Piers Morgan Uncensored - 'Intelligence FAILURE!' Professor Jiang vs Andrew Bustamante On Iran War

Episode Date: June 29, 2026

Has the conflict between the United States and Iran really come to an end, or is this just the beginning of a new phase? Following US strikes on Iranian targets and renewed tensions over the Strait of Hormuz, questions remain over whether the ceasefire will hold and what comes next for the Middle East. Earlier in the conflict, two expert guests made bold predictions about how the war would unfold - one drawing on years of intelligence experience, the other using game theory and predictive modelling. Now they return to assess how their forecasts held up, examine the consequences of the fighting, and discuss the risks of further escalation. Piers Morgan is joined by former CIA covert officer, known as the Everyday Spy, Andrew Bustamante, and game theorist known as 'Professor Jiang', Jiang Xueqin, to debate. Mars Men: For a limited time, our listeners get 50% off FOR LIFE, Free Shipping, AND 3 Free Gifts at Mars Men at https://mengotomars.com/piers using code PIERS 00:00 Introduction 01:50 Professor Jiang Xueqin on his previous predictions on the Iran war 05:27 Andrew Bustamante on his reflections over the Iran war 06:58 Iran’s nuclear capabilities 09:03 AD: Mars Men - 50% off FOR LIFE, Free Shipping, AND 3 Free Gifts at Mars Men at https://mengotomars.com/piers using code PIERS 12:15 Ukraine and Russia compared to US and Israel vs Iran 15:42 Andrew Bustamante on America’s war strategy 18:12 Professor Jiang responds to Andrew Bustamante 19:00 What would American troops on the ground achieve? 21:20 The question of Gaza 26:34 Netanyahu’s Gaza strategy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The two most sophisticated militaries in the world attacked Iran and it's still there. I still believe that eventually the United States would be forced to use wood on the ground. I don't agree with that. I believe that Donald Trump moved on Iran, not just because Israel sold him a false bill of goods, but also because he was looking for a very short, quick political victory. If Democrats were to take the House in November, Donald Trump would actually be under more pressure to use ground forces. Otherwise, he could face impeachment. At the core of it, I see it as an intelligence failure.

Whenever you're in a position like that, you're going in essentially blind, and you're going in kind of like the pit bull on the leash for somebody else. For Israel to fight the war alone in the Middle East will be suicidal. Israel really needs America to fight this war on their behalf. And I think that the whole is going to do whatever he's told to do. Well, the Iran war is at an end, at least in theory, the U.S. strikes this weekend, sparked by Iran's ongoing control of the Hibu Strait. were a reminder that nothing is settled definitively.

Both of my guests today made huge predictions about the outcomes and consequences of this war, one using real-world intelligence experience, the other are pedigree in modelling and game theory. I've invited them both back on to review how they did, and more importantly, ask them what happens next. So joining me now are Andrew Bustamente, the former CIA covert officer known as the everyday spy,

and the game theorist and academic Professor Zhang. Welcome back to both of you. Professor Zhang, Let me start with you. You made a lot of claims, really, towards the very start of this war. You said that regime decapitation would fail, which is pretty much what's happened, that America would become bogged down in a drawn-out conflict. So so far, pretty good.

You also said that US would eventually have to put boots on the ground to achieve its goals. That hasn't happened, and we would hope it wouldn't. So when you look in totality at your gut feeling about the way to play out. I mean, you're not far wrong. And I think the only reason the boots on the ground hasn't happened is because Donald Trump has realized this was an awful lot more difficult than he first imagined. And that actually, if he was to commit boots on the ground, it could turn into a complete disaster. No, you're absolutely right. Boots on the ground would be a disaster. But I still believe that eventually the United States will be forced to use boots on the ground.

In fact, you can argue that there's been a lot of preparation. You sell 60,000 American troops ready to go. They're a stage and ready to go. And even though there's an MOU, they're still there. And you can also argue that the MOU is really just buying time because right now it's really hot in Iran. And so you have to wait for cooler weather before you can launch a ground invasion. And so I think we are on a waiting game right now, but eventually you will see boots on the ground.

