Piers Morgan Uncensored - 'I'll NEVER Apologize To Trump!" Marjorie Taylor Greene | Plus Piers Morgan CALLS OUT Conricus!

Episode Date: June 30, 2026

Has the Iran war blown apart the American political establishment? The ceasefire may be holding - for now - but the political fallout is only getting bigger. Marjorie Taylor Greene says she's done with the Republican Party. Tucker Carlson claims he can no longer vote Republican. Nick Fuentes is urging his supporters to back the Democrats. Even Bill Maher says he'd consider voting GOP…Is MAGA beginning to fracture? And could the Iran war reshape American politics for years to come? Piers Morgan is joined by Taylor Greene herself to discuss why she's turning her back on the Republican Party, what she thinks of President Trump's handling of the conflict, and where America goes from here. Then, Piers is joined by No Spin News host Bill O'Reilly to get his take on the latest in US politics before welcoming his panel of guests who all backed America's military action against Iran and predicted the US would come out on top. Now, with a fragile ceasefire in place - they return to assess whether events have unfolded as they expected - and what they believe happens next. He speaks to YouTuber and podcaster Josh Hammer, combat veteran and Speak The Truth host Matt Tardio, former IDF international spokesman Lt. Col. Jonathan Conricus and America First Policy Institute vice chair Fred Fleitz (well, almost, before he quit the show before even speaking on Iran...) Has the Iran war blown apart the American political establishment?The ceasefire may be holding - for now - but the political fallout is only getting bigger. Marjorie Taylor Greene says she's done with the Republican Party. Tucker Carlson claims he can no longer vote Republican. Nick Fuentes is urging his supporters to back the Democrats. Even Bill Maher says he'd consider voting GOP…Is MAGA beginning to fracture? And could the Iran war reshape American politics for years to come?Piers Morgan is joined by Taylor Greene herself to discuss why she's turning her back on the Republican Party, what she thinks of President Trump's handling of the conflict, and where America goes from here.Then Piers is joined by No Spin News host Bill O'Reilly to get his take on the latest in US politics before welcoming his panel of guests who all backed America's military action against Iran and predicted the US would come out on top. Now, with a fragile ceasefire in place - they return to assess whether events have unfolded as they expected - and what they believe happens next.He speaks to Josh Hammer, combat veteran and Speak The Truth host Matt Tardio, former IDF international spokesman Lt. Col. Jonathan Conricus and America First Policy Institute vice chair Fred Fleitz (well, almost, before he quit the show before even speaking on Iran...) 00:00 Introduction 01:52 Marjorie Taylor Greene interview begins 05:25 Has Trump betrayed the MAGA movement? 06:12 Marjorie Taylor Greene on Trump, the Board of Peace and the Iran War 07:52 MTG slams Trump’s alleged behavior around Epstein Files 09:06 Trump branding Marjorie a ‘traitor’ 12:05 Marjorie on before and after supporting Trump 12:33 Marjorie on her regrets 14:30 Will Tucker Carlson run to be the next Republican nominee? 16:55 Is there a chance of a growing repudiation of Trumpism? 21:28 Bill O’Reilly joins Piers to discuss the latest on the Iran War 24:00 Trump’s social media posts on negotiating a deal with Iran 29:00 Iran’s strategy attacking the gulf states and shutting down the Strait of Hormuz 37:25 Piers is joined by his panel to discuss the Iran war 39:18 Piers asks Jonathan Conricus: “Why the f*** do you keep coming on my show?” 43:48 Fred Fleitz rage quits the debate after Conricus heat 44:00 Jonathan Conricus and Piers clash over ‘Jew-hater’ guests on Uncensored 49:19 Josh Hammer on the handling of the Iran war 53:05 Matt Tardio and Piers discuss what victory looks like in Iran 01:04:00 Jonathan Conricus on trusting the Iranians 01:09:42 Donald Trump and ‘Making Iran Great Again’ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

People like me and Tucker Carlson, we're saying, oh, no, no, no, we're done voting for you and supporting you. We are sick and tired of you because you're liars. Don't go out and give your tough talks on Fox News with a bunch of propaganda BS and throw the red meat garbage. You're jump serious about this. He's not walking away looking like a loser. Jonathan Comrick is we had a little exchange on X this week. I was a little bit surprised by the tone you took with me. Here's Morgan should stop peddling lies, propaganda and libel against the only democracy in the Middle East that is keeping jihadists at bay.

So, I guess my first obvious question is, why the fuck do you keep coming on my show? It's really getting tiresome, Pierce. If you're not going to talk about Iran, I'm just going to lock off. I don't give a monkeys what you want to do. If you want to log off, log off. All right. All right. We'll log off. Fine. Marjorie Taylor Green was once Maga's most loyal foot soldier. She stood by President Trump, even during his. political exile after 2020. Now she says that she's done with the Republican Party altogether. And she's not the only prominent figure whose political footing has shifted in the seismic fallout from Iran war. Tucker Carlson said he can no longer vote Republican, although he still supports

JD Vance. Nick Fuentes, urged his followers to vote Democrat in the midterms. Lifelong Democrat Alan Dershowitz has gone on the opposite direction, he says, to support Israel. Senator John Manerman is rumored to be on the same path. And this weekend, Bill Maher told, Bill Maher told, the vice president that he would consider voting Republican for the first time because of the Israel-hating communist wing of the Democratic Party. With so many influential people declaring themselves politically homeless, there is excitable talk of a new populist party which does what Maga said it would do. But could it really work on a national scale and why is everyone so sick of the movements they helped to build? Well, Marjorie Telegreen joins me now. Welcome back to Unsensit,

Marjorie. Hi, peers. Thanks for having me. What the hell is going on? We've got MAGA people saying we're not going to vote Republican. We've got people on the left migrating to the Republicans. It feels to me like the whole American political system and people's voting intentions has just been tossed up in the air. And it feels honestly quite chaotic. Well, I'm sure it does feel that way. But for most regular Americans, they've begun to really see through Washington. And the failures of both parties, Republican, and the Democratic Party. For me, I was honestly never a Republican Party person.

Most people don't realize that I had never even been to a GOP County meeting before I entered one and declared I was running for Congress. So I was always, when I served in Congress, I was always there more to hold my own party accountable to what they promise and say they will do out on the campaign. trail versus how they actually govern when they're in power. For example, we are totally and completely fed up with funding foreign wars and regime change and having to basically our military to be used to benefit other countries. But there's other very important issues that are constantly

ignored by the Republican Party. One of them is the cost of health insurance, which is out That's something I heard about for my constituents from every walk of life, whether they were in the lower income portion of my district or even in the higher income portion of my district. But there's also extremely important things, and that's fiscal responsibility. Both parties have failed over and over again. It's constantly blowing the budget, plunging the American people in debt. To the point, peers, the one thing that is really starting to upset me is, coming up in 2032,

Social Security is literally going to be insolvent and bankrupt. And it's just outrageous that Republicans constantly call themselves conservative. Yet when they're in power and they're governing, they are some of the biggest spenders. Their policies promote big government, such as things like promoting AI, promoting control over your information, backing data centers that no one wants,

built next to their property. And then also they're some of the biggest supporters of the giant lobbyists like Big Pharma and the military industrial complex. So people like me and Tucker Carlson, the reason why we're saying, oh, no, no, no, we're done voting for you and supporting you. And I can say that big time because I actually came off the bench, went into Congress and tried really hard for five years. And Ann supported the Republican. party with millions of dollars. We're saying that we are sick and tired of you because you're liars. And so what we're trying to do is really get the message out loud and clear that the

American people have been betrayed. Republican voters have been screwed over. And anyone that really cares about America First policies are being cast to the side while it's business as usual in Washington. Has Donald Trump, in your eyes, has he betrayed the MAGA movement? I mean, by going into such a massive war with Iran, by going against everything he campaigned on not to do that kind of thing, by not being as transparent with the administration with, say, the Epstein files as they vowed to be before the election, you know, by not taking care of cost of living. You know, you could argue the tariff wars and then the war in Iran, obviously, of all contributed to, you know, to a failure to deal or bring down. most prices in America for ordinary people.

