Piers Morgan Uncensored - 'NOBODY Wants US To Intervene' Trump Threatens Iran | With Patrick Bet-David

Episode Date: January 14, 2026

As the bodies of protesters pile high in Iran, President Trump has implied it won’t be long until US military boots are on the ground. This leads to many questions, including whether it’s America’s fight to fight - and what regime change would actually look like in real life. But the only humanitarian position is to be deeply and vocally appalled by what Iran’s leaders have done to the people of a once-great country. There’s a big debate to be had about Trump’s sudden zest for global meddling - and Piers Morgan has it; with System Update host Glenn Greenwald, The Young Turks’ Ana Kasparian, broadcaster Jorge Ramos (who was detained by the Maduro regime in 2019), and Iranian-American foreign policy analyst Lisa Daftari. Piers also has one-on-one conversations with Kentucky Republican, Senator Rand Paul, US ambassador to Denmark in the first Trump administration, Carla Sands and Iran-born entrepreneur and CEO of Valuetainment Patrick Bet-David. Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent and supported by: Oxford Natural: To watch their full stories, scan the QR code on your screen or visit https://oxfordnatural.com/piers/ to get 70% off your first order when you use code PIERS. Cozy Earth: Start the New Year with real comfort. Go to https://cozyearth.com/PIERS for up to 20% off. Mando: Control Body Odor ANYWHERE with @shop.mando and get 20% off + free shipping with promo code PIERS at https://shopmando.com! #mandopod Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

America has played scared. Let's just face it. We haven't had a expansionist president in our lifetime, period. There is a huge hypocrisy in the way that most people in the West have even paid attention to what's going on in Iran. In just three days, we don't have an exact death toll, but it could be more people than have been killed in Gaza and over the three years. Oh, my God. That's preposterous. You are so privileged. We should just invent statistics. We just had home.

talk about how there's 70 to 80,000 people who've been slaughtered in Iran. Two thousand people might have been slaughtered in Gaza. I got him elected twice. He was stone-called loser. You're a stone-called loser. Your response. I guess he's got this stone-called stunner thing that's happened to him. And maybe he's confused and thinks I'm Steve Austin. As the bodies of protesters pile high in Iran, one fact stands clear in a deeply complex debate about American supremacy. The Islamic regime is vile.

We don't need to speculate about executions, torture, and repression of women because the regime wants its own people to see the consequences of its dissent, of their dissent. We don't need to exaggerate Iran's support for global terror because the regime wants its own people to believe in its power when it leads them in chance of death to Britain and death to America. And we don't need to amplify Iran's brutality because the regime itself says that thousands of died and mis cracked down and that some protesters could be hanged today.

President Trump last night implied that Iran was close to crossing his red line. If they hang them, you're going to see some things that, I don't know where you come from and what your thought process is, but you'll perhaps be very happy. What do you mean by that? We will take very strong action. If they do such a thing, we will take very strong action. We don't want to see what's happening in Iran happen. And, you know, if they want to have protests, that's one thing.

When they start killing thousands of people and now you're telling me about hanging, we'll see how that works out for them. It's not going to work out good. It kind of calls the question whether and why this is our fight. You can worry about what regime change looks like in reality. You can vehemently oppose British or American troops being sent to any Middle Eastern conflict. But the only humanitarian position is to be deeply and vocally appalled by what Iran's leaders have done to the people of a once great country.

Many influential people who were justified the outraged by the atrocities in Gaza have said little or nothing about the mass murder of Iranian protesters. They're so wedded to opposing Israel that anything Israel could benefit from is automatically deemed suspicious or wrong. To be clear, it works both ways.

Many prominent supporters of Israel who suddenly found a very deep concern for human rights in the Middle East were cheering the IDF as children starved or were killed. There's a big debate to be had about President Trump's southern zest for global meddling, and we're going to have it. But whatever happens next, the Iranian protesters deserve our support, and there can surely be no real debate about that.

Well, joining me now as Kentucky Republican, Senator Rand Paul. Senator Paul, great to have you back on our censor. Yeah, thanks for having me. What do you make of what is happening in Iran? As we're about to start this interview, it's been announced the United States is pulling out military personnel from its air base in Qatar, that is the largest air base in the Middle East for the American military.

How significant do you think that is? Are we about to see more strikes along the lines of what we saw last summer? I think the one thing we can all agree on is we hope and wish for the best for the Iranian people. We'd love to see them live in a free society. As you mentioned, Iran was once a great country. It's a populist nation, has great natural resources for many, many decades. They were leaning towards Europe. They had Western traditions.

They were open. You didn't see veils on the women. The women dressed in Western wear. They were very open. There was an intellectual society. Many of those intellectuals ultimately fled over time as the religious zealots took over. So we all want what's best for them.

My concern with bombing Iran, though, is that you might get the opposite. Right now, the ire, the dander, the emotion and the protest is to oppose the mullahs, to oppose the religious government. The problem is, is when bombs begin dropping from Americans, will that shift the anger of the people away from their mullahs, will they rally around their flag,

and will nationalism supplant, will the anger towards America dropping bombs be greater than their anger towards the mullahs? So I think there's a danger that you shift the balance here away from the freedom movement, and so I would be very, very cautious with doing this, I'm also kind of a stickler for the Constitution. I think you don't bomb anybody without asking the people

through the representatives. Yeah, I mean, Donald Trump has been increasingly bellicose in his rhetoric about this, but what he can actually do, which doesn't have the impact that you just warned about, is a matter for a lot of conjecture, I think. Do you think, separate to what America may or may not do, do you feel, as many seem to,

including the German Chancellor, that we are at a genuine tipping point with this Iranian regime, that it could fall? You know, I don't know if I have the particular insight to tell you one way or the other. I can tell you that even growing up during the Cold War, I was always perplexed. You know, how could people live under Stalin?

How could 37 million people die and that the people didn't rise up? There's always more people than there are, you know, autocrats, you know. how does a few autographs, or maybe a few thousand of these mullahs, how do they control a country of what, I don't know, 60, 80 million people? How does that happen? And so I am perplexed that they don't, but I don't have particular insight as to when it happens. I will say that I was struck at the end of the Cold War, how, you know, we all worried about a nuclear war. We

worried about a war with Russia that would occur. And instead, it just sort of disappeared, almost. I mean, just the walls came tumbling down and large protest after large protest transformed into freedom. And I hope and wish for that in Iran. I just don't know that bombs facilitated. I'm worried that bombs, American bombs, will have the unintended consequence

of actually delaying freedom for Iran. Would they be constitutional bombs in the sense that Donald Trump, many feel, is riding roughshod over the Constitution and over what his powers as president are? going to come to Venezuela in a moment, because I know you've been quite vocal about that. But, you know, is he able to just launch a bombing campaign against the Mueller's without prior debate and support from Congress, for example?

You know, our founding fathers were very clearly debated this from Jefferson to Hamilton. The entire spectrum of the founding fathers believed that the war power had been placed, the initiation of war, the declaration of war had been placed in the legislature. But can he do it? If Congress lacks any kind of ambition to protect their legislative power, yes. And that's what's been going on for 70-some-odd years. Their strongest argument is, well, we've always done this. We've been doing it for 100 years.

Who would you say we can't do it? But we had an interesting briefing yesterday. We read the Office of Legal Counsel's formal declaration or legal arguments for why the president had the power to do this. their main argument is that there isn't a war. So I asked the young assistant attorney general when he came to our lunch, I said, well, what is a constitutional war? And he said, well, you have to have, you know,

scope, duration, and extent, and you have to have like a lot of casualties. I said, how many casualties? And he said, well, that's not really defined, but a lot. And I said, well, how do we decide on initiating a war if we don't know if it's a war until after we count the casualties? Or after we know the extent of the war,

after we know how long it is, or how many boots on the ground. You don't really know that at the initiation. The initiation is really to say, we're at war with these people because we're really angry because they did this, or they attacked our shipping, or they attacked our outpost. That's what the initiation of war is. But these people say, well, this isn't a war,

and you'll know it's a war later on someday. But then how do we initiate a war that's already after the war is over? I mean, it's crazy, circular logic. But this is what we're up against. But Congress could stop a president, but it would take a lot more wherewithal and courage than this Congress appears to have.