So you think it will definitely happen? I think the latest will be next March. It could be as early as December. But why would Donald Trump take that gigantic risk, which is what it would be? I mean, doesn't all his behavior at the moment suggest that he just wants to get out of this? I think the United States is stuck in Iran, right? now because if the United States were to withdraw from Iran, then Iran would control the Middle East. The GCC would have to pay ransom, a huge reparation to Iran, and so they can no longer recycle

U.S. dollars back into the U.S. economy, which feeds the AI bubble. And you could see a complete government collapse if that were the case. So the Americans are just stuck where they are right now. Andrew, welcome back to Uncensored to you as well. Sporting a new haircut, if I may be so bold, as to censor on that immediately. Looks good. I appreciate it. I'm trying to look like you, man. Look, it just seemed to me from very early on in this war that I've referred to us a lot, but I'll do it one more time.

The New York Times had a big deep dive quite early on about a meeting between Benjamin Netanyahu in the White House Situation Room where the head of Mossab beamed in remotely. And they laid out a series of events to Donald Trump and all the top Trump administration people, which was started with the removal of the Ayatollah to kill him and some of his top people. And then there would be a chain of events that would be provoked by that. The IRGC would collapse from within. The people would rise up and they'd all be too distracted to notice what was happening

with the Strait of Hormuz. Well, the first bit happened to a degree, all. be it, the Ayatollah's been replaced by his even more radical son. But none of the rest of it happened at all. And in fact, far worse, I think, for Donald Trump and for Netanyahu, the Iranians quickly worked out that the control of the Strait of Hormuz could just hold the entire world over a barrel, quite literally, because it would control the flow of 20% of the world's energy. And then if they also fired off some missiles and rockets at their neighboring Gulf states and caused, you know, economic mayhem there by doing that,

then they really held a lot of the cards, to quote Donald Trump's favorite phrase in warfare. You know, when you look at this, do you think it was just a case not of Trump being told what to do, but that of him just buying into this playbook, which then just didn't materialize? Yeah, I think there's a number of overlapping intelligence issues here. And at the core of it, I see it as an intelligence failure. First of all, the fact that the United States didn't have our own intelligence. intelligence infrastructure to the point where we could see the holes in Israel's assessments and estimates, that's a major problem. It means that we went into Iran basically following Israel's

guidance, following Israel's intelligence, following their targeting packages instead of our own independent intelligence assessment. Whenever you're in a position like that, you're going in essentially blind and you're going in kind of like the pit bull on the leash for somebody else. And I think that's what we saw happen very shortly after the promises that Israel made didn't really pan out. Now where we are today is stuck in the same situation where we still don't have an intelligence network. We still don't have independent intelligence telling us what we can assess and what we can estimate, what we can predict inside Iran. And that's why we're still stuck in this quagmire. We have an MOU that doesn't give us any of the outcomes that we strategically promise the American people.

and the MOU isn't working. We still have, there's no active cessation of attacks. They've just decreased. They've changed, but it's still happening. Right. And Professor Zhang, you know, the big goal in the end, which was explained after weeks or weeks of getting nowhere with the others, Donald Trump said, right, this is all about stopping the Iranians having a nuclear weapon.

And yet they still got all their enriched uranium. I mean, I think the only way that can ever be got by American, or Israel is with ground forces. So I think on that alone, that that's clear. But the Iranians have also started talking openly now about the need to build a nuclear weapon, to have one. That actually what this has taught them, if people are wedded to the annihilation of all of their regime,

then they need a nuclear weapon to defend themselves. And perversely, it could end up creating a situation where the Iranians actually want to develop something that maybe three months ago, four months ago, they liked to saber-rattle about but weren't actually going to do. Right. So before the war, the Iranians had a religious fatwa

banning the making and use of nuclear weapons. So the Iranians were committed not to building a nuclear weapon. With enriched uranium, Ted Posto, who is an MIT professor, he says that it'll take them exactly six weeks. weeks to build a nuclear weapon. So if the Iranians have the will, they could build a nuclear weapon. So if they were attacked with a nuclear weapon, then they would respond with at least 10