Does that constitute, in your eyes, a betrayal of the campaign pledges that Donald Trump made? Yeah, absolutely, because I was out on the campaign trail. As an elected member of Congress, a Republican, I think I spoke at more Trump rallies literally than anyone else. And so I was there. I heard the campaign promises. I was involved, and I was promising them as well.

A big, big one of them, peers, was every single Republican campaigned against Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and Democrats attacking them over cost of living, inflation, and affordability. That was one of the big ones. And to me, that's a big pillar of Make America great again. My goodness, if Americans can't afford their costs of living and can't afford gas at the pump, can't afford their grocery bills, then that's an utter failure of make American. great again. But yeah, the two big ones is the Iran War. We said no more foreign wars over and over again. At rally stage after rally stage, President Trump entered office as the peace president launched the Board of Peace, made himself the president of the Board of Peace with literally no term limits. And then it was weeks later launched into this war with Iran. So that is outrageous.

a broken campaign promise. I don't care how many times he says Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, and I'm not promoting that either. However, what we have seen this turn into is a war who controls the strait and working on controlling the oil prices. It's rigging the market practically every single week in and out while the bombing campaigns happen on the weekends. But you also touched on a big one, Pierce, and it is the Epstein files. He was the biggest, defender of the Epstein files. And he worked the hardest and put his thumb on everyone, the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson,

and everyone to stop the release of the Epstein files to the point where Thomas Massey, myself, Nancy Mace, and Lauren Bobert had to sign a discharge petition with all of the Democrats to get it released. And, you know, I can't leave out the Democrats. They never cared about the Epstein files until we made it an issue, and they found out, oh, this is a political problem for Donald Trump.

So they don't deserve credit for being a champion of that issue. However, they deserve credit because they actually work to get the files released. But Donald Trump is still fighting, releasing the files. The files are not released. And that, to me, is shocking. We're talking about elite, rapist, and pedophiles. And there's still no accountability and no justice for that. the victims. Trump has taken your criticisms well, as he would have expected. He's branded

you a traitor, Tucker Carlson, a low IQ person. I mean, I don't understand quite why you're a traitor when really what you've been calling for is for the campaign promises to be met by reality, not the complete opposite. And in Tucker's case, the idea he's low IQ. I mean, he's one of the smartest people I know. I don't agree with everything he says, but I certainly would defend his IQ. But that's, you know, as part of the Trump playbook, is to go after people personally. What impact has that had on you? You were very close with him. And then it was the opposite, obviously. I mean, how do you feel about all that? Actually, you know what? In my everyday life, him calling me a traitor has had zero effect because everyone knows the definition of a traitor.

A trader is someone that is working on behalf of a foreign country. And I would argue that's what Donald Trump has been doing with this war in Iran. He's been working on behalf of Israel, not America. This war has not helped Americans one single bit. As a matter of fact, it's cost Americans tens of billions of dollars, not only to their pocketbook, what they've had to pay at the gas pump and inflation, but also what it's costing them in the budget. Because here goes Congress having to spend $100,000.

of billions more because of his bombing campaign. So traders work for foreign countries and not for the United States of America. Actually, peers, I would say, standing up to Donald Trump has been one of the best things I could do because I stood on the principle of defending victims of rape and pedophilia. And that's not something I will ever apologize for. And I didn't go to Washington to be there forever. I never wanted to be Nancy Pelosi or Maxine Waters or Mitch McConnell that was there. you know, being treated like I live in some kind of nursing home. I have a real life,

and I'm very grateful for that. And so, you know, I don't see it as a negative one single bit. And, you know, I do want to add this. His style of name-calling and basically like threatening to wipe out an entire civilization of people in Iran, whether you're for Iran or against Iran, every single person should think that's immoral, wanting to kill man, woman, and child in a country. And name-calling people and all of that, that is exactly the worst example anyone could set from the president of the United States.

And I would say it's been, you know, over 10 years now that Donald Trump has been on the prominent scene of politics. And he has led the way of toxic politics. I followed in his lead, peers, and I'm sorry I ever did that. Well, it's interesting to me because on that, I mean, I remember you being pretty intemperate with some of your rhetoric. But you are very, you are clearly a different person now. You know, when I interview you now, you're not like that.

You don't use inflammatory rhetoric. You are quite circumspect in the way that you express yourself. You come across in a completely different way to when you were full square behind Trump. Mm-hmm. Yeah, and it's, you know, all of us learn lessons in life. I'm not a perfect person, but I'm willing to admit, here's something I regret. And I was very much, I mean, I was very, like, ingrained in MAGA. And part of Donald Trump's MAGA is, and it's from his leadership, is attacking his enemies and his opponents with vicious name-calling smears and lies. appears that is also the entire level of politics that America is in now. I mean, you see campaign ads coming from both sides of the aisle that are horrific, name-calling and smears and insinuations of all types of allegations. And it's not helping America.

I mean, think about this. One of the things that we say is united, we stand, divided, we fall. And the two-party system in America today has us extremely divided. But I would really blame Donald Trump for a lot of that division. And it's because of his bully tactics, his name-calling, his lies, he says about people, toxic politics. And it creates hate and division among all Americans. And guess what?

It's not helping us. It's not solving any problems. It's not going to stop Social Security from going bankrupt. It's not going to get us out of the $40 trillion in debt, which has taken our dollar and plunged it into not having a very good value anymore at all. And it's not going to stop sending our military to foreign wars. It's not going to help my kids' generation, the 20-year-olds that are looking to the future and literally hate politics and everyone involved in it.

And so, yeah, I'm easily able to say, I'm sorry I ever got involved in this. that. I learned a great lesson. I want nothing to do with it. I seriously, the only people I listen to now are people that are focused on actually solving problems. Is there a chance that Tucker Carlson runs to be the next Republican nominee, do you think? Maybe I was talking about J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio are part of the administration, but is there a chance that Tucker, and maybe with support of people like yourself, could you see him making a run? I mean, is there a new splinter version of the Republicans that could take over the party? You know, I haven't had that direct conversation with Tucker.

I know a lot of people are speculating that, and I can tell you right now, Tucker Carlson would be a great threat to both parties because there's many Americans that are very independent that would support him. But there's also Republican voters and Democrat voters that would support him. So I would say he's a very credible threat.

There is a group of us. that have literally fought the system. And I think there's a group of us that if we decide to align, we could launch a true America-focused party that doesn't fall into the traps of Democrats and Republicans, but could align some serious players from the right and the left and move forward.