Let's turn to Venezuela. The Senate's expected to take another procedural vote today on limiting President Trump's war powers in Venezuela. You and four other Republican senators voted for the war powers resolution that would limit his ability to conduct further attacks in Venezuela. And you said, I think bombing a capital and removing the head of state is by all definitions, war.

Does this mean we have carte blanche that the president can make the decision at any time, anywhere, to invade a foreign country and remove people that we've accused of a crime? Now, Trump, by way of response, said that you and other four Republicans who voted this way should never be elected to office again. And yesterday, he ramped up his Rand Paul rhetoric

calling you a stone-cold loser. Let's take a listen to this. So one of our top priorities that this mission is promoting greater affordability. Now, that's the word used by the Democrats. They're the ones that cause the problem. The one thing, they stick together. They don't have some of the people that we have.

They don't have a rant poll that votes against everything. I got him elected twice. He was stone-called loser. I went to Kentucky, where I won by a lot. I did a rally for him. Then it did another rally. He won. Then I went the second time he won.

Then he votes against all the time. It's just crazy. I don't get it. It's crazy, and you're a stone-called loser who without him wouldn't even be a senator, Rand Paul. Your response. Today's show is sponsored by Oxford Natural, makers of the optimum day and optimum night

all-natural supplements. Thousands of Brits and Americans are already taking them with incredible results. Optimum day boosts your energy and supports weight loss throughout the day. Optimum night helps you relax, and get deep, refreshing sleep. They have countless success stories, including from some very familiar faces.

England legend Michael Owen, we lost £40. AFTV's Robbie, we lost more than £100. To watch their full stories and many more, scan the QR code on your screen or visit Oxfordnatural.com slash peers. And here's the best part. Use the code peers and get 70% off your first order. You're 70% off with the code peers.

Well, you know what I was reminded of? You know, Trump was one at one time a worldwide wrestler. He was on the W.W.E. He's actually in the Hall of Fame. And one of his interactions is with Stone Cold Steve Austin. And Stone Cold Steve Austin was famous for his stone cold stunner move where he kicks you in the stomach and then knocks you down. And so there's actually an episode where Trump is in the ring and he's kicked hard in the stomach and pummeled to the ground.

and I guess he's got this stone-called stunner thing that's happened to him, and maybe he's confused and thinks I'm Steve Austin, but this is not worldwide wrestling, and, you know, look, we're mature people. There are many things I support the president on, but, you know, I promise to defend the Constitution. The debate over war powers is bigger than Donald Trump. It's bigger than me, and it's been going on for, you know, my entire lifetime. So I've informed the president it's not personal.

Look, I voted for 91% of his legislation. I voted for nearly 100% of his nominees. I've been one of his biggest defenders when he was impeached twice. If he can't appreciate that, that's too bad. But at the same time, I haven't given up supporting the president. I support him on many things.

I actually like him personally. I enjoy his time. I've known him for a decade. I've played golf with him dozens of times. And so maybe he'll come around. Maybe this is New York stick, or maybe this is WWE stick? I'm not sure what it is. I think you'll come around.

I mean, I've known him 20 years, and the last time I interviewed him, he didn't like some of the criticism I leveled at him, and he went on a rally stage and said, I was so dead, I was catching flies. And then we had a very nice chat about a few months later. So I think he, a lot of this is performative, I think, with President Trump.

And I suspect he grudgingly respects the fact you are prepared to stand up to him because so many people don't. And I think it's healthy. in a democracy for people to criticize even their good friends in politics. That's what you should be doing. You appeared on the Joe Rogan experience in an episode release yesterday,

and you said this about the attacks on Venezuelan boats. I look at my colleagues who say they're pro-life and they value God's inspiration in life, but they don't give a shit about these people in the boats. And are they terrible people in votes? I don't know. They're probably poor people

in Venezuela and Colombia, Colombia. And really, they say, well, we're at war with them. They're committing war by bringing drugs into America. They're not even coming here. They're going to these islands in the south part of the Caribbean, and the cocaine, and it's not fentanyl at all. The cocaine's going to Europe. Those little boats can't get here.

I mean, their argument will be that their intelligences, these are drug boats bringing illegal drugs across the water, perhaps ending up in America, perhaps killing Americans. If that was the case, hypothetically, If these are all drug boats and they're not innocent people, then do they have a legitimate defense of what they've been doing? The reason they want to equate drugs as a weapon and make this a war is because normally you don't kill unarmed people.

So if tomorrow you decided to go out and shoot a bunch of people on a boat, it would be murder. But if you're coming from the government and you say there's a war, then it's not. But the idea that drugs are a weapon, you know, you'd have to imagine that the big pallets of cocaine, they'd come and they hit you over the head with them, and then they would be a weapon, and then they would force you to take the cocaine. They're coming here for our black market, for people who are voluntarily buying it. But it's actually most of the drugs that we've been shooting the people aren't coming here.

Those drugs are verifiably going to small islands in the South Caribbean and being exported to Europe primarily, and there's no fentanyl. Zero. None of the, and the fentanyl is a scourge. We've had so many deaths, and it's a tragedy. You know, I know two young brothers who both died from an accident over us. It's terrible, but this has nothing to do with fentanyl, and it's basically an excuse. But here's the rub, even if it were a war, even if these people were viable people in a war, in a war, according to our military justice code, you do not kill people who are shipwrecked. So September 2nd, they blew up a boat, killed like eight or ten people, but two people were swimming around, clutching to the shipwreck, and they went back and killed them. That is unlawful, even in times of war, is not justifiable. And when I hear my colleagues just who are, you know, all for the unborn and all for your little children, which I am too, not cared all about these people.

And it's like, well, they're drug dealers. Well, they may have been. they're accused of being drug dealers, not convicted. If they got the drugs to Miami, they got off the boat and they put them in a U-Haul, and they're going up the road, do we take a grenade launcher and blow up the truck? We don't do that.

That's not who we are as a people, but the fact that it doesn't bother my colleagues, that they're jolly well just fine with killing people, I think it's disturbing and says something about their ability to think through what actually is going on here and they're blinded by loyalty to the president and have given up on thoughts of justice or due process. On the removal of President Maduro himself,

another very contentious thing to have happened. Everyone agrees that the military operation that was conducted was pretty well faultless and had no loss of life on the American military end. But many people also feel, it goes in line with what you've been talking about, that this has broken the conventional rules of the international order that you don't go into another sovereign country

and just snatch the leader of that country and take them to yours. What do you feel about what happened there? You know, they've been mostly justifying and trying to convince people by saying, we were just arresting him. He had a warrant, we have a warrant for his arrest, and a grand jury had indicted him.

But nobody's really true. really thinking through this, he's indicted for breaking American laws. Are we in the business of indicting people around the world who break our laws, who aren't even in our country? How do you break a law in our country when you don't live in our country? So one of the things he's accused of his drugs, and everybody glosses over that, but those are American drug laws. They're not Venezuelan. But the other thing, in the indictment, they actually accuse him of owning or conspiring to own machine guns. Well, every leader in the whole world has soldiers protecting them with machine guns.

Does that mean we could arrest anybody around the world? Look at Brazil. They've got the former president in jail for life. The current president and the Supreme Court, many say are corrupt. Many say he's an illegitimate leader. Bolsonaro said he stole the election. Would it be our job if we believe Bolsonaro to go in, remove helicopter out the president of Brazil,

break into the jail and let Bolsonaro out? I mean, is our job to go to Saudi Arabia and arrest the people who may or may not have been connected to killing Washington Post journalist Khashoggi? I mean, you can go around the world. Throughout Africa, at any point in time, there's one or two dictators that are committing human rights atrocities. But what is the difference?

Right, but Senator Paul, what would be the moral distinction? Put the legality to one side for a moment. But the moral distinction, some would say, look, we went into Pakistan in the cover of night with a bunch of Navy SEALs and we murdered Osama bin Laden. He, I don't know what his criminal record was or wasn't in the United States, but taking your logic, was that a justified operation by the United States or not? Well, the big difference is he attacked us.

I mean, 9-11 was an attack. Right, but he himself wasn't in the United States when it happened. And I guess the argument the administration were put up is, what Maduro was conducting, in their eyes, conducting these drug wars against America's, but from Venezuela, and they would say that bin Laden was conducting attacks on America from outside.