nuclear weapons. That's how much it can make with their enriched uranium. So it's really a quagmire for the United States. Now, I would say that this reporting that Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon, it's actually false. There is a religious fatwa in place and it has to be overruled by the new Ayatollah, and that's a very long process. And quite honestly, there really don't really need a nuclear weapon at this stage. Summary is almost upon us. And if you're not completely satisfied with your beach body, my condolences, that must be hard for you. It's not just because you're watching

the World Cup and drinking beer. Once men hit their 30s, it's harder for the body to lose fat, retain muscle and recover from injuries. The main culprit is testosterone, which drops off as you age. That's why you hear so many guys talking about it, taking it, and why they feel so much better for doing so. Well, there's no shortage of products available, so we wanted to choose one that's all natural, third-party tested, and made in the USA.

Mars Men is exactly that. It's designed to support healthy levels, which can help your body to burn fat more efficiently and build lean muscle. No weird synthetic additives. For a limited time, we've teamed up to give our viewers and listeners 50% off for life plus free shipping and free free gifts at men go to mars.com. That's men go to mars.com for 50% off and three free gifts at checkout.

And remember to tell them that I sent you. No, I mean, Andrew, the reality is the straight of all moose is proving just as effective as any nuclear deterrent, isn't it? because everybody knows that Iran still maintains control of that straight and can turn it on and off whenever they feel like. And I'd be astonished, given the long and unelustrous history of this regime, if they didn't use that to maximum leverage effect. Why wouldn't they?

Yeah, you're exactly right. And what we've seen is that Iran has managed to turn this conflict into the most significant blow against the United States that any country has been able to execute. in many decades. Not only does the United States look like it's in the pocket of a much smaller, more kind of unpredictable country, Israel specifically, not only has this separated GCC allies from the United States. The UAE has dropped out of the oil consortium. Not only do we see that the closest Western allies in the world in Europe have distanced themselves from the United

States. And that's not even counting how America looks at itself through the lens of politics and identity and global leadership. So just simply by surviving, Iran has shown that small can be powerful and that the United States can be overcome, possibly even defeated. Because if the Ayatollah stands, if the Iranian Republic continues to persist in Iran, in its current form, if we reach the end of this war? What was it all for? And it shows that they won. And if that doesn't inspire and encourage and maybe even provoke countries like North Korea, Cuba, you know, continue to encourage countries like Russia, China, other adversaries competing for global dominance, I don't know what will. Although it's interesting, Professor Zhang, to look at what's happened

in Ukraine, for example, where everybody assumed the Russians would just run Ukraine over pretty quickly. I think Russia assumed it would do it very quickly. That hasn't happened. And we are many years into that war. And in fact, you know, you could argue Ukraine now is not just putting up a good fight, but it's giving Vladimir Putin quite a bloody nose. It's proving to be very costly in both Russian human life and on the economy there. You know, it's an interesting thing to look at and say, well, you look at what's happened there and it may fly slightly in the face of what Andrew just said. But maybe if you're China, you look at what's happened in Iran. I think there's an opportunity for you there, maybe with Taiwan, or maybe to strengthen ties with Iran,

whatever it may be. And at the core of it all is a kind of battle for energy, right? I mean, energy is going to be powering the new arms race, which is AI, and the winner may well take all. Well, you know, people argue that this war was started in order to, in order for America, to force the world to buy American energy. Because right now, if you look at the global map, the only reliable source of energy now is the Western Hemisphere, right? Because Russia is losing this war in Ukraine or is facing a stalemate, depending on which side you're on. But Ukrainians are striking deep into Russian territory and hitting oil refineries. And so it is reducing Russia's capacity to export oil. The Middle East is on fire.

