there is a possibility he's not alive. Well, why would we have him as our leader if he's not alive?

We'll choose a leader who is alive. And people have met him. The president, after once meeting him for two and a half hours, gave a long report on their meeting. So, no, he's alive and well, and he's running the country. but with a new technology, I'm just guessing, but with the new technologies and the capabilities, perhaps they feel that it is best not to give any sort of information

that could be used by the United States or the Israeli regime, which are one and the same in many respects to attack him. We've seen crowds chanting death to America and death to Israel, as well as waving signs with threats against Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu. Do you endorse those, chance and signs, or do you condemn them? Death to America and Iran, and I may have said this on your show before, shouldn't be taken literally.

It's like saying Yankee go home doesn't mean that anyone who carries a U.S. passport should lead the country. When they say death to America, they mean death to the U.S. Empire, and they mean death to this oppressive regime which slaughters our children. So I think it's understandable. If what the United States had done to Iran was carried out by Iran against the United States, slaughtering the leaders and slaughtering people and school children, I think the United States would have done more than chance death to Iran.

They would have probably used a nuclear weapon. So I think words shouldn't hurt the American government so much. When you see all the dead children in Gaza and Lebanon and the massacres and the genocide and the dead children in Iran, I think it becomes understandable when people say death to America. Just like, I mean, in your case, you invited this woman on your show

who said when they're finished with me, she said, with me, the biggest part of my body will be my little finger. And you invited her on multiple times afterwards, so I guess you don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with anyone making threats against anyone. Well, if it was my show, I wouldn't have invited such a person again.

Well, people say that, people say that, people say that a lot about me inviting you on. I never said I'm going to cut up, to cut your body into your... No, but you've given a rather torturous justification of chance of death to America and death to Israel, which most people aren't buying. Well, yeah, well, if, you know, if chemical weapons were used against your country with the endorsement of the United States, if a couple of hundred thousand, if an airliner was shot down by, you were on a country whose airline, an airline was shot down by the United States. If you were living in a country which was under maximum pressure sanctions, which prevent food and medicine from getting into the country, if you were in a country where the United

States has waged three wars against it, they encouraged Saddam Hussein to invade, last year they attacked, and this year attacked, I think you would understand how people in Iran would feel about the United States government. And you've carefully glossed over, of course, the fact that this Iranian regime has sponsored terrorism all over the Middle East, including funding and arming the Houthis, Hezbollah and Hamas. Does that not enter your thought process when you analyze this situation? The only terrorist regime in our region is the Israeli regime, the one that you refuse three

already, when I ask you, do you accept the legitimacy of an ethno-supremicist regime, and you refuse to answer? That is the only terrorist regime. They carried out genocide in Gaza. They carried out genocide on attacks in Lebanon. Just yesterday they murdered a school, a principal of a school, her husband, and they're made. And every day in Gaza, they're killing multiple people, every single day, children, men, women, with drugs. Well, your regime spent, Your regime spent the first part of the year murdering thousands of protesters on the streets of your country. No, I think you know the truth by now. We've already seen admissions.

We've already seen admissions by the Israeli regime, Channel 14 of Israel, saying that they brought in the weapons that were used to kill hundreds of Iranian police officers. We know that the U.S. Secretary of Treasury said, I manipulated the Iranian currency to bring people to the streets. And then Channel 14 said they gave the weapons to kill people. We saw Trump admit that he sent weapons for Iran. We saw Pompeo admit that Musad is on the ground in Tehran during the riots. And we also saw how the Israeli Mossad in their Persian language media said that we are on the ground.

We are with you in Iran, too. You must be, you know what, Professor Randy, it must be so frustrating, it must be so frustrating, if I may say so, it must be so frustrating for you to see your perfect regime be so unfairly maligned by everybody that they would think that actually, if only we knew just how blameless and perfect and idyllic life is in Iran under your regime. But maybe, as you say, maybe I'll have to come there and see it for myself. I think, oh, that would be an interesting idea. But I think that you know quite well that the victim is Iran. The victim is Palestine. The victim is Lebanon. The victims are the people of this region.

Well, the best way to money the waters is to accuse the victims. There are definitely people in Iran, Iranians, who are victims of your regime. We saw them on the streets, didn't we? We saw them on the streets. today and yesterday the day before we saw it. Okay, Professor Miranda, I appreciate you coming back on. Thank you very much. Pierce Morgan Unsensored is proudly independent.

The only boss around here is me. If you enjoy our show, we ask only one simple thing. Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Pierce Morgan Uncensored 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 Unsensed Media has never been more critical.

and we couldn't do it without you. If you want a $3,000 a month payday for life, what would you feel free to do? Maybe take a long weekend, every weekend, or try a bunch of new hobbies. Would you feel free to upgrade and listen ad-free? Don't worry, we get it. Every $20 ticket could win you $3,000 a month for life

and supports life-saving cancer research at the Princess Margaret. Feel free to buy your payday for life ticket today. Raffle number 155-214. Please play responsibly. Thank you.