I think there are different arguments because I think the argument against bin Laden is that it was an act of war, 9-11 was an attack war, and he was the mastermind, and I think there is evidence of that. With regard to Maduro, you know, my understanding is, I don't think even the government

believes they have a very strong connection of him to drugs. Do you think there's going to be a video or an audio of Maduro saying, hey, we got a couple kilos, see if you can get $1,000 a kilo, and they'll be offloading it at the port at Caracas. You think they're going to have that?

What they're going to do is convicting the way they do always, and this is a danger even to Americans. They do it through conspiracy. They lump a whole bunch of them together. They don't prove any of them individually, and they get enough people just to say, I hate drugs, and he was a terrible autocrat. Let's put him in prison.

And they will put him in prison. He will rot somewhere in the United States. But I think really what I'm debating isn't so much that Maduro was something he wanted to save. I'm glad he's gone. I wrote a book called The Case Against Socialism. I've written about Venezuela and socialism. But it's important for people to know the government that remains is his government. His government remains.

The socialism didn't start with Maduro. It didn't start with Chavez. It started with Perez back in the 70s. They nationalized the oil, the gas companies in 71, the oil companies in 76. They finally took away all private property in 2007. Part of the debate about this isn't that one socialist is better than other, but that freedom is better than socialism. Because if the Venezuelan people choose another socialist, they'll be back in the same situation of privation and poverty within a number of years. Every new year I think about what a real fresh start looks like, and for me it always begins at home.

Cozy Earth is my go-to for a winter blues busting reset. They've just launched their new Baja bedding set, and you really need to check this out. It's their first fully matching collection. Sheets, duvet cover, quilt, coverlet, all inspired are the soothing tones of Baja California. The designs are classy, the fabrics are premium, and they'll give your bedroom an elevated resort-light look. And the cozy earth product that I use every day? the Lux Bath towels. These towels are incredible, made from a cotton and bamboo viscous blend with zero-twist

technology. So they're plush, absorbent, and feel like a warm hug when you step out of the shower. Everything comes with a 100-night sleep trial and a 10-year warranty. So start the new year with real comfort. Go to cozyearth.com and use my code peers, P-I-E-R-S, for up to 20% off. That's cozyEarth.com, code peers. And if you get a post-purched survey, mention you heard about Cozy Earth right here.

So, Paul, a final question. I just want to play you a clip of Donald Trump yesterday at a Ford factory in Michigan. Now, this was him, I believe, the parlance is flipping the bird at a Ford worker who turned out to be a man named T.J. Sabula, who's now been suspended, but says he has no regrets. He was screaming at Trump, you're a paedophile protector. The White House communicationist director Stephen Chung

said in the statement, a lunatic was wildly screaming expletives in a complete fit of rage and the president gave an appropriate and unambiguous response. Do you think the president's response was appropriate? I guess I would start with the person who yells. People think that freedom of speech

means you can say anything you want, anywhere you want. But if you work for me, and I'm Mr. Ford, and I say you have to behave with decorum whether it's President Obama or President Trump, I'll fire your ass if you're not polite and you need to be polite. At your workplace, you've got to. You do not have freedom of speech

to call your boss a knucklehead. You don't have private property means the people control the property, have some controls of your behavior. So the person was inappropriate. Whether the president was appropriate or not, I'm not going to make a judgment on it. I wasn't there. I didn't hear it.

But I think it's a useful lesson about speech that you can say anything you want. The government shouldn't put you in jail, but your employer has no obligation to keep you on if you're rude when you've invited the president to your business. It sounds like you're kind of defending the president's right to flip the bird.

Take it as you will. Interpret it as you must, Pierce. Senator Paul, great to have you back on our sense. Thank you very much. Thank you. Well, you're going to me now to discuss Iran, Venezuela, Greenland, and more, And indeed, the presidential bird flip is Glenn Greenwald, the host of System Update,

Anna Gersperrin, executive producer and host of The Young Turks, author, journalist and broadcaster Jorge Ramos, who was detained by the Maduro regime in 2019, and the Iranian-American foreign policy analyst Lisa Dafthari. Welcome to all of you, a stellar panel. Happy new year to all of you to get the civil stuff out the way early so that we can have the less-than-scivil stuff later. As things turn a little Trump-like and inappropriate, doubtless,

as we get into these things. Let's start with that. Clean Greenwall. President of the United States flipping the bird and an American car worker, appropriate? Honestly, it's not something that particularly bothers me. I think, though at the same time,

it's perfectly fine for a factory worker who feels like President Trump's policies have been harmful to him and his economic security and his family's economic security to scream at him, as well. That is the nature of the United States. We don't have royalty.

We're not expected to be totally deferential or even necessarily polite to our political leaders. And I thought what he did was fine. And you can make an argument of presidential decorum, but I'm not really bothered by what President Trump did either. Anna Kasparian, what did you think of that incident? I thought it was

a perfect representation of what President Trump thinks about the ordinary American worker. And I think his actions and his politics and his policies have made that abundantly clear. But that vile gesture to an American worker helps you kind of visualize what he actually thinks about Americans. That's what I think. I mean, the worker was screaming at him, pedophile protector. Yeah, because he is. He is a pedophile protector. Has still to comply with the order to release the Epstein files. We got one batch that's heavily redacted.

supposedly more was on the way. No, he wants to engage in the cover-up. I mean, I think that's been abundantly clear from day one. And what is that cover-up about? It's about covering up for a pedophile and his co-conspirators. So it is what it is. It's true. Jorge Ramos, two things I guess from this. One is the free speech part.

Should Ford have suspended this guy for asking that question or making that statement about the president? And should the president have responded by flipping the bird? I mean, are we surprised? I wasn't. I saw him and said that's precisely Donald Trump. That's just one example. Just recently, you know what has happened in Minneapolis,

and the way he has referred to René Good is simply not appropriate. And the way he's been criticizing immigrants and calling them rapists and criminals, that's not appropriate. So I'm really not surprised by Donald Trump. Not at this point, not after so many years since we have. have known them. And with regard to Ford suspending this employee? Well, it's a, if it's a private company, probably they can do whatever they want. I mean, and we as journalists, we have limits. There are certain things that I cannot say,

well, child pornography, I cannot just create a danger when it doesn't happen. And if there's a defamation, I'm responsible. But if it's a private company, it is very, very, those are different rules. However, I'm for complete freedom. I mean, I think we can and should say whatever we want, but then there are consequences and we just saw it. Lisa, it feels slightly trivial, I guess, to be starting with this. It was only because I ended the conversation with Rand Paul. But what do you believe this incident says about modern America

where the President of the United States is giving the finger to an American car worker? Yeah, I think this Trump derangement syndrome has given people a bit too much liberty to act and behave in certain ways where school day is canceled when Donald Trump is elected president because people have to emotionally process. And this is a democratic society, and yes, we have our freedom. So we should also have a certain level of respect for the institution of the presidency.

Because, look, President Trump won't always be in office, but will we remain a society that disrespects police, teachers, elected officials, and, of course the president? Right. Can I just quickly interject on that? Yeah. Sorry. Yeah.

This phrase Trump derangement syndrome. This was invented by Charles Crosher, who was a Washington Post columnist and a psychiatrist back in the Bush years to pathologize people who are criticizing George Bush for the war on terror, basically saying they were mentally ill. It then got transported to every president, Obama derangement syndrome, now Trump derangement syndrome, which is basically a way of saying that if you vehemently oppose. your president, that you have some sort of like behavioral problem. That is the spirit of America going back since it's founding as we curse our leaders. We can say the worst things about them. And the idea that somehow Trump gets an unusual amount or a unique amount of abuse, go look what conservatives were saying about Joe Biden and Barack Obama. They were communist dictators. They were incredibly corrupt. Obama wasn't even born here. He was born in Kenya.

I mean, this idea that somehow now that Trump's president were all supposed to be elevated, our level of respect. It's just very un-American. That's just not how our citizenry relates to our political leadership. I do think, though, that Donald Trump has a unique ability to make people on the left lose their minds. And I do think he does it quite deliberately, and he's very good at it. And I do feel that people on the left would benefit collectively from not losing their minds constantly about everything Trump does, because there's enough stuff you can go after Trump about. which is legitimately worthy of attention, energy, criticism, and debate without going over every single thing he's... Like covering up the Epstein files.

Well, yeah, I agree. That's worth it. Right? Covering up for pedophiles, that's worth it. I totally agree. Totally agree. I'm not talking about that at all. But I'm saying if you scream about absolutely everything, then ultimately it dilutes the impact, I think, of taking him on in a smart way.