Before Qatar could provide 20% of the world's LNG. Now it's completely offline. So if you're Japan, who do you turn to? You can't turn to Russia. You can't turn to Qatar. You can't turn to the Middle East. So therefore, you're stuck buying energy from America. So you could say that even though America is losing this war in the Middle East,

they ultimately will be a big winner because the world is now completely dependent on the wars of hemisphere for resources. Andrew, what do you think of that? I think that there's a couple of kind of fundamental, I don't want to call them mistakes, but foundational assessments that we're missing here, right? First of all, comparing what's happening in Iran to what's happening in Ukraine isn't quite a straight analog. because the whole world rushed to Ukraine's aid. They received hundreds of billions of dollars, weapons, intelligence support, satellite imagery support, not only from the United States,

but from Great Britain, from France, from Germany, from across Europe. So the whole world was required to prevent Russia's progress in Ukraine. And what you see from Zelensky still to this day is the continued request for more support and more money and more training and more everything to continue to prosecute this, what was framed to us as a fight to protect democracy. That's not what we're seeing in Iran. Iran has largely stood on its own strategy and on its own weapons reserves, on its own capabilities. Now, yes, it has tapped into Russian intelligence and it's tapped into very likely Chinese support also,

but it has stood on its own two feet since we launched that first attack, not just the United States, but in joint concert with Israel. The two most sophisticated militaries in the world attacked Iran, and it's still there. So that's a little bit different. Now, Professor Zhang's assessment that the United States has created this requirement for Western Hemisphere Resources, this is right out of American Strategy 101. America tried to be, America was and has been for a long time, the world's leading innovator of technology.

And that's how it created a premium pricing model that drove the largest economy. The whole focus on conserving and protecting the Western Hemisphere, and their focus on Cuba now still to this day, emphasizes the same thing. They want to control resources so they can put a premium price and control distribution around the world. And that's the model that countries like China are trying to emulate so that they can compete in that economic world. Whether or not it's successful with the taking of President Maduro and the unlocking of oil reserves in Venezuela, accessible to the United States, is yet to be seen because there is a huge amount of oil reserves in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAE are sitting on large oil reserves. And as long as the Straits of Hormuz are blocked, correct, that oil is strictly not going to go anywhere quickly.

But as soon as even Saudi goes outside of the United States and reaches its own agreement with Iran or many of these countries that are paying the toll, people are finding a way around following American leadership in this. And that's not a good thing for American people. And just on Professor Zhang's point about it's inevitable that ground forces will have to be committed at some stage. Do you agree with that? I don't agree with that. And there's one major reason why I believe that Donald Trump moved on Iran, not just because Israel sold him a false bill of goods, but also because he was looking for a very short, quick political victory, something that could be framed to the American people to show that the Trump White House,

was the best White House, the strongest White House, the most powerful White House, and that hasn't happened. So not only has the opposite kind of shown, not only do we see major Trump supporters backing away from Trump and Trump voters backing away from Trump, but we also have this question of what's the next two years going to look like. And if we do see a change in the Congress during the midterm elections, then it's going to be even more difficult for Donald Trump to execute his wishes in the Middle East. So it's going to become not only politically difficult, but militarily difficult and legislatively difficult to move troops into the Middle East, especially enough to actually execute the change that we're looking for. Professor Zhang, your response to that?

Yeah. So first of all, you're assuming that if the Democrats take the House in November, there'll be staunchly anti-war. And there's actually no evidence that the Democrats are anti-war. In fact, the Democrats have enabled this administration's warmaking. So I think that if the Democrats were to take the House in November, Donald would actually be under more pressure to use ground forces. Otherwise, he could face impeachment. He would need a distraction.

But what would be, in your eyes, what would be the purpose of committing, ground forces, would it be to affect regime change, or would it be to get the enriched uranium? I mean, what would be the mission? The mission would be to force Iran to a political settlement. Right now, so right now there's an MOU, and there's a sticking point in the MOU, which is Lebanon. The United States has basically given Iran a lot. It's a very, it's a very favorable deal for Iran. So the United States promises to, you know, lift sanctions, give Iran control over the Strip-Harmouth Moos.

So it's a very favorable MOU. But there's a second point, which is that Israel must withdraw from Lebanon. And Iran is very insistent on that because Hezbollah is a very close ally of the IRGC. Now, what the Americans believe is that, because in terms are so favorable, the Iranians are willing to compromise on this Hezbollah issue. And the IRGC has shown these past few days that they're not willing to compromise. So another strategy is basically to force a military solution. And you do that by eliminating Iran's proxies in Middle East,

which includes Hezbollah, the Huffis, and the Shia Malaysia's in Iraq. And then you dislodge IRGC from the Shriver-Muz, which is the main negotiating chip of the IRGC. Now, these past few days, we've seen massive movements on all fronts. So Saudi Arabia is rallying tribes people, arming them to march against the Houthis. There's this crackdown in back that they call it corruption crackdown. But it's really the Iraqi Prime Minister conserving power, and it's possible he moves against the Shia militias at some point.