But peers, I'm also very realistic because I was in the system. I've served in Congress, I've run campaigns, I know what it takes. It's difficult to launch a third party. So the reality is this isn't something that gets off the ground in just a couple of campaign cycles. This is a movement that has to be developed and would take time to develop. I'm not sure where that is right now, but I am in talks with people. and there are serious conversations happening

looking at what are the mechanics of that and the reality of it. But up here, I'll also say this is, it's going to take the American people to get involved. And the American people are the ones that really push campaigns. And so if the American people truly want to give a strong challenge to the failed two-party system of America,

then they're going to have to step up because it's not going to be a couple of players. like Tucker and I and a few others that can roll up our sleeves and get this done, it's going to take a serious effort from everyone. I mean, you're talking there about a third party, and that has all the difficulties that you've outlined. Is there another scenario where, if, for example, the Republicans take a real beating in the midterm elections

and lose both the House and Senate, that there becomes a growing repudiation of Trumpism, if you like, and everyone associated with his administration, and the Republican Party itself evolves and heads to where you would think it ought to have been to start with and was before it got led astray, and that you, Tucker, Megan Kelly, many others, in that circumstance could be potentially a driving force for a different type of Republican Party. In other words, you operate within the Republican Party, you just change it. No, we already did that.

We thought we did that in 2024. That's what I mean. And that's why we are, but no, this is why we're furious. I mean, we've been betrayed. 100% betrayed. They have turned, it's like they took Donald Trump. It's like the Scooby-Doo mask. They pulled his mask off.

And what was underneath was a nasty combination of Lindsey Graham and Mark Levin. The wing of the neo-conn Republican establishment party that the voters in 2024 hated, loathed, rose up against, and voted to end that version of the Republican Party. And here we are not even two years in, and Donald Trump is leading it. Those are the people, those are the phone calls he takes. Those are the donors that he has dinner with.

I mean, I can't tell you how many people wanted to vomit when they saw Bill Gates and they're having dinner with him in the White House. and like Mark Zuckerberg, who spent unknown amounts of money against them in the 2020 campaign on Facebook. And, I mean, the list goes on and on and on. But the betrayal has gotten even deeper with big tech and big pharma. And it just continues on. So the players are all the same in the Republican Party.

It's also you have to add in the political consultants, the political consultants that run the campaigns, and get paid cycle after cycle. See, none of them, none of that will change. So if we go scorched earth and tell the Republican Party, get in line and do what you claim you are going to do, actually do it, or we're going to withhold our votes and you're going to get destroyed in the elections. And then they come back on their hands and knees pleading again, oh, we promise to change and we promise to follow through on that.

I have a hard time believing it right now. I'm like, you prove it right now. You're the ones that have full control. Republicans have the White House, the House, and the Senate. And I don't care about how many lies and bullshit they say about, oh, our Senate rules and this and that and the other. They're the party in control, and they honestly can do whatever they want to do. However, here's the honest truth is, they're a bunch of liars and they refuse to do it.

If they want to end foreign wars, pack up the military and come back home. If you want to stop sending all this money overseas, bring your military home and stop making the American people pay for it. If you want to reduce spending, how they all call themselves conservatives, yet they blow budgets worse than Democrats ever do, well, stop spending so much money and prove it to people. It's like if you want to lower inflation, put policies in place at lower inflation. They have the ability to do that right now and prove it to people like me

and Tucker Carlson and anyone else and Republican voters that are furious right now. They have the ability to do it, but don't go out and give your tough talks on Fox News with a bunch of propaganda BS and throw the red meat garbage, you know, out on the television screen like, oh, we're going to deport people

while you got Mark Mullins on there saying, oh, no, we're going to let the Haitians and everybody else, you know, do the paperwork to become permanent citizens, even though Americans you've been paying for these people all these years. This is what they're doing. They're going into campaign mode with their rhetoric. But what I'm saying is you're a bunch of liars.

Prove it with your actions. And if they prove it with their actions, then maybe they can get another chance. Fast-turning stuff, Marjorie Tilly Green. Thank you very much indeed for joining me. Thank you, Pierce. Well, joining me now is Bill O'Reilly. host of No Spin News.

Bill, welcome back to Unsensitive. Thanks for having me, peers. Explain to me why this Iran sort of deal that isn't really a deal, accompanied by a ceasefire, that isn't really a ceasefire, that seems to have left the Iranian regime in full control of both their country

and of the strait of Hormuz and still keeping all their rich uranium. How is any of that any kind of victory for the United States or justification for going into this war? Well, none of that's going to happen. I'd be shocked because it's all about President Trump's legacy, and that means a lot to him.

So I don't believe that Iran is going to walk away with much, still get some money. Trump's going to try to buy him out, but controlling his trade of Hormuz, no way. nuclear inspectors, I think, are more likely than not to happen. And the mullas will huff and puff, but if they continue to do what they're doing, their house is going to get blown down.

Trump's serious about this. He's not walking away, peers, and looking like a loser. That's not going to happen. Right, but it seems to me, you know, we were told this was going to take two weeks. Well, first of all, let's go back a year. Last year, there was the 12-day war in which we were told that Iran's nuclear program and capability

had been put back decades. And then eight months later, America has to go to war in Iran because apparently they're about to use a nuclear weapon. None of that made any sense to me whatsoever. And I said very early on when this war started, well, what is the aim here? Because if it's regime change, as Trump was hinting at early on, that obviously was going to be incredibly difficult and would fly in the face. of all the pledges he'd made when he was running to be president,

not to take America into, as he put it, pointless, expensive Middle Eastern wars where you try and affect regime change. So I didn't get that either. And then as it dragged on, it's going to last two weeks, then six weeks, then eight weeks, then ten weeks. And all the time, you and I have known Donald Trump a long time,

I just was just fascinated and completely perplexed by what he was doing on his social media every day, where he would vacillate between saying, we're about to get a great deal, and then the next day we're going to blow up the whole of Iran, we're going to annihilate them, and this will carry on. And maybe it was part of his negotiating thing,

but you're not negotiating estate management stuff in New York. You're negotiating with a terrible regime, which has shown a propensity over the years for not just behaving appallingly, but for stringing out all negotiations for as long as they could possibly do. He's strung out Obama for two years. And I'm looking at this situation now and thinking,

my gut feel is Trump wants to get out of this because he knows victory is almost impossible. I don't think they're going to give up control of Australia for Moose. I don't think they're going to give up their enriched uranium. The Ayatollah may be gone, but his son is even more radical and had half his family killed on the first day of this. So hates America, hates Israel, blames them for the loss of all his family. And I'm putting it all together and see the IRGC still firm grip, no uprising by the public.

Nothing that we were told was likely to happen has actually happened. And so I'm just curious, given your knowledge of this regime and how untrustworthy they are and how they love to use anything as leverage, why are you confident that this is all going to work out the way Donald Trump hopes? Because it's Trump. So when he started this, I told him, suggested to him, or maybe told is too strong a word, is the biggest gamble of his life because of some of the points you're making. That it's an untrusted, worthy country. They'll say one thing and do it next.

They don't care about killing their own people. They don't care about anything but killing Jews and then secondarily Americans. That's what they care about. So how are you going to persuade them not to? Very, very risky. And he decided that the evil was so big, so dangerous that he had to. So in the first round of bombings, they damaged a lot of the infrastructure of Iran, but Iran had in secondary units the ability to enrich uranium, which they, according to almost

everybody, were doing. So then Netanyahu came to Trump and said, we can get them all on one swoop. They're all going to be here. Let's go get them. And maybe there'll be regime change. That's what happened. So on that night, they wiped out the Iranian government. hoped that the Persian people would rise,

but the Persian people did not, perhaps because 40,000 of them were murdered by the Revolutionary Guard. We can understand that, but we fought you guys for our freedom, and sometimes you have to fight. So there's a logic to this. There isn't a...