But that's why I can't get worked up over Trump. extending his middle finger when we're talking about, you know, arming Israel and its destruction of Gaza, what he's doing it around with. And I do agree that the liberal tendency to be maximalist about everything Trump does has watered down the genuine criticism because they're constantly screaming fascist and Nazi. It loses its sting for the times that you actually need it.

Yeah, I agree. Let's talk about Iran. Not one of the beauties of America. I mean, when I first came to the United States from Mexico, Mexico was not a democracy. One of the things that I truly love early 1980s is how journalists were criticizing then Ronald Reagan. And my first reaction, that's incredible. And I said, this is exactly the country where I want to be a journalist.

So that's part of the beauty of America. Yeah, yeah. I completely concur. Look, in England, we've now, the UK, we've had 12,000 people arrested last year for speech. 12,000. I mean, it's absolutely shocking to me. I mean, that's the kind of thing. If it happened in a fascist state, you'd say,

OK, they're fascists, but it's happening in my country. 12,000 people arrested the stuff they said on social media or whatever it may be. Quite terrifying, actually. Let's turn to Iran. Let's start with you, Glenn, on Iran. I posted today something I've just been thinking about this week, which is that there's been a kind of deafening silence from Hollywood.

The Golden Globes came and went in the middle of all this with no celebrity mentioning the Iranian protesters. Very few high-profile media people who've been very vocal about what's happened, for example, in Gaza, have said anything about it either. And to me, there is a moral hypocrisy and cowardice going on here. And it's linked to the fact that in their heads, they believe this is all benefiting Israel, that Israel's tentacles are clearly involved here in fermenting the protests and encouraging America to take action and so on, which may well all be true. but it doesn't change the fact that to me it's warped their humanity from queuing up and protesting in large numbers

about what's happening in Gaza, quite rightly, but zero complaint or protests or offers of sympathy or empathy to the Iranian protesters. What do you say to that? New Year is all about starting a fresh and today's sponsor will help you to do exactly that. Mando whole body deodorant.

is created by doctors and clinically proven to block odour for up to 72 hours. Powered by mandelic acid is free of all the bad stuff like baking soda, paraben and aluminium. Some men mask their BO with scents. Mando men get the job done right. Don't mask it, man do it. You'll find it in many top retailers or you can head to shopmando.com where for a limited time new customers get 20% off sitewide with our exclusive code. Use the code peers, P-I-E-R-S, at ShopMand-A-R-S.

Mando.com with 20% off sitewide plus free shipping. Shopman.com. Please support our show and tell them that we send ship. Mando's got you come. I couldn't disagree with that more for two reasons. First of all, Americans protest what their government does because that's what they can influence. They protested the Vietnam War that the U.S. was waging.

They protested U.S. support for the apartheid regime of South Africa. because that's what the U.S. was doing. They protest the U.S. support and financing and arming of Israel's destruction of Gaza because that was what the United States was doing. The United States isn't supporting Iran. What would these protests, what would their impact be? The reason why people protest is because they want their government to change their policy. That's the first thing.

The second thing is, I think most people understand, although it's completely excluded from Western elite, political and media discourse, that the United States and Great Britain love tyranny of this kind. The United States and Great Britain not just do business with, but prop up and keep in power some of the worst, most repressive savage tyrannies on the planet in Saudi Arabia, in the United Arab Emirates, in Egypt, in all kinds of countries in that region, in Uganda, in Rwanda, why aren't people going out on the street and protesting that? And nobody asks about that. And I think the reason is is because they, that the argument here, the real, what's really

driving this concern about Iran is not that we're so concerned about repression and tyranny because we're such great humanitarian because the U.S. has done more to remove democratically elected governments and installed dictatorships than the other way around. It's because Iran is viewed as a geopolitical enemy of the United States and Israel. And that's why so few people care about repression. in our greatest allies in Saudi Arabian Egypt and the like. But I think the main one is the question is they're protesting U.S. policy when they protest what's going on in Gaza, and the U.S. isn't supporting Iran.

Yeah, look, I would say to that, I'll come to you now, Lisa, but I would say to that, that doesn't stop a Hollywood star standing up in a public platform like the Golden Globes where they were all supporting, for example, the woman who was shot dead by the ICE officer. They were, a lot of them supporting still what's happening in Gaza and the people, the Palestinian people. none of them wanted to express public support for the Iranian people.

And I was distraught by that. So I think you don't have to protest necessarily as publicly offers support. I'm not saying much of that from the people who'd be leading the calls for people to support and show empathy for the Palestinians. Do you feel there is a double standard in the way this has been treated? Absolutely. There is a huge hypocrisy in the way that most people in the West have even paid attention. to what's going on in Iran over the last two weeks.

In just three days, we don't have an exact death toll, but it could be more people than have been killed in Gaza and over the three years that we had that war, two and a half years of that war. But why are you saying, oh, my God, I mean, can I speak? You know, you know what, with this. Please, go ahead, go ahead. But that is, that is just, you shouldn't just invent statistics.

You shouldn't just invent. Oh, you're not privileged? Where do you live? Where do you live? I'm talking about the Iranian people. I will never, I will never take away from the fight of the Iranian people because of where I say, you know why I do what I do? I'm not taking away from the Iranian people.

I just don't want people to lie about them and I don't want my government intervening militarily. Showing my hair and not losing my life for it. That's where I feel privileged. This whole conversation, Pierce, points to one thing. You're totally privileged. You're totally privileged. Don't use that as an argument to weaponize. Why are you speaking over me?

I want to hear about it. Lisa, where are your thoughts? Well, look, I'm not right. Time out. All of you. Hang on one second. Let's not all talk at the same time. I think we can say this. I think Lisa, hang on, Lisa, hang on.

Let's just get to some reported facts as we understand them. In Gaza, it has been reported widely that the death toll is around 70 to 80,000. Now, that is a matter of conjecture. People say it could be higher. Some have said it may be too high. But that is the general. accepted number. But we're talking about that. And most of those were terrorists. But we're talking, but that's a period. We have to talk back. Lisa, let me finish.

Let me finish. Those lives don't matter. But that's in a period of over two years. And then, then we come to what's happened here. And it's been reported, admitted by the Iranians, that it's at least 2,000. Other reports, CBS say they believe, from what they're hearing on the ground, it could be 12,000 or more. And we don't know. We don't know because the internet has been turned off. Information flow is terrible. The footage we're seeing most of it is old footage, regurgitated for propaganda purposes, on all sides. We just don't really know what's going on. So you, look, you might be right, but Glenn is also right to write. But hang on, Lisa, let me finish. Let me finish, Lisa. Glenn might be, I think he's understanding me saying,

hang on a second. You've got to say glibly, not you are being glib, but just to throw out there, the idea that 70,000 people have been killed. We just don't know that. So I think that we should. Can I pick up where 40, we don't even have to focus on the last two weeks. Why don't we focus on 47 years? Thousands and thousands have been killed for a mere Facebook post, for showing their hair, for dressing a certain way, for being an athlete, for being a journalist, pushed off the top of a building as a medical student because they were protesting peacefully against the government. Can we talk about the fact that in 1979, this government came in and launched an ideological war that all of you are victims, too, that are spewing these talking points.

Why? Because they wanted to remember ISIS that we were all afraid of? Why? Because we're not foot soldiers for the Zionists? Is that why? Because we're not foot soldiers for Zionists, the same Zionists that are trying to co-opt an organic uprising in Iran and essentially ruin it. Is that why? They want to export, export their ideology. And that is why they are a threat to the United States. They are a threat to Europe. All right. Of course, the region and to the Iranian.

Okay, let me. They're not a threat to the United States. They're a threat to Israel, and that's what your primary concern here is. And if you cared about the people of Iran, which I do, you wouldn't want foreign actors getting involved to co-op that movement and essentially install a monarch, that the people of Iran do not want. Please don't talk over each other or no one can hear either of you. Anna. I'm sure they could hear me.

No, I'm just saying. I mean, look, the people of Iran deserve the type of leadership. and government they want. And I hate the fact that an organic demonstration has effectively been co-opted by Israeli interests who brag almost on a daily basis at this point about how they have Mossad on the ground. Mossad bragged about it. Amishai Eliahu, who is the cultural minister in Israel, bragged about it. Israeli papers are bragging about it. Mike Pompeo, former Secretary of State, is bragging about it. Okay, having those types of insidious actors co-opting that demonstration is going to be to the detriment of Iran.