The big flashpoint, of course, is Lebanon. So recently, under Marco Rubio, Israel and Lebanon have come to a peace treaty, and this could provoke a civil war between history. and the Lebanese government. There's talk of ISIS coming in from the north, from Syria, and then Israel is going to extend its southern offensive. So I see this as a coordinate attempt to destroy all of Iran's proxies at once.

There have been some multiple arrow strikes against the RGC positions in the shift of who moves, and people expect that that's really softening positions in order to insert ground forces at some point. Yeah, I mean, Andrew, of course, at the core of all this remains Gaza. The Israelis still occupy a large swath of Gaza. Millions have been displaced. You know, 70, 80,000 people killed.

And that is still the irreconcilable element of the whole Middle East thing, which always comes back to Israel, Palestine. But at the same time, you have members of Israeli government like Bengavir now openly demanding genocide in Lebanon, literally saying all of Lebanon must burn in a statement. And to all those who've defended Israel against the charge of genocide in Gaza, here you've got their security minister openly, brazenly demanding a genocide in Lebanon. This is, I think, one of the reasons that Israel's popularity as a country around the world has been falling quite rapidly because you've got these absolute lunatics in the Israeli government who are saying the most unconscionable things. Yeah, between the United States and Israel, which for a long time have been seen as kind of democratic, stabilized, economically focused, you know, countries that are trying to make the world a better place.

for many, many decades, that's the stigma they tried to carry. But here in the last five years, what we've seen is that these countries who actually tried to shape their reputation have just completely disregarded what they once stood for, order, democracy, you know, justice, fairness, it's gone. And that normalization among those world leaders is something that's going to play out in waves, in reverberations and echoes. for decades to come. The United States has now shown that just being a world leader is no longer something that makes you a non-combatant. And that's what we've seen by the rendering of Maduro, is what we saw by them killing the Ayatoll of Iran. They are going after the heads of state, which means any country can now go after heads of state and treat them essentially as combatants when previously they were not. And what we've seen Israel do in Gaza has opened the door to

giving them permission to continue to execute that level of violence, that level of of collateral damage across Lebanon. And if Israel can do it, then why wouldn't the enemies of Israel also do it? What is it that would be holding back other countries that are having smaller-scale skirmishes that the world has 160 active conflicts right now? We only pay attention to four or five of them. But all across Latin America, all across Southeast Asia, all over Europe, there are active conflicts going on.

And there's always been an understood kind of rule, gentlemen, law of how you actually carry out conflict and all that's being thrown away. And in the face of that type of unpredictability, it makes the future far less predictable, far less secure, far less safe, not just for us, but for our posterity as well. Yeah, Professor Zhang, you know, if you talk to the pro-Israeli guess I've had on, and I've had many, they say, look, we've been under constant attack from the Houthis, from Hamas, from Hezbollah, all funded by Iran. This has been going on for decades. And what October the 7th did was it just told the world where this would lead if Israel didn't properly defend itself. In other words, a horrendous terror attack, 3,000 Hamas terrorists

pouring over the border and slaughtering anyone who can get their hands on. And it seemed to have a shock reactive component to this, to the Israeli psyche, I think. And early on, I absolutely defended their right to defend themselves, so they had a moral duty to their people to do it, especially as Hamas was saying, I'm going to keep trying to do this. But as it went on, I did start to question proportionality. And my Israeli guess would get very angry about,

whether they would start citing Dresden, the carpet bombing of Dresden in World War II, or the use of the two atomic bombs to end World War II by the Americans against the Japanese and so on. But as I reminded them, well, that's why the Geneva Convention was brought in. But it seems now that Israel doesn't really care about proportionality. They frame everything as, well, we're going after the terrorists