Yes, you're right. Trump wants it over. but he's not going to walk away from it being branded a loser. So the last resort is that he'll use U.S. military power to crush the infrastructure of Iran. And I believe that will happen if the mullers don't make a deal, I'd say, in the next few weeks. But at some point, if they continue to obfuscate and live, and delay and do all the things they've always done. In other words, if they behave entirely in keeping with their track record,

Donald Trump is going to have to consider putting ground troops into this, isn't he? And at that point... That won't happen. Right. But if he doesn't, how does he get in the end what he wants? If they just dick him around? Well, inflation is running more than 100% over there now. So he'll bomb the ports.

He'll bomb the infrastructure, the roads, the bridges. All those will go. And it'll make life very, very difficult for the individual Persian. But what happens if Iran just responds the way it's threatened to and has already done by ignoring what America and Israel's doing to it and just attacking the neighboring Gulf states, which causes enormous economic damage. And tries to destroy, and is very important.

very effective. The business model going forward forced places like Saudi, Qatar, UA, and so on, because they're reliant on sunshine, safety, tourism, entertainment, sport as their new business model. The Iranians know that. They've already shown that they know they can't engage with America militarily in the conventional way, but they can shut the Australia for moves and they can just attack the Gulf States and they can cause enormous damage by doing that. Yeah, they can cause damage, and they will. If they decide they're not going to live up to the deal that was supposedly agreed upon, then they'll do everything that you just said.

But their capacity to wage warfare is not nearly what it was in the beginning of this whole fracas. And the more they attacked their Gulf neighbors, the more that Israel and the United States will attack them. It'll be like the Battle of Gettysburg. Okay, how many are you going to lose? Your country's going down to drain. And that's what will happen.

So it'll be pain. All wars are painful. But the Iranian substructure of being able to mount really destructive military action, that is, according to U.S. intel, very limited at this point. Bill, what are you, mate? You're one of the most experienced newsmen in America ever.

And I've watched you for a long, long time. And I was interviewing Marjorie Taylor Green earlier. I've interviewed Megan Kelly and Tucker Carlson recently as well. It's quite extraordinary to me to see people like that on the conservative right in America turning against the Republicans to agree that both Marjorie Taylor Green and Tucker both say they won't vote Republican.

Again, the way things stand, they've turned on Donald Trump, who's turned on them as well, but there's a real fracturing of the right in America. A lot of these are your former Fox News colleagues. What do you make of what's happening here? Well, look, I can't speak for them as far as their motivation is concerned. I can tell you that they're not journalists. None of them are.

They are personalities and very successful personalities. So, I mean, I back up everything I say by conversations with the President of the United States, one-on-one, or Pentagon or Mossad, or whatever the weapons inspectors in Austria, or wherever vehicle is going to give me information. and I pass that information along to my viewers and listeners. I'm not in it for clicks. We make an extraordinary amount of money because we present a very, very methodical

analysis of what is happening. We're not involved with party politics. I couldn't care less about the parties. I just want the Iran thing to stop. I want the United States in every other country to have an element of safety against these terrorists in Iran. I wrote a book Confronting Evil. Okay?

Ayatoll is on a cover with Hitler and Mao and Putin. And they're all evil, and it'll all kill you in a heartbeat. And if you get an opportunity to take them out, you do it. Trump thought he had an opportunity. It's harder than I believe he thought it was going to be. I know that's true. Doesn't mean you give up. As far as the Hormuz thing is concerned,

there's just no way that Iran is the power to close that street. It's all about insurance companies. It's all about writing policies for the tankers to go through. It's up to you guys. But militarily, are they going to close that? No, they can't. Well, we'll see. The final question, Israel has become increasingly,

increasingly unpopular globally, not least of all in the United States. Many people feeling that they've got, frankly, some lunatics in their government, like Benghavir and Smodrich and others, brazenly talking about genocide in Lebanon and so on. What do you feel about the way that Americans have turned very negative against Israel because of the actions of this government? Very surprised. I don't know anybody who hates Jews. I don't know anybody.

I mean, I know thousands of people. And the progressive movement, it's all on them. Very few right-wingers are in this area. They believe that Israel is a fascist state, that they've treated Hamas and Hezbollah badly and are violators of war crimes. That's what the progressive movement believes. The U.S. media enables the progressive movement, no doubt about it, okay?

And so that message got out real quick, particularly in the college campuses. And unfortunately, individual Jewish people are getting caught up in that. But I'm surprised. I mean, we're not a nation over here that hates certain groups. groups or... But why, out of interest, I mean, it's interesting that you, you know, I was talking about criticism of the Israeli government, which has some very unsavory people in it. But why does that correlate bill to hatred of Jewish people?

It doesn't correlate on my scale, but it certainly correlates in certain precincts. What do you think these kids are out there screaming about Hamas and Hezbollah being the good guys? They're not the good guys. They're killers. That'd be like Al-Qaeda's a good guy. But when you hear Ben-Gavir saying he wants all of Lebanon to burn, what do you feel about that? That's stupid.

Look, nobody in America knows who's running the Israeli government other than the name Netanyahu. Nobody cares. We're not involved with that at all. Now, Netanyahu has got a motivation. to take out as many terrorists, and that includes the mullahs in Iran as he can. That makes sense. He's trying to defend his nation, because this has been going on.

What? 50 years? How much longer is this going to go on? A whole world should be united against Iran. The whole world, everybody, you say enough, enough. But the world is a flawed place. It doesn't see things clearly. And that's why that's not happening.

Bill O'Reilly, always good to get your perspective. Thank you very much, indeed. Appreciate me on, Pierce. Well, the ceasefire is supposedly back on for now, but the U.S. strikes on Iran this weekend. A reminder of the long road ahead. Iran's control of the Hamoose Strait, along with Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon,

leave the ceasefire in a state of permanent risk. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the only people who thought this was good news were the people who supported the war in the first place. Part of a shift that is happening away from the interpretation of, of this not very good MOU in sort of JD Vans fashion and toward a much more Marco Rubio like foreign policy. The idea is that we're not gonna keep overlooking Iranian violence, particularly

in the Strait of Hormuz. That's great, it's excellent. And the reason it's excellent is because you need the credible threat of use of force in order to get the Iranians to even abide by basic terms of agreements. And when you add what just happened in the Strait of Formuz to the move that was made by Secretary of State,

Rubio at the behest of President Trump, in this deal between Israel and Leroyan Lebanon, you're starting to see the beginning of a good foreign policy emerged once again in the Middle East. I don't actually think he knows what he's talking about anymore. All of my panelists tonight were supportive of the war on Iran. They've all appeared on this show at various stages of the conflict to tell me it's going very well and is certain to end in the U.S. victory.

Time to check in on how that's going. Joining us from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies is the former IDS spokesman, Jonathan Comrickus, host of the Josh Hammer, the former Trump Security Advisor, Fred Flights, and the Combat Veteran and host of Speak the Truth podcast, Matt Tardio. Welcome to all of you. Jonathan Comrickers, we had a little exchange on X this week, where we're always quite civilised with each other when you come on my show. You're probably one of my probably most returning guests, I think, in the history of uncensored.