And if Iranians want freedom, installing a Shah, installing a monarch who hasn't lived in the country for 47 years, makes absolutely no sense. That's your opinion. That's your opinion. What they want is being exploited. Lisa, Lisa, let me bring in. It's not my opinion. I want to bring in Hoy.

He's been listening very patiently to this. Hoy, you've covered Iran. unlike so many other issues for a very long time. My first question to you, do you believe we are, as the Chancellor of Germany has suggested, we are seeing now the beginning of the end of this regime, or do you think that is fanciful? Well, hopefully it's going to be the beginning of the end.

I mean, we've been following the massacres that have been happening in Iran for so many years. And then we've all seen the videos. The video is just horrible. The fact that we cannot agree on the number of people who have been killed in... Iran is horrible. And now, let me just add that what we are here in the United States also debating is what would be the role of the United States and what President Donald Trump should

do, because he threatened that he was going to participate in somehow if the number of people kill would raise, and then the numbers are incredible. I mean, we started with 2000, probably is 12,000. So for me, the question, that the real question is, if this new doctrine, Don Roe doctrine, is going to extend from Venezuela to Iran. I think that's the main question here in the United States. Yeah, I mean, look, I would say to Anna's point, for example, that two things can be true at once.

I mean, many things can be true at once, but it can be that the Iranian people have organically risen up as they've tried before against their regime, because it's a despicable regime that represses them and treats them horrifically badly. And that's why they've done it. And it may be that at the same time, Israel senses a real opportunity to remove its main enemy in the region that's gone out of its way to empower and arm and monetize terror groups from Hamas to Hezbollah and the Houthis. So these things could all be true at the same time.

The issue I have in terms of public pronouncements by people is that they seem to take a moral distinction between the lies of the Israeli protesters who are genuinely risking their lives to get out on the country. the streets to battle for their freedom and democracy, when if it's Palestinians doing it, there's an unequivocal support and marching through streets showing support, not just protest. And I think we're just not seeing that from many of the same people from Iran. To me, that is a double standard. And the response from the US. I think part of the problem is we don't have a firm grasp on how many people have been killed. I mean, I don't doubt that hundreds of people.

We're seeing a lot of body bags. Even one. But we don't know the details yet. We don't know the details yet. Okay, there is clarity because of the fact that the internet's been shut down and people don't have access to accurate information about it. Stop interrupting me. I'm trying to make a point about how people do care.

If I said that to you about what was happening in Gaza, you would blow your gasket in fury that I was doubting the number of people being killed. The denials of how many people have been slaughtered there. Right, but you wouldn't try and argue the point about a number of people being killed in Gaza. And now you're trying to deny the Iranian people and their death toll. And what I'm telling you is even if we don't even look at the last two weeks. Can we just talk about the disparities that are being reported right now? Because we just had Homegirl talk about how there's 70 to 80,000 people who've been slaughtered in Iran.

No, because that number is not 70,000 people might have been slaughtered in Gaza. What you're doing is leading? Am I supposed to take the Zionist who provides cover for Israel's genocide seriously on this? I don't take you seriously. Sorry. Wow. But my heart, wow. for the innocent lives in your lost.

Let me bring in Glenn. Let me bring in Glenn. Okay. Let me stop shouting at each other. Let me bring in Glenn Greenwald. No, I'm spewing the truth and you don't like it. I just want to say, you know, these debate, the debate that this is turned into

is not a new debate. We've seen this a million times in the United States. This is what happens in every single war and proposed war that the United States wants to do. This is exactly the debate that happened in 2002, 2003. The people who were against, having the United States go in and invade Iraq, we're told, and I know, Pierce, you were one of them.

Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator. He has slaughtered huge numbers of Iraqis. He gassed his own people. He tortures them in in torture chambers, all of which was true. And that did not mean that either the United States ought to have intervened in order to take down the regime or that the Iraqi people wanted the United States

to go in and take down the regime, or that it would be helpful to the Iraqi people to go and take down the Iraqi regime. And I think we've seen the very clear lessons that that, in fact, was not the true. But it was morally repugnant to accuse opponents of U.S. intervention in Iraq, of cheering for Saddam or not caring about the lives of the Iraqi people. The same thing in Vietnam, people opposed to the war in Vietnam were told, you don't care about the slaughter by Ho Chi Minh of the people in South Korea. People in South Korea, people in South Vietnam, and rather people in Iraq.

Iraq, people in Libya, people in Venezuela, they're going to welcome you as liberators. They all want you to come and save them. This is all proven to be false propaganda. No one doubts the Iranian regime is a brutal, savage dictatorship. That's the same for many countries in the region, including ones the United States and the UK prop up. The issue is, if the Iranian people on their own want to protest their government, and a lot of the protests, by the way, are economic. They're suffocating economically because of U.S. sanctions. Whatever their motives are, political, economic, have at it. I mean, the Iranian people should determine

their own sovereignty and their own government. The issue is nobody wants Israel and the United States intervening because of how disastrous that is proven to be for the countries in which they intervene. Okay, well, let's switch. Hang on, hang on, hang on. I want to change the, I want to, on the similar theme

of America potentially interfering in other countries. I want to change topic just to Greenland. We're going to be joined by a guest briefly. And I'll come to the panel for their reaction to this. Carla Sands was the U.S. ambassador to Denmark during the first Trump administration and joins me now. Welcome to you. Many people are looking on slightly aghast at Donald Trump's rhetoric. He said yesterday, the United States needs Greenland for the purpose of national security.

It is vital for the green dome that we are building. NATO should be leading the way for us to get it. If we don't Russia or China will, that's not going to happen. militarily without the vast power of the United States, much of which I built you in my first term, and I'm now bringing to a new and even higher level, NATO wouldn't be an effective force or deterrent, not even close.

They know, and I do, that NATO becomes far more formidable and effective with Greenland in the hands of the United States. Anything less than that is unacceptable. Thank you for your attention to this matter. He's making it pretty clear. He wants to take Greenland. Do you support this?

Well, Pierce, I, support the security and safety of the American people. And that is President Trump's main goal. He is working to make sure that you and I, if we're in the U.S., that we're safe, but also that our allies are safe and the world. Greenland is key because of many reasons. First of all, Greenland's going independent. They've said so, and they will go independent in the 21st century. I think Denmark has gaslighted them enough that they've slowed it down a little. little bit because they've got the Greenlanders terrified by doing a siop on the Greenlanders, sadly. But President Trump understands he's going to install the Golden Dome. It's kind of like Israel's

Iron Dome, but it involves Greenland and Alaska. They are the two pieces that are needed. Now, Greenland is going independent. President Trump will not let it fall into the hands of Russia or China. And in 2019, President Trump said to the Prime Minister, Metro Friederksen, who is the current Prime Minister of Denmark, and she's really good for the Danish people, not so good for the Greenlanders. President Trump said, look, I'm worried about Greenland. You haven't secured it. You have to. She goes, okay, I'm committing $200 million. We're going to invest in security for Greenland. Flash forward, she invested 1% and it wasn't for security. Two million dollars. The rest, she did not invest in any security for Greenland because they just don't care. They want their money to go to social welfare programs.

in Denmark. That is what the government takes care of because that's what the people want. She's actually a decent prime minister. Absolutely. But President Trump understands the urgency of making sure Greenland doesn't fall into the hands of Russia or China. The Greenlandic politicians have said, we want to have a closer relationship with China. And they've said to me personally, if the U.S. doesn't invest in our mining and our infrastructure, we're going to get China to do it. So they're, you know, they don't understand the international ramifications. President Trump does. And if when they go independent, he is not going to let them be in the hands of an adversary. And if Donald Trump just decides to take Greenland, as he's intimating,

he may be compelled to do in his eyes, where does that leave us with China just taking Taiwan? What would be the moral distinction between the two things? Why shouldn't they? China just helped themselves to Taiwan? Why shouldn't Vladimir Putin say, well, this is exactly what I'm doing with Ukraine? How dare you guys take in the West take the high moral ground, given the United States has just helped itself to Greenland?