and if a load of civilians get killed in the process, that's on the terrorists, not on us. They don't seem to care about international law. They have no regard whatsoever to the United Nations or the international courts or anything. So they don't seem to care about the public appropriateness come their way, and they don't seem to care much about proportionality or any of these things. They think they're in a struggle for their very existence,

and Netanyahu's view is just to bomb his way to what he believes is a safer future. I don't think that he's going to work, but what is your view? First of all, if what's happening is completely a response to October 7th, why is Israel, where are there certain members of the Israeli government threatening Turkey and Egypt right now? What did Egypt and Turkey have to do with October 7th? I think something much larger is going on, which is like there are radical elements of the Israeli government who are intent on achieving the greater Israel project. which is what they believe that God promised them in the Bible.

And this land stretches from the Nile in Egypt all the way to the Euphrates in Iraq. It also includes parts of Anatolia, which is modern-day Turkey. It also includes Saudi Arabia. And if you see it from that lens, then a lot of the actions that Israel has been conducting these past two years make a lot more sense. Israel is fighting wars on multiple fronts. And it was really about protecting Israel's sovereignty. would think that they would go out and make friends in the region in order to better protect their

people. But instead, Israel has been starting wars over the place. You also have Israeli soldiers in Argentina right now. You also have Jared Kushner trying to buy this island, Sazan Island, in the Adriatic, which has caused all these protests in Albania. So you ask yourself, you know, if all Israel is concerned about it is protecting its national borders, why is Israel spreading all across the world right now? Yeah, I mean, Andrew, you know, I look at what's happening just on the West Bank with the aggressive expansion of the settlements in a very violent manner. I look at the language of Ben-Givir and Smodrich about Lebanon and about Gaza, you know, and, you know, people can argue about whether it's a genocide or ethnic cleansing or whatever it is,

But what is inarguable, I think, is that the likes of Bengavir and Smodrich, you have senior positions in the Israeli government, would love to see all the Palestinians out of Gaza, out of the West Bank, out of southern Lebanon, at the very least. So I do agree with Professor Zhang. I think there is, for some constituent of this Israeli government, there is a far grander plan here, and they see it as an opportunity to try and make it happen. Yeah, I'm in the same boat as the two of you. I think what we're seeing now, not just in Israel, but across the world is a swing in the political pendulum in the direction of strong man leadership. And strong men are able to capitalize on opportunities using violence, using economic manipulation, using social repressions. And that's exactly what we're seeing here in the United States. It's also what we're seeing in Israel.

It's also what we're seeing in Russia. It's also what we're saying in China. It's what we're seeing in the countries that are perpetually in the headlines. Those countries that are winning and racing against each other are the ones who are essentially abandoning democratic process and embracing this kind of strongman borderline dictatorship, borderline fascist kind of approach to pushing their policies in the face of everyone and everything. It's especially upsetting in a place like Israel and a place like the United States because we claim to have a separate judicial process. and the strong men in charge of both the United States and Israel are facing criminal charges in multiple other areas. So you have to wonder whether or not they're just trying to do what's best for their country. Are they just trying to gain economic freedom, just trying to gain military security, just trying to gain national sovereignty?

Or are they trying to do those things aggressively in the hopes that it will defer, delay, and distract from their own criminal issues? Professor Zhang, as we look at the situation with this Iran war, can you see any way that America stroke Israel come out of this with a legitimate claim to victory? It's very hard. America's stuck where it is. Israel is intent on the greater Israel project, so Israel will not withdraw from Lebanon. They've been very, very clear about this, that they won't expand the war. and all signs are that Israel can only become more aggressive as time it goes by.

But for Israel to fight the war alone in the Middle East will be suicidal. They cannot possibly withstand an assault from Iran. And we've seen that already, that these Iranian ballistic missiles can easily bypass the Iron Dome. And so Israel really needs America to fight this war on their behalf. And unfortunately, what we've also seen is that APEC and the Zionist forces in America have tremendous political leverage. And it seems that Donald Trump, for other reasons, is beholden to them. And I think that Donald Trump is just going to do whatever he's told to do. Fascinating stuff.

Gentlemen, I've got to leave it there. Thank you both very much indeed. A really interesting conversation. Pierce Morgan Nuss Sensen 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.