I was a little bit surprised by the tone you took with me, but you're perfectly entitled to, obviously. But you got into categorizing this show. You said, you and your endless list of lying and unhinged guests have had a vital part in creating and cementing the modern-day blood libelts against the Jewish state and its military. Here are some of the more obvious ones. You talk about civilian v combatants ratio. Blame everything on Hamas. International starvation and guards were starving. You say this is all nonsense.

Genocide and war crimes. None of that. Nothing to see here. Killing of journalists. No, no, they're all Hamas. You say, I could go on and on, and probably prove that every lie but a lie against Israel made up by the United Nations, Al Jazeera and so on, and countless others have gotten oversized amplification. On your show by you and your list of rabid Jew haters, they keep getting advised on your show to spew their toxic lies. The numbers are plain and as simple as can be in modern war, the IDF has the best ratio on record of modern warfare.

Even when you rely on Hamas's inflated numbers, Piersmore's more. Morgan should stop peddling lies, propaganda and libel against the only democracy in the Middle East that is keeping jihadists at bay. So I guess my first obvious question is, why the fuck do you keep coming on my show? That's how you feel about it? Well, it keeps me sharper and I enjoy the exchanges. But on a serious note, as you know, very well, people watch your show and it matters. You yourself have commented, and I think with the relevant level of satisfaction which you have earned, that you are an influential, very influential voice in the US, probably the most influential

podcaster, a non-American podcaster. And a lot of people around the world listen to this for entertainment and information. And I see myself as someone who cares about my country, my military. I also care about truth. and I want to fight and I want to present an Israeli perspective, not necessarily the Israeli perspective. But I think that so far what I've found on this channel, and I'll return your words of courtesy,

I found that I've been able to speak and have been given the opportunity to present that perspective. But I have to say, Pierce, that I stand by my words. And of course, I'm not happy if you don't like them and if it is offensive. No, you're perfectly entitled. Don't maybe be clear. You're perfectly entitled to your opinions.

I just was under the mistaken belief that by constantly having you back on and many, many, many other pro-Israeli guests that we were having balanced debates between competing positions, competing people. Many people, as you know, have a similarly egregious view of you and the stuff you come out with.

And I've interjected a few times when I felt that's got too ad hominum. I was just surprised that you decided to lay into, for platforming people that you'll, you categorize everyone, it seems, who's criticized Israel as a Jew hater, right, which I think is a grotesque mischaracterization of most of the people you're talking about. And I think that it also plays, to me, it plays into this extremely insidious aspect of the whole debate since October the 7th, which is any criticism of Israel or any criticism of the IDF, or any criticism of Benjamin Netanyahu,

or his government, which contains some of the most disgusting headbangers in the history of governments anywhere in the world. I'm talking about Ben-Gavir, Smodridge and others who openly advocate for burning Lebanon to the ground, who endorse these appalling aggressive expansions of the settlements on the West Bank, who talk about getting all the Palestinians out of Gaza and so on. You know what I'm talking about. you dismiss them as irrelevant.

One of them is the national security minister of your country. So, yeah, I take exception, Jonathan, having always, I think, been, I think, treated you fairly. I've interjected when I felt you've been treated in a particularly unpleasant ad hominem way. And to see you spray gunning your verdict on this show as presenting a platform for endless dew haters to spread blood libels.

And in the process, just disassociating yourself from any criticism. that's come Israel's way in a perfectly legitimate manner for a lot of the awful things, frankly, that the Israeli government has been allowing to happen on its watch in the last four years, was incredibly disappointing. Because I'm like, if ultimately everyone that criticizes

you or the IDF or Netanyahu or Israel or Israeli government is an automatic Jew-hater, that to me is the worst thing of this whole debate from day one. There is no correlation for me between criticizing something you say or Netanyahu says or particularly Ben-Givir and Smodrich or criticizing the idea for nothing to deserve it

that makes me a Jew-hater. So I just was surprised. Why do that? Why be so frankly pathetic? I don't think I am. And if you'll allow me, I want to reply to what you said. First things first. when I say, you know, on this show, as you said, I've been on a few times,

and on this show... You've been on dozens of times, to be clear, on a show that you think just platforms Jew haters and peers. If you're not going to talk about Iran, I'm just going to live off. I could make a point. I don't give a monkeys what you want to do. If you want to log off, log off. All right, we'll log off. Fine. Carry on, Jonathan. I'll try to be brief. Anybody else wants to log off? I will come to other guests, but if anybody else was to log off,

I don't think it's surprising that I would want to have this out with Jonathan, given what he said on a public platform about me and the show. So I'm going to finish that conversation. Then I'll come to the other guess. Yeah. So being respectful of others and the time, I'll try to be concise. One, on this show, you have had a long list of people who I deem are hypocrites. Why do I think that they are hypocrites?

and why do I think that their criticism of Israel is actually a facade, a front for good old-fashioned Jew hatred, is because all of the topics that they allegedly care about, civilians in war, Christians being wounded or maltreated, journalists having a bad day at the office or even getting wounded or, God forbid, killed, and humanitarian aid, international law, media freedom, a long, long list, international war and the ratio of non-combatants versus combatants killed in urban warfare, terrorism, sexual violence. The list is very long, and so many of the people who have been repeat offenders on this show, Anna Casparian, Sank Oguyen, Mehdi Hassan, and many others have gotten,

this powerful platform, and they haven't had to face questions like me. They've been given free reign to spew, frankly. Hatred against Israel. In fact, as you know, for the first year after October the 7th, I was getting widely criticized in a vicious way by the other side, right, by the pro-Palestinian side who felt it was outrageous that I was defending Israel's right to defend itself or moral duty to defend itself after October the 7th,

which I still believe it had a fundamental right to do. So I've been attacked by both sides. The surprise with you, Jonathan, is that you have come on this platform more than any of them. And I've always been fair-minded to you. And yet you decided to disparage the show, to trash the show, trash me by association, and brand pretty much anyone that you don't agree with about this.

And bear in mind the sub-stakes, which is that Israel. Israel's been becoming increasingly a global pariah. And one of the reasons for that, which I find incredibly dispiriting, as somebody who has a lot of Jewish friends and who has always supported Israel, it's right to exist, it's right to defend itself, all of those things. The most dispiriting thing is that this constant refrain that any criticism is actually about Jew hatred is...

No, it is an appalling... You talk about blood liables, that right there is that right there is that, bloodlines. When it is repeated, and I'm not going to be in a, you know, a contest here. You've got the mic. You're in the studio. I'm not even going to try to compete with your mic. I just want to say this. When people are given continuous platforms to come with their tired, with, you know, Mejee Hassan, he's basically repeating Hamas propaganda, doing it in English and adapting it to a Western audience. And you have Anna Kasperia and you have Chink and you have all other matters of people who have come here. And what about all the pro-Israeli guests?

I've had, not just you, but Alan Dershowitz and a string of others who've come on to argue and debate with all those people you're talking about. And when you say that I, you know, cast aside the entire show and that anybody who criticizes Israel is illegitimate, definitely not. Well, that's pretty much what you said on your expose. On your show, you have heard me say several times direct criticism of the IDF, of wrongdoings, of these race. government of various ministers who I think have made horrible mistakes and distasteful comments and been part of very negative developments. And I have said that clearly, unequivocally, when Israel, by mistake, hit a humanitarian, the world kitchen convoy, by mistake,

misidentify them for Hamas terrorists. We struck them. I wasn't spokesperson then. But I said, clearly, this shouldn't have happened. And I'm happy that an Israeli officer... By your criteria, then you must be... In that case, you must be a Jew hater spreading blood libels. Anyway, let's move on to the reason for this debate. And my apologies to ours, I guess, thank you for being patient. But I had to, you know, better out than in this, my mother would say, when somebody takes it upon themselves to attack you in public.

