Piers Morgan Uncensored - ‘Time To FINISH The Job’ | Trump Strikes Nuclear Sites | Iran Attacks US Bases

Episode Date: June 23, 2025

As Iran claims to have launched an attack on an American air base in Qatar in retaliation to Donald Trump striking their nuclear bases, it’s difficult to predict what may happen next, as the conflicts in the Middle East intensifies day by day. There are many targets left, the US President says - and if Iran doesn’t play ball, he will attack them too. But the administration took great care yesterday to make it clear that the US does not want a long war and that regime change is not the aim - a view somewhat at odds with statements Trump himself has been sharing on his social media. Piers Morgan unpacks the latest with his panel; ‘The Young Turks’ host Ana Kasparian, former IDF spokesman Jonathan Conricus, asst. Secretary of State under George W. Bush, Mark Kimmitt and author, filmmaker and podcaster Dinesh D’Souza. He also speaks to former US national security adviser John Bolton, former diplomatic adviser to Iran nuclear negotiating team Kaveh Afrasiabi, former IDF general and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Minister of Diaspora Affairs in Israel Amichai Chikli . Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent and supported by:Cozy Earth: Luxury shouldn't be out of reach. Go to https://cozyearth.com/PIERS for up to 40% off Cozy Earth’s best-selling temperature-regulating sheets, apparel, and more. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I would be very, very surprised if the Iranians don't attack either with their missiles, their militias, or through direct terrorist activities. You guys got what you wanted. You guys got your war. Are you expecting American troops to fight this war and die on your behalf? Or are you going to bring the Israelis back? Tell them to put their fatigues on and get ready. I can feel how sad you are. I can feel how difficult it is for you to see Israel teaching the Iranian regime a lesson. Oh, that you're, you're sad about the Iranian regime getting targeted. I can understand that it's frustrating for you. I can understand on Israel. You genocide will prick.

We should want regime change. How much we do is a different story. There are a lot of ways to achieve regime change. None of them involve boots on the ground. And you think that it can come and dictate to a country 80 times? The answer of why your regime is enriching to military grade, why it feels eight. Let me ask you, does Israel have nuclear weapons? History books.

You write about your government the way that Americans read about the Nazis today. Trust me. President Trump kept the whole world guessing over whether the U.S. would strike Iran. And when it comes to what happens next, he still is. This cannot continue. There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days. Remember, there are many targets left. Tonight's was the most difficult of them all, by far.

and perhaps the most lethal. But if peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill. Well, there are many targets left the President says, and if Iran doesn't play ball, the United States will attack them too. But the administration took great care yesterday

to make clear that the U.S. does not want a long war and that regime change is not the aim. Is the United States now at war with Iran? No, Kristen, we're not at war with Iran. We're at war with Iran's nuclear program. We don't want a regime change. We do not want to protract this or build this out any more than it's already been built out. We want to end their nuclear program, and then we want to talk to the Iranians about a long-term settlement here.

This mission was not and has not been about regime change. The president authorized a precision operation to neutralize the threats to our national interests posed by the Iranian nuclear program. The president, though, is not quite so clear. He posted last night, it's not politically correct to use the term regime change, but if the current Iranian regime is unable to make Iran great again, why shouldn't there be a regime change?

Well, if the past 10 days shows anything, is that any claim to understand Donald Trump's strategy based on these breadcrumbs is purely speculative, only Trump knows his next move, and he likes it that way. The problem for those who are still soul-searching of whether to back him or striking Iran is that so is the damage the attacks have done.

We don't yet know if Iran's nuclear facilities have been totally obliterated, as President Trump said. We don't yet know if Iran's massive stoppile of enriched uranium was wiped out on the US attack. My view of the whole crisis is that too many people are basing their view of it or whether they're instinctively anti-Trump, anti-Israel, anti-war.

Two things can be true at the same time. You can support a precision strike on Iran's nuclear facilities without supporting another long-concarm. conflict in the Middle East. You can oppose Western involvement without supporting the Ayatollah, and you can support Israel's position against a nuclear Iran while unequivocally condemning the suffering is now inflicting on the people of Gaza. Breaking news, the world is complicated, and after the events of the past few days, it's not about to get any simpler.

I'd like to welcome my panel now. Anna Kasparin, executive producer and host of the Young Turks, Jonathan Conrückus, retired lieutenant colonel and IDF spokesman, Dinesh DeSuzer, host of the Dinesh D'Souza podcast, and retired Brigadier General Mark Kimitt, Assistant Secretary of State under George W. Bush. Well, General Kimet, let me start with you. From a purely military perspective, how successful do you think, first, the Israeli strike on Iran has been, because it's ongoing, and secondly, the intervention by President Trump with American strikes?

I know that there are words being thrown around yesterday, like obliterated, so on and so forth. But I believe when General Kane says partially destroyed at Fordow, I think that's really the best way to describe it. We don't have the bomb damage assessment yet. I think we need to wait for a technical assessment rather than a rhetorical assessment. So let's give it time. But I believe that General Kane is right when he says partially destroyed. There may be some reattacks when the bomb damage assessment comes back and says, this is how much we've taken out and to take it out to your standards,

to the military standards, we need to re-attack this method. So I think the next time we're going to see planes in the air is either for a re-attack or to respond to an Iranian attack on American forces, embassies, or bases in the region. How likely is it, do you think, that Iran will respond

by directly attacking American servicemen and women? We've seen this before, when Qasem Soleimani was targeted, they sent 12 ballistic missiles into Al-Assad base. There were a significant number of casualties. Thank God there were no deaths. But it's a prideful nation. It's part of the axis of resistance. It needs to demonstrate that it will resist. So certainly our force protection elements are in place. But I don't know. I would be very, very surprised if the Iranians don't attack either with their missiles,

militias or through direct terrorist activities. Anna Gasparin, your view of, well, the combined attacks, Israel and United States? Well, I think Israel has been pushing for regime change in Iran. The claims that Iran was close to developing a nuclear weapon was false. Not only were they over a year away, according to Netanyahu himself, in being able to develop a nuclear weapon, they didn't even have a mechanism in order to deliver said nuclear weapon. This has been all about engaging in a regime-change war. That's what this is.

Anyone who's pretending like this is about nuclear weapons is lying to you. Again, the United States is forced to fight another war on behalf of Israel. And I just want to ask Conriquez a question real quick, because I'm seeing a lot of videos of Israelis leaving Israel to go home to the United States or to Greece or to other European countries. you guys got what you wanted. You guys got your war. Are you expecting American troops to fight this war and die on your behalf?

Or are you going to bring the Israelis back, tell them to put their fatigues on, and get ready for a ground invasion? Because if they want regime change, they're going to need a ground invasion, and Americans shouldn't be forced to do it. I will let Jonathan Comerick as respond. All I would say, in relation to your super confidence

that Iran was not planning to weaponize its enriched uranium, what else could they possibly have been planning given they took the enrichment process according to the independent atomic energy authority. They took their enrichment of uranium from the 3.5% required for civilian usage to 60% in the last few years. There is no other reason you would do that. If you weren't at the very least wanting people to believe that you were going to be weaponizing your uranium, otherwise why do it? Well, I mean, they were not enriching uranium under the Iran nuclear deal, the JCPOA, which

unfortunately Trump took the pressure from Netanyahu to pull out of in 2018, which essentially cleared the way for Iran to enrich uranium. Now, yes, they enriched up to 60 percent. You need 90 percent in order to have the material necessary to build