Well, because the despots of the world, these authoritarian figures, they see what President Trump does and they actually behave better. A strong America and a strong U.S. president gets the world order in a better place. We had terrible leadership over the past four years. hasn't, with all due respect,

if I made, Putin never invaded another country. But President hasn't stopped bombing Ukraine from the moment Donald Trump came to power. And that's a European issue. Yeah, that's a European issue. So NATO is strong because of the U.S. And President Trump has been asking our European allies,

please increase your ability to defend your own territory. Let's not forget that Denmark is in violation of the NATO charter. Article 3 says that every NATO ally, has the ability to defend their own territory, and then Article 5 come to the defense of their allies. Denmark has not a prayer to defend Greenland. They don't have the personnel. They don't have the money. It's a small economy about the size of the state of Colorado. Greenland is unsecure because Denmark doesn't have the ability. They're also out of line with NATO because they cannot and will never be able to defend their own territory, even if they get... But would it be wrong?

Would it be wrong legally and morally for China to then take Taiwan? I do not believe that China will take Taiwan while President Trump is in office. Right, but it wasn't my question. My question was, would it be legally and morally wrong of them to do it? Well, you know, Taiwan is another subject. I don't want to conflate the two. I'm not going to speculate. I'm going to talk about Greenland and the fact that the people intend to go independent.

They ultimately don't want to be part of Denmark. Denmark oppressed the people. They sterilized women. They kidnapped children and took them away from the families. They've done a lot of things and kept them living very primatively until the U.S. military. We occupied Greenland in the World War II time. And we actually stayed until the 90s when the Berlin Wall fell. Then all of us, our allies, which we need our allies. We love our allies, but we all took that peace dividend and stopped spending on our defense. President Trump is working as fast as he can, urging his military to build up our defenses to, you know, rejuvenate our weapons. We're still making weapons like the 90s. China and Russia are not. They're developing very quickly and cheaply, very capable weapons. Okay. Carla Sands, thank you very much indeed. You're so welcome. Let's go back to the panel. Anna Gasparian, I think Carla Sands rather pointedly ducked the comparison to Taiwan. But this is my big issue. I can understand. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I can understand the logic for why Donald Trump and his administration would like to have Greenland. There are 60,000 people that live there. It's one of the biggest countries in the world. It's massively mineral rich. It's obviously from a security point of view, highly strategic and so on and so on. I understand the argument. But my concern about it is simply, mainly, the president says that if America decides it can just take Greenland,

well, why can't Russia take Ukraine? Because they would use the same security argument. They have done. Why can't China take Taiwan for the same argument? What's your view? Well, it's not like this latest issue of, you know, Greenland made me change my mind on this. I've been thinking this for a while now.

The United States really doesn't have a moral high ground to judge the actions of any other state. So if China decides that they, want to take Taiwan, the U.S. can't use the argument that they want to protect Taiwan, that it's wrong, that they should be able to govern themselves. I mean, look what we just did in Venezuela, in essentially, luckily, we didn't engage in a long, drawn-out war in order to do regime change yet, but the idea that you just go into a country, essentially kidnap the leader of that country, however deplorable you might find him to be, and then just announce to the world,

you're taking the oil. That's it. We're taking the oil. We're keeping the oil. That's not a good look, and you have no moral high ground after you do something like that. So I agree with you. And in regard to Greenland, there's one other piece of this puzzle that I don't think it's talked about enough. Responsible Statecraft did a really great report about this. Yes, the rare earth minerals are definitely bringing the United States attention to that area. You also have the military capabilities that the U.S. wants to bolster in Greenland, which, by the way, we have a military base there right now. And Greenland has already said, if you need to build out more, like, we'll let you do that. We just, we don't want to be part of the United States.

There's also the tech industry. So Peter Thiel and Elon Musk in particular see Greenland as an important place to essentially do some of their anarcho-capitalist experiments because they don't have to worry about certain regulations that they have to deal with in the United States. So there are all sorts of moneyed interests involved here and what gets left out are the feelings and concerns of the indigenous people living in Greenland right now. Their opinions apparently don't matter at all. All right. Let me bring in Jorge Ramos here. Because, look, let's go forward a few weeks. As we're talking, it's been reported that Vice President J.D. Vance, the Secretary of State Marco Rubio will meet with Danish and Greenland officials today.

So things are moving quickly here. Donald Trump's a deal maker, a trader, a heart. If he makes the Greenlanders 60,000 of them, a tiny number of people compared to the size of the country, if he makes them an offer they can't refuse an economic offer, say he gives them all $100,000, whatever it is. And they agree that they then want to become part of the United States. Should we have a massive problem with that?

I mean, I'd have a massive problem if America attacked Greenland to take it by force. But if there's an economic deal, if it's basically traded and the Greenlanders take the money and are happy with it and it improves security for the West, why would we have a big problem with that?

Of course, I mean, are we saying, take my country, give me the money? Yeah. I couldn't believe the interview that you just had because since when it is okay, since when it is normal, that the United States can say, okay, I want that country

and then can, go and just simply invade it or take it. I mean, since when can we simply do that? I mean, the same is happening with Venezuelan oil, 30 million barrels, 50 million barrels that they just took from the ships. Can they say it is ours? We're going to sell it and then give the money back to Venezuela's. I, since then, it is normal that we talk like this. I mean, obviously since Donald Trump decided to be a person of the United States. But it is, it is, this is not 1823

with a doctrine, Monroe Doctrine. This is 2026. So I really cannot believe, even, I haven't seen the latest polls, but people in Greenland don't want to be part of the United States. I haven't seen what people in Denmark. Well, they don't at the moment. They don't want to, they don't want to be part of the United States.

Yeah, look, let me bring Lisa. Let me bring Lisa in here. I made the point yesterday in a debate about this, that if you look at what China's been doing in Africa, for example, that is a form of economic imperialism. They've gone in with buckets of cash. They've been spending it on all sorts of infrastructure from bridges to hospitals to schools to roads and so on.

And in return, they've acquired vast amounts of minerals from these African countries. And that is a form of economic imperialism. And Trump, I guess, would argue that this is not dissimilar. Again, I don't think America should be remotely entertaining the thought of taking Greenland by force. But if there is a deal to be done along the lines of what China's been doing in Africa without taking ownership of the countries, but in terms of doing a deal for money in return for what Greenland can offer, I don't know. I think in the end, isn't that a question for the Greenlanders?

Exactly right. You actually touched upon what I wanted to touch upon, which is the exporting of influence from our ad, And then we don't want to play catch-up. We actually want to lead and we want to be that leader by deterrence. So, you know, the taking of Greenland is very similar to what you had said, the spreading of influence by Iran's regime in South America and Central America, for example, or China in the African continent and elsewhere in exchange for whether it's technology, internet, roads, minerals, as you said, why is it such a faux-pa? We can't pick and choose. I see your panelists are picking and choosing where we want to be moral and where we want to be strategic. The United States foreign policy isn't meant to make everybody happy. It's meant to make the United States strong. It's meant to improve our economy and improve our national security and improve our security abroad.

I mean, it's a conversation to be had over those things and not over morality or the high ground or whatever else we want to call. All right, Glenn Grebel, final word to you. We're 40 trillion dollars in debt because of our foreign entanglement, saying that this is good for our economy is laughable to say the least. All right. Glenn, round things up here because, Look, we're only about two weeks into this new year.

There's a hell of a lot going on. What is your kind of overview of what's happening here? Here's the argument that you're making, which I don't even necessarily disagree with, is exactly the argument that the Russians made when they took Crimea, which is you can question the referendum that was held. Nobody doubts that the vast majority of people who live in Crimea feel infinitely closer to Russia and want to be governed by Moscow than they do part of Ukraine and want to be governed by Kiev.

And that was the president of the United States, said as well when it broke off Kosovo from Serbia and said, oh, we had a referendum. And the Kosovoans didn't want to be part of Serbia anymore. They wanted their own independent country. So this is a precedent that a lot of countries have been setting. Some get to do it apparently and some don't. The last thing I'll say is, you know, this idea that China is engaged in imperialism because it goes to Africa and build droids in hospitals and exchange does deals.

Europe and the United States just go into these countries and take them. They colonize them. They've taken them by force. I live in Brazil. China has become very popular. It's belonged to the U.S. bastion of influence no longer because the Chinese come and they don't try and bully people or push them around.