So I've done it. All right, Josh Hammer, all you guys have been supportive of this war on Iran. And my position from the start is the Iranian regime is to speak. I loathe it. I think it's been responsible for supporting terrorists all over the Middle East, from Hamas to Hezbollah to the Houthis. I think it's an appalling regime. But I also felt this war was utterly misguided from day one, that it had a real chance of empowering the regime rather than destroying it. And from where I sit right now, four months in, I'm pretty unconvinced that I wasn't right to be extremely concerned that that is what's happened. Are you still a

steadfast that you think this war was a good idea? Well, Pierce, I believe the last time I was on your show a couple weeks ago, if I'm mistaken, I did criticize some aspects of the handling of this war and the way that the ceasefire, in my opinion, was called prematurely on April 8th. So let me just back up a little bit. I think that what happened here is you had the President of the United States, who, if I'm just guessing, I think he was feeling a little cocky, frankly, after his successes on the world stage and the first, let's call it, third. months of his tenure in office in the second term, especially when it came to Venezuela.

And the staggering success of Operation Absolute Resolve and the midnight capturing of Nicholas Maduro from his Cuban military guarded compound there in Caracas, Venezuela. And he was looking at this horrific regime, as you rarely call it, in Tehran, which was gunning down tens and tens of thousands of people in the streets. And he probably thought this would be a little bit easier than it has ended up being. Now, Epic Fury did get off to an absolutely amazing start. There was the decapitation strike of the Ayatollah Klamini and a lot of other heavyweights there. And there was staggering success, staggering success in the opening weeks of this campaign.

It remains my judgment to this day that if some decisions had been made to not prematurely cause a ceasefire, but when you have the enemies, when you have your foot on their throat on the jugular, it doesn't make sense to go ahead and then just take it off for no reason, no gain whatsoever. Frankie, what's happened to you? Well, you know why that happened, right? I mean, just to jump in there, it was very crystal clear to Donald Trump, as this dragged on, that there were two wars going on.

There was the military war where America and Israel were pounding Iran's military and having big success doing it. Meanwhile, the Iranian regime has worked out the Strait of Hormuz is their most effective weapon, and they just closed it down, holding the entire world over an energy balance. and simultaneously whacking missiles off at the Gulf State neighbors, causing them enormous problems too. So they were fighting a different war. And Trump eventually worked this out, right?

So all the warmongers in his administration who were urging him to keep going, it's like, well, you can, but it's crippling the economy and it's paralyzing the global energy economy, and something's going to have to give here. I think that's why he did it. Look, so shutting down the Strait of Ramos is the first thing that the regime does in literally,

war game that's ever been war game between the United States and his long Republic of Iran. So that was easily foreseeable since day one. I think that there were some other missteps along the way. So one, again, getting back to Venezuela, we probably overestimated the extent to which the United States could just go into Venezuela and to take those Venezuelan oil assets, combine them with our abundant assets here in the United States, and then to make up for the, for the oil shortfall caused by the closure of the strait. Simultaneously, I think we probably expect a little bit more help from.

among other entities, NATO, and also our Sunni Gulf Arab outlines, who were not really doing a whole lot on the ground. They looked at this joint American-Israeli operation, and basically decides not getting involved as well. So there were various things that could have happened. But fundamentally, my criticism is that when you go back to the April 8 ceasefire and they continue through this whole MOU ordeal, which is still going as we speak today, it kind of has the field peers.

I know you're a soccer fan or a football fan, I guess you would say over there, and this is during the World Cup. It kind of has the feel of going back onto the pitch after a halftime leave, let's call it 4-0-5-0, and then essentially just begging for a draw. And I'm just not entirely sure that that is the proper mentality, whether it comes to the World Cup, whether it comes to any sport or frankly whether it comes to matters of war and peace as well. Okay. Matt Tadio, welcome back to uncensored. Where's your head with this war with Iran and the apparent deal, which is not a deal yet?

Yeah, I think the, I think the, I think the, I'm a marine of understanding. sucks to be quite frank. And then I'd have to turn around and I'd have to ask you, what is your opinion, what an actual victory with Iran for the United States would look like? I can state the United States goals, but I'm curious, in your opinion, Pierce, what you think an actual victory would look like. Well, I just think it doesn't, to me, it doesn't look, it can't be gained purely on military firepower causing enormous damage to Iran's Navy, Air Force, and so on, for the reasons I've outlined. So what's the victory? What's the victory in your I'm not sure because to me the goals were originally going to be regime change.

There was a belief driven by the Israelis. That wasn't a stated goal, Pierce. Well, it wasn't a stated goal by the United States. Well, Donald Trump actually used. When did Donald Trump state that that was an actual goal? It was one of the things he talked about at the very start of the war, right? And that's the problem. No, no, no, then he changed the goal post.

Let's stay, no, hang on, hang on. Let's say, intellectually honest. Let me finish. Intellectually honest, Pierce. The reporter had asked him about. And he had responded by stating, he had responded by stating that it would be good. But he never stated it was a goal. And as a matter of fact, we can go back and we can reference the court that actually got put out

by Donald Trump turning down specifically regime change. Let me finish my answer to you. So he said that it would be a good thing, which many people took to mean he wanted regime change. He also had been very public about the protests and the deaths of all the protesters in January and how this couldn't go on and so on. So people thought that's what he was getting at. But then he made it clear as it went on. No, no, okay, it's all about stopping their nuclear capacity.

I was bemused because I was told this time last year in the 12-day war that had put back Iran's nuclear capabilities by decades. Turned out it wasn't even eight months. So I was bemused. Correct. And then I was told, okay. You know me both. Then we read the New York Times report,

a deep dive about the meeting between Netanyahu and the head of Mossad at the White House, in which they laid out a series of events, and I've repeated this many times, but it's worth from remembering, because it's not been contested, that if you took out the Ayatollah, which the Israelis had got intelligence, they were going to be meeting the Ayatollah and these top people, if you took them out, then there would be an organic collapse of the IRGC's control,

that the people would rise up, and they'd all be too distracted to think about the Strait of Formoose. The first bit happened, but unfortunately, the Ithello got replaced by his even more hardline radical son, and the IRGC guys just bumped up. So that was pretty ineffectual. And you forgot the second, so you forgot the second portion of that New York Times article. I will let you respond.

We've got to finish the actual second portion of the New York Times article, Pierce. Okay, you can respond in a moment. Let me finish my point. And then tell me I'm wrong. There's no problem. But the IRGC clearly remains in complete control. You've seen no uprising at all from the people. And you've seen an asymmetric war involving the Strait of Hormuz

and attack in the Gulf states, which has been extremely effective from a response point of view by the Iranian regime. So I look at it in totality, and I would love to get rid of the Iranian regime. But it's not happened, and I don't think it's going to happen. And the enriched uranium remained buried away in Iran somewhere. I don't think they're going to hand it over. I think they're now talking about actually wanting to build a nuclear weapon

because the Americans and Israelis want to destroy everything that they represent. So I look at it all, and I'm just really struggling, genuinely, Matt, from a military point of view. Where's the victory here? Where's the moment you plant the flag and go, this was great for America? Because I don't see it. Now I understand where you're coming from.

Now I understand where you're coming from. So first, let's address the second part of the New York Times article where it did, in fact, talk about, I believe it was Netanyahu and portions of Assad that came in via VTC and ended up briefing up on their plan and what they thought would work over inside of Iran.

U.S. intelligence community, Donald Trump then tasked out with assessing that plan, and Donald Trump said it was a bad plan. He didn't think it was going to happen. And so he didn't go along with it. So let's start there. Second, the U.S. had their three major stated goals.

Goal number one was ensuring Iran's not able to get a nuclear weapon. On that point right now when we look at that, we have confirmed now. And I'm with you, by the way, when it goes down to them saying that we set their program back decades. And then it gets into, you know, February and March where they state that they're two weeks away. And then just last week and the week before Trump comes out echoing what the regime said, which is their enriched uranium or the nuclear dust, as he likes to call it, is buried so deep and so underground that only two countries might have the ability to get it out, which should be the United States and Iran, which has led me to question,

why the hell did we go and bombing them in the first place? But regardless, yeah, this is what we call intellectual honesty, right? Yes, I appreciate it. Right. And so, yeah, I've called him out, and I've been very critical of him for that. However, when it goes down to getting that enriched uranium out of the country, Iran originally stated that they were not going to be allowing the U.S. to go in there after the United States announced that the International Atomic Energy Agency, along with the United States, was going to be able to go in there. And that went on for a couple days until the United States, along with the IAEA chief, actually came out and said, no, Iran did agree to allow us to go in there. And then the regime came out and said, well, I guess, I guess, you know, we did agree to let them go in, but we don't have a date set yet for that.

So that's part of the ongoing negotiations. The second part is the ballistics missiles program and having limits to the ballistic missile program. I don't think there's a single debate whatsoever about how extremely degraded the ballistics missile program is over inside of Iran right now. And I say this because Iran has stated time and time again, even after the last time we attacked Kasham Island in the Strait of Hormuz. After the last time, they use terrorism, which is defined as using fear or threat of violence

in order to push a political or ideological agenda, which what they're doing in the Strait of Hormuz is 100% terrorism. but after the last time they terrorized the straightover moves in order to shut it down. They stated that they were going to obliterate Israel in the United States if we ended up attacking. We attacked him and they quite frankly couldn't do it. And it's the same thing after the attacks this weekend. As a matter of fact, they didn't even launch a ballistic missile at Israel because they know the overwhelming consequences that would come down on them if they did.

So I think their ballistic missiles program, while they have them and they're still hidden within their mountains, et cetera, does not have the same capabilities that they had at the beginning of the war. Third, the other key point that the United States, or objective that we were trying to reach, was the defunding of their proxy organizations around the Middle East. So let's take a look at what happened in Iraq over the weekend. We have over 47 members of the Iraqi government that ended up getting balled up and arrested because of funding and influence by Iran, essentially corrupt politicians.

And there's photos, videos, et cetera, of the Iraqi forces going around, rounding all of these people up. Additionally, over the last month, we've seen two, of the three major terror organizations that are funded by Iran inside of Iraq that got disarmed. Rocky government came out and said by the end of the summer, if you don't disarm, they're going to end waging a war on them. Then we can look at the agreement over inside of Lebanon that just took place to where the Israelis are going to remain in position with agreement from the Lebanese government. The Israelis will remain in position. Hezboa will be disarmed. Hasble is no longer allowed in that country and that the Lebanese armed forces are going to replace the Israelis as they retrograde out of

the country. And then the last major proxy organization, that we really need to be concerned with, his enthral law or the Houthis down inside Yemen. And just today, the information is coming out that the actual Yemeni government, not the Houthis, but the actual international recognized government is actually starting to mobilize to go wage a ground campaign against the Houthis. And that itself is going to be developing in the weeks and months to come. So when we start looking at the actual objectives that came out, the Strait of Hormuz, in my opinion, is one of those just kind of like gotcha moments or little catches.

Of course, Iran can shut down the straight by simply just launching or terrorizing commercial vessels. But even, now pay attention to this. Overnight, we had over 50 in the last 24 hours, we had over 50, all right, merchant vehicle or vessels that ended up traveling through the Strait of Hormuz. And a lot of them using the Oman route down to the south, despite what Iran had said. So they are actually starting to lose that threat of terrorism over those commercial vessels. So in my opinion, right now, that whole Strait of Hormuz thing, that's just some smoke and mirrors right now that are going on. And it does affect the international community. It does affect the global economy.

economy, 20% of the world's oil ends up flowing through there. But at the same time, the country that is most affected by it than any other is China. China used to get 40% of their oil from the Strait of Hormuz. They used to buy 90% of Iran's oil. And right now, Iran's oil just got put on the global market underneath the U.S. dollar. That means China can no longer get cheap, sanctioned oil. China can no longer get cheap, sanctioned oil from Iran. They now have to compete on the global stage, especially after you've got up Maduro. And the IRGC is not doing it. If I could take you back to the day before this war was launched, knowing everything we now know, would you still say to Donald Trump go?

I think that everybody is focusing. The answer is yes. But not because of Iran, but because of the actual global implications and putting America's interests first, right? And particularly with what's taking place with Russia and China on the global stage and using the IRC. I honestly purpose. I'm with you when it goes down to the excuse of that. them developing a nuclear weapon after we say that we ended up sending them back decades. I think more or less this has to do with like a global realignment with the IRGC and the

Iranian regime right in the middle. You know, Russia heavily supported by the IRGC, heavily supported by China. They were down over inside of Venezuela, all three of them and plus Hezboa. Okay. So all four of them down over inside of Venezuela, also conducting operations in Cuba, also Hezbollah over inside Mexico. Those are all big threats the United States of America. So when I look at this from like an American global security perspective, I do believe that it's very important that we get Russia and China back in their place to where they're no longer trying to go out and threaten the United States and take it, like essentially take over as the world's superpower.

Okay. And I think dismantling the IRGC is a very, very good way of doing that. Interesting perspective. Of course, they might take it another way, which is that the Iranians stood up to America and haven't been destroyed in the way that people thought might happen and there might emboldened American. enemies around the world to try their luck. So we'll see. I mean, look, I'm not saying that will happen. I'm just saying there is a possibility that if this just continues to be this huge,

gigantic, unresolved mess, people might take that view. Jonathan Conrickers, on the assumption, you haven't been outraged by the Jew-hating rhetoric of your fellow panelists today, which I imagine you wouldn't because obviously they're not Jew-haters. Give me a bit more credit than that. Well, I don't think you deserve it after your ex-out points, but let's move on. because I'm, as you know, always fair-minded to you. Let's talk about the issue of trust. A lot of what Matt said was very interesting to me, right?