They say, let's do a deal. We'll build this for you. We'll give you this in an exchange you. Give us that. And it becomes a normal quid pro quo, a dealing of commercial interest between countries. And that I think is the way that China has gained a lot of popularity in the world. And the United States ought to be careful not to. not to continue to let China win

by throwing its weight around and bullying and threatening other countries. But they would argue, just finally on that point, that's precisely why they want Greenland. And if they can do an economic deal of the kind you're talking about, but that includes taking sovereignty of Greenland as part of the deal,

actually, if the Greenlanders sign up to that and take the money, what's the problem? They don't want to do that, they don't want to do that. Well, they don't at the moment, but, I mean, these things can change. No, no, but I think you're right. I mean, but then the argument becomes, why can't Barry as provinces of Georgia vote to become part of Russia? Or why can't Crimea decide that it prefers to be part of Russia?

You're not wrong that that does give sovereignty. And we're all talking about sovereignty for Iranians, and all seem to agree, the Iranians should determine who governs them. But if other countries can do that, then I think other countries, you're right, have that ability as well. It just can't be only the United States that gets to do that. Right. Fascinating conversation. Thank you all very much. I really appreciate it. Thank you, beers. Well, join me now. My next guest is an authoritative voice on many things,

especially Iran, and has big views on what should happen next. Returning to Unsensored, the Iran-born entrepreneur, CEO of Valuetainment, Patrick Med David. Patrick, happy new year, and welcome back to Unsensitive. Happy New Year to you as well. Great to be back on. I had a great time coming to see your empire. Can describe it as nothing less than an empire over in Fort Lauderdale. Thank you for hosting me there. Really enjoyed our conversation. So much has happened since we met just a few weeks ago.

Let's talk about Iran, because you're the best person I can think of to talk about here. You were born there, raised there, you fled from there. What do you feel is happening here? We've seen a number of uprisings since 79, none of which have been successful. People seem to be sensing this might be different. Do you sense that? sense that? I think it's only different because of one reason, and that is President Donald Trump. Here's what's taking place. The number one most important priority here is the Iranian

people. The Iranian people are telling IRGC, we're sick of it, they're telling Khomeini, we don't want this regime. You're seeing just today a 26-year-old man who is going out there protesting, he's being executed. Today's the day. We'll see if they're going to do it or not. God willing, it's not going to happen to him. This is how Iran works. Hey, according to you, you know, saying what you said against the God of Iran, you know, God doesn't support what you're saying. They can make the decision and say, yeah, God doesn't like what you're doing. We're going to kill you and take you out. So the world is starting to see this.

And the numbers that we saw, 12,500 civilians that have been killed. This has been reported by CBS. Allegedly, these are numbers that are coming in. The low number we've seen is 2,500. The high number that some people are reporting to me from Iran right now is 30,000, 40,000. But let's just say between 2,500 to 12,500. That 12,500 is the equivalent of the equivalent of the amount of civilians that were killed in Ukraine the last three years, but it happened in Iran

in a span of two weeks. That's what's going on in Iran today. So what is the difference? Let's go through 47 years. For 47 years, Iranians have been wanting to be free. For 47 years. For 47 years, the main face of the person that has been wanting to help Iran be free is Reza Palavi.

And for 47 years, they have failed, and he has failed miserably, for 47 years. a faction, a group of people that want him to succeed. There's a group of people that he can't do anything right on. I'm in the part of the group of people that wants to see him succeed. Now here's a difference. Take President Trump. We've had a lot of presidents the last 47 years, 48 years, a lot of them. And a lot of people are like, well, let's negotiate, let's do this, let's do that, let's

help him out with the nuclear, all this other stuff. President Trump is saying, if you screw around with us, we're going to kill Ghassam Soleimani. He killed Ghassim Soleimani, the number two guy, who would have even been. eventually been the president or the real leader of Iran. That's a very, very heavy way. That was their general patent that he killed, right? So today, the Iranian leaders are sitting, they're wondering, could something happen next? If the president yesterday said, we're done with the negotiations, we're done, we're talking about all this other stuff. You're either stopping this, or we have to intervene. And I think that's kind of what we're at. So if you want to kind of

put it in nutshell, what I think will happen today, Pierce, it's really who can tolerate pain the longest. The Iranian people or the government. Whoever can, and I know this is a very, you know, people are dying and they're getting killed and we're not, I don't want to oversimplify, but that's really what it's come down to because there's a 25% sanction that the president just put in Iran and they're going to feel that. Why are they going to feel that? Because the people that are doing business with them. But then the Iranians, on the other hand, how much longer can they go with their kids dying? How much longer can they go with food, water, inflation? How much longer can they go and not going to work? How much longer can they go and not paying the bills? How much longer

can they go and not having a regular life? How much longer can they do that? So Iranian government wants to say, well, let's negotiate next week. Well, let's negotiate next week. Well, let's negotiate next week. They're delaying this so the Iranians eventually say, I give up. We're no longer protesting. They win. Should Donald Trump get actively involved with the U.S. military? Or would that make things worse rather than better for the protesters, do you think? If you study history of a time that we intervene versus a time that we didn't intervene, in 1952, there was a leader named Mossadegh. He was there for two years and four months. The American, everybody around the world, but wait a minute, why do we want this Mossadegh guy?

Because he's nationalizing everything. He took everything away from BP, which is, you know, you guys know the history, but what happened there. And then UK, MI6 and CIA intervened to get Mossade to fall and Reza Pahlavi Shosa, Muhammad Reza al-Hapalavi, the father of Rezaa Pahlavi. For 37 years, Iran improves in the economy. It becomes a great partner. Middle East is fairly peaceful. It isn't as chaotic as it is today. He wasn't funding Hezbollah, Houthis, Hamas, all this other stuff.

The only criticism that you would get from him was his Savak, which their Savak was our CIA, was, you know, Israel's Mossad, was UK's MI6, which, by the way, just so you know, the MI6, the Mossad, and the CIA trained the Savak. So every time people criticize Savak, just so you know, Mossad, CIA, and MI6 trained Savak. So it's not like it was their CIA. So all the complaints that you hear about was that. So intervening, got rid of Mossadegh and brought him Mohamed Rasaapalavi.

The economy opened up. Everybody did business with Iran. It was good. Now let's go to a time that we didn't intervene. 1979, the Shah is calling Kissinger and Jimmy Carter, because Jimmy Carter, when he came December 31st of 1977, he did a toast with the Shah, and he said, this is an island of stability. Iran's a great partner to us. When the Shah and his people are calling, pleading for help, Kissinger and Carter are like, yeah, yeah, we'll help out. Yeah, yeah, we'll help out.

Yeah, yeah, we'll help out. They never showed up. What happened? Iran fell. Khomeini came in. Those 3,000 political prisoners that the Shah had that he released ended up doing 9-11, 3,600 people died at World Trade Center. So you have to make the decision for yourself, whether you're an interventionist or non-interventionist. In my opinion here, is the world a better place without IRGC?

Yes. Is the world a better place with Khomeini, Khomeini's regime, and Pezeshkhan to fall? Yes. Is the world a better place to see them get rid of the way they conduct what they do in Iran? Yes, absolutely. not want to see this. This is the question that we have to ask ourselves. Who wants to see intervention? Who does not want to see intervention? Who loses if Iran becomes a democracy? Who takes a hit? Way before there was a Dubai, way before there was a Saudi, way before all this,

you know, your friend Rinaldo who plays soccer, then he feels very safe. Before Saudi, before all these places, the place that was the OG Dubai was Tehran Iran Iran. That's where Sinatra would perform concerts in 75. That's where the wealthy would go to. So it's important to know the differentiation between the two. So, you know, if done right, I think the world's a safer place. I don't think Saudi wants to see Iran be democracy because they lose business. Now there's competition. Now you've got another place to buy oil from.

I don't think China wants to see that. They're buying oil right now for nothing. They're cheap. I don't know if Russia fully wants to see this. I definitely don't think Turkey wants to see this. So if you're talking about who doesn't want to see Iran be free again, how is China, Russia, Turkey, as allies with us. I know behind closed doors, Turkey is trying to broker a conversation of, you know, negotiation talks between Iran and U.S., but I think U.S., President Trump just said, we're no longer talking to them.

What do you feel, Patrick, about Donald Trump's thinking at the moment about the world? There's so much happening. You know, we've had the removal of Maduro bringing him to a court in the United States. Incredible military operation, but taking out the head of a state like that and bringing him out. Very contentious, obviously. He's talking about taking Greenland for security and economic reasons. We've just been debating that. We're talking about, you know, Iran, we've had Nigeria, we've had all these things happening. What do you think is the central thinking of Donald Trump with all this stuff?