And it's a very interesting perspective. But my point would be, how can we trust the Iranians as far as you could throw them? I mean, they have proven for 47 years to be one of the least trust we were the regimes in the world. When Obama was negotiating his deal with them, it took over two years. You know, this could well take.

over two years. In the meantime, Trump may well get punished in the midterm elections by losing control of Congress. He might lose the House and the Senate, the way things are looking. You may not, but he might. And if he does, he becomes a lame duck president and wouldn't be able to go through with half the stuff that Matt's talking about anyway. So there are real-time political consequences that could come into play here. And a lot of it comes down to can you trust the Iranians on any of this. And I don't see how you can. I think we can trust the Iranians. Iranians to be clever, calculated, and to have a good read of the American psyche, American economy, politics, and to find and adequately use pressure points, whether it's China, Europe, and most

importantly, the U.S. And I think early on in this war, the Iranians, as they were being bombed and defeated in the air and on the ground and at sea by the U.S. and Israel, I think that it was, early on they understood two important points. One, and they're connected to each other, and in the excellent analysis that I heard before, they weren't mentioned, and I think they're worthy of mentioning. And it comes down to casualties. And I come from a country where we're fighting. We've had more than 2,200 Israelis killed since October 7, many of them civilians, but a lot of them military, fighting in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria. Luckily, we haven't had any service members killed fighting the Iranians in the last iterations,

but we've had civilians killed by Iranian missiles. The Israeli threshold and sensitivity for casualties is different than the American one. And I think that the Iranians early on understood that there is an extremely high threshold, sorry, low threshold, high sensitivity for casualties, and that they were good on exploiting that. And the second issue, which is related to casualties, is an unwillingness for what I think are understandable reasons from an American perspective, given Iraq and Afghanistan as a context, is an unwillingness to deploy significant troops, boots on the ground. The moment the Iranians understood that through the very transparent communications,

of the administration. They understood where they could push, and I think they understood and read very correctly that they could get away, even though they lost totally, without any doubt on the battlefield. They were able to scramble and get a tie on the diplomatic field, and I credit them, the Iranians, for having a very serious and well-functioning strategic and diplomatic mechanism that does strategic communications very well, that assesses their enemies very well, and then finds the weaknesses that they can use out of a position of weakness. And what we have now is a memorandum of misunderstanding of the Middle East. And I differ from the views that have been said here before.

I don't think that it projects American strength, and I don't think that it will keep American enemies at bay or deter them from taking hostile actions that are adversarial to the U.S. Because I think that at the end of the day, every enemy in the region, they saw that the U.S. had tremendous and dominating firepower, but it wasn't willing to commit in order to fight decisive warfare and to pay the unfortunate prices that you need to pay when you do engage in kinetic warfare.

And that is a lesson for terrorists around the world. It's a lesson for the Chinese and for the Russians and for other contenders who want to challenge the U.S., which I hope that they won't, and I hope that if they do, they will fail miserably. Let's make that clear. But I think that fighting the Iranians and allowing them to basically dictate an MOU that doesn't serve neither the Iranian people nor the Sunni Arab Gulf countries nor Israel's, the U.S. ally of Israel in the Middle East is not a good look. And I hope that this MOU won't be implemented. Of course, as you said correctly, it boils down to the midterms. It boils down to economy and the elections and what will happen there. And I wish the administration great success in that. And I hope that they'll be able to carry everything that they need so that after the midterms,

the U.S. can go back to doing what I think they started. And I think they will find a very able, disciplined and loyal partner with Israel. And I hope that there will be more wisdom and more humility on the Israeli-American side in the next iteration, which have no confusion, it will come. This is one chapter that is probably being signed and ended, but there will be other chapters in the Middle Eastern book of the war between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the West, specifically Israel and the US. Other chapters will be written until that regime is defeated. Josh Hammond, just finally, Donald Trump, this was last year, around the time of the 12-day war, it's not politically correct to use the term regime change, but the current Iranian regime is unable to make Iran great again.

Why wouldn't there be a regime change? Migger, make Iran great again, was what he posted then, when we all thought and believed that the nuclear program would have put back decades, which turned out not to be the case, apparently. Put your crystal ball on. Let's go forward a year from now, because that was a year ago last week. Where are we going to be, do you think? If you were a betting man, where are we going to be with this?

So, first of all, I remember that posed very well, Donald Trump, with the U.S. flag on Iran and MIGA, regime change. There's been a lot of talk, and I'm a support of the president. Too much talk, by the way. I just want to say, for the record, I get on very well with Donald Trump, have done a long time. He's just talked too much. the constant daily outpourings contradicting each other minute by minute, day by day. None of that, I don't think, has been helpful. Because eventually, if you don't go through with the threats, for example, you're the boy that cry wolf.

You're the emperor with no clothes. I've been warning that for a while. I just think if you're just constant public dialogue about this where from one day to the next, you're exterminating an entire country or they're the nice new guys to deal with, I don't get it. So I'm totally not going to disagree with you. In fact, I agree hold heartily. And frankly, my opinion is closer to Jonathan's than to Matt's as to your hypotheticals whether or not you would have advised the president to go into this war, knowing all that we now know. If we had known that a ceasefire would be called prematurely, if we had known that that this very bad MOU would have been signed, frankly, I would not have advised getting involved in the first place. Because I do think that despite our clear accomplishments, the taking out of Khamenei, the near decapitation and it's entirety of the Iranian Navy, the Air Force, there have been real gains. And Matt did a fantastic job of outline those real gains. It comes to bearing a lot of their bliss missiles. I do nonetheless think that the message that sends to America's enemies around the world, and frankly just

the enemies of civilization more generally. Team barbarism is unequivocally emboldened by what we are currently seeing when it comes to this MOU that is on life support. It was in Switzerland. Now it's going to be in Qatar this week. The whole thing is a bit of a mess. We'll see how it goes. but I do fear very much so that China is now only eyeing Taiwan closer. And all the world's tyrants are essentially emboldened by what we are currently seeing. Now, to your question as far as what this will look like a year from now, frankly, I think it'll look something similar to the status quo. I don't think it'll look all too different from where we're at right now. I agree that the return of kinetic hostilities in some way, shape, or form is inevitable.

That's not because there are war mongers in the Trump administration. Frankly, it's not because there are war mongers in Israel or any other country. It has to do with one country and one regime, and that is Iran. Because these people are the same people from day one. I'm thinking a little bit about one of your country's greatest bands, The Who, and the hit song from 1971 Won't Get Fooled again. Roger Dahljee famously saying, meet the new boss, same as the old boss. These people just are the same people.

They cannot help themselves, and they cannot help them. themselves for a very simple reason because they are not thinking, they are not analyzing, they're not engaging in cost assessments, they're not engaging in carrot and sticks diplomacy, the way that rational Western people do that. They actually genuinely believe what we think they believe. They are apocalyptic, 12th imitizing eschatological Islamists. And part of their of their plan all along really is to take out what they refer to as little say in Israel and the great say in the United States. That's the reason that the very first act, to 1979 was to storm the embassy for the United States in Tehran.

So this is going to continue, and the United States in some way will be dragged back in. I don't pretend to know exactly what that will look like. I do not think that the regime will be gone one year from now. Perhaps there will be some more strikes there. But overall, it's going to be just this kind of amorphous kicking of the can down the road until we find some sort of politically stable or at least politically acceptable equilibrium, at least to get us through the midterms because I think we probably all agree here on this panel. that what we're currently seeing when it comes to the MOU is dictated not by foreign affairs,

not by geopolitics, not by trying to ward off Xi Jinping in Taiwan or anything like that. It really is all about the midterms, about oil, inflation, and so forth. Okay, interesting debate. I want to thank you all, even you, Jonathan. So thank you all very much. I appreciate it. Thank you for having me on. Pierce Morgan Ossence and 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 Piers Morgan Uncensored on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate and entertain. And we'll do it all for free. Independent Uncensored Media has never been more critical, and we couldn't do it without you.