I think we haven't had a expansionist president in our lifetime, period. We've played scared. America has played scared. Let's just face it. We've been isolationist. We've been involved in a lot of like coups and, hey, let's do some proxy here. Let's do some proxy there. We haven't had a James Polk type of a leader that says, why don't we think about making America bigger?

And I know a lot of people are going to be like, wait a minute, this whole number. I've seen all the reports. Only 4% of people support the fact that if we use military to take over Greenland, I don't think we need to use military. Just like we didn't need to use, you know, Maduro. military was used, the Delta Force crush it. They did a great job. But I do think there is a argument for that on why it's fine to expand.

We bought Louisiana for 15 million big move. We bought Florida for 5 million big move. We had Texas, who was its own sovereign country from 1836 to 1845, they had, you know, different embassies in France and in London, if you go

look at Google right now and type in Texas Embassy, London. You'll see there's a Texas Embassy in London. back in 1840s. So guess what? Texas became part of America. We bought Alaska for 7.2 million. They called it the dumbest deal ever until we found golden oil.

We, you know, the only one that was a war was with Mexico, which we got California, Arizona, all these other places. I think this mindset of being an expansionist that we haven't had for all these years, and he's thinking long term of, hey, we need to protect ourselves of what China is doing. I like that. The Donneral doctrine of protecting the Western Hemisphere, I like that. I don't like the fact that a company called Hutchinson all. owns the control, the 40-something ports, and they own control of Panama Canal?

What if the next COVID happens? And all of a sudden, China says we're shutting down Panama Canal, products are not coming, and what happens to our lives? Dramatically changes. So I like the fact that we're trying to get a Greenland to protect ourselves with minerals. Today or yesterday he was talking about the fact that we need this to build a dome that's going to cost us some $175 billion, the old project that Reagan talked about. I like that he's playing office.

And by the way, I understand why Americans are not used to this. I understand why Americans are not used to a president that's selling the vision of the future. We haven't had a president like this. It should be uncomfortable. It should be disturbing. But I love that he's sequencing, thinking about America long term, instead of just thinking America for the next year, two years, three years to get reelected.

As somebody who came to the United States as an immigrant yourself, are you getting concerned about what's happening with ICE? And the reason I say that is not just the EU. incident with Renee Good, who was killed by an ICE officer in that highly disputed incident. It's more that the polling about ICE agents now is extremely bad. And it plays, I think you and I discussed this when I came on your show, which is that when it comes to immigration, Trump's done an amazing job in sealing the southern border. That is unarguable.

Most people agree with it. Most Americans agree with it. I think most Americans agree with undocumented people in American. who commit crimes that are not linked to their status, they should be deported. Everyone agrees with that. The hot flashpoint is what happens to people who've come in undocumented, either on their own

or perhaps as children of people who come in undocumented, and that actually they're being removed or they're being targeted after 10 years in the United States of living and working and contributing and paying taxes, having children, and so on. And that the imagery of these ICE agents with their masks, which the police don't have, going around into cities and towns,

grabbing people like that is actually very un-American. Just quickly, what do you feel about that? Yeah, I mean, look, this is a very, very complicated issue, and I'll just kind of give my opinions, and you know, you can kind of make up your mind where I'm at with this. Yeah, Abby, who works at CNN the other day, said the most interesting thing.

She said, you know, I don't remember any of these issues when Obama deported three million people. Right. Why was it that we didn't have these kinds of issues under Obama and we're having it today? I don't know if you saw this or now. She says that. And I'm sitting there thinking of myself, yet the reason why Obama didn't get the criticism that he gave, because you guys didn't cover it.

Nobody was talking about it. CNN wasn't covering it. It was like, oh, he's doing a great job. You know, it's an okay job. He's making sure America's safer. And there's a clip of Barack Obama saying, if you came here illegally, you need to get back to the end of the line. Who's he talking about? The people that did this legally get to the front of the line.

You get to the back of the line. Have you ever stood in a line on a place that's going to take an hour to get something and somebody cuts you? What feeling do you get in your belly? Don't you just kind of feel like, what the hell are you doing? Get back to the end of the line. I've been waiting here for 40 minutes. We applied for Green Card in 1984 in Iran. My mother was done with me living in Iran, with us living in Iran, and she told my dad, we got to get out of here.

We didn't get here to November 28, 1990, but we came here illegally. A lot of people are trying to get ahead of the line. So I understand that argument of folks who, who are today not really talking about it in a positive way, but under Obama, oh, he was phenomenal the way he did it. There's nobody under Obama that worked for ICE that deported 3 million that did it this way. Pierce, can you roleplay this?

Like, think about I'm an ICE agent under Obama. And I come to your house and I say, hey, Pierce, you're here illegally. I need you and your family to pack yourself up and go back to Mexico. And you say, oh, my God, because you're an ICE agent under Obama, thank you for being so kind and respectful when you're asking me to go back to Iran. I will listen to you kindly. Would you like to arrest me? Here, take my hands and handcuff me.

What a noble group of people you guys are. No, it was nasty. But this thing called camera wasn't there, and it is there today. And it's very nasty. It's not an easy job. And I knew this was going to take place. And I knew the media was going to use this to turn against them because they're going to get so much content.

And the average person who's watching it on TV, who has a heart, who's empathetic, who's sympathetic, who's sympathetic. He's sitting there saying, I feel bad for this family. It is so difficult to watch this. as a logical player. It is so easy for us to fall for this as an emotional player, which all of us are. Who the hell wants to see kids being separated from their parents?

Nobody does. But there's laws, and they're trying to protect the laws, because while all these people are talking about what they're talking about, you know what happens if another 9-11 happens in the next six, 12 months, 24 months, and they realize the person that conducted the next 9-11 is a guy that came through the border, the 12, 15, 20 million people that came under Biden and four or five thousand people die, imagine somebody does that at a big football game.

Imagine one of the World Cup games here, an idiot who came here illegally disrupts a World Cup game, and we have to shut down the 2026 World Cup, and it's done. Every game is shut down. Imagine that. Then what are people going to say?

Oh, then all of a sudden you're going to get to Trump? See, this is the thing about tough leadership. That's not easy to understand when the tough leadership has to execute the tough decisions. The one part I will tell you, Pierce, that I think the one thing we have to realize is when you vote for somebody, I'm voting for President Trump's instinct and the way he processes issues and gets information from everybody. I'm not expecting 100% decision-making process.

No leader makes 100% of the right decisions. You want to be in the 60-70% range, and you're going to screw it up 20, 30% of the time. There's never been a leader that made 100% the right decision. But here's what he does. If you look at the way he does things, Bill Palti, who runs FHA and Fannie Mae, who we had on the show about a couple weeks ago, he came out and said something, he says, well, you know, we're thinking about introducing a 50-year loan for mortgages to deal with affordability. And everyone's like, wait a minute, 50-year loan, yes, we're going to, we're thinking about a 50-year loan. This was a couple months ago. You know what he just announced this week? That 50-year loan idea is out. We're not going to do it.

It's not going to work. All right, great. So they're watching because if all of a sudden you get rid of people that have been here since they were 10 years old, they're working certain jobs and farmers are coming back and saying, hey, I'm a guy that voted for you and you're impacting my business, President Trump, please listen, we need some of these guys. Whatever these people are that are leveraging it or need that help, President Trump and his team is going to sit there and say, look, if it's going to impact the economy, if it's going to impact us here directly here, and these are good citizens, let's figure out a way to make it work.

So I think we are in the nasty phase right now. I think we're in the sausage-making phase right now, and the media is going to use every one of these clips to get people emotional. The question is, why isn't the media covering what's going on with Iran? Why is the media so upset? Why isn't the media covering what was going on with Nigeria? Why isn't the media talking? But they'll show anything and everything that matches their own propaganda that they have in place.

So as a player that wants to get the information and be as reasonable, as logical as possible, I think we have to tap into that as difficult as it will be when we watch these heart-wrenching videos of families being separated. Fascinating. Patrick Beddavink, always great to have you on our censor. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you. Piersmorgan Unscensored 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 Unsensored on Spotify and Apple Podcast. And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate and entertain. And we'll do it all for free. Independent Uncensored Media has never been more critical, and we couldn't do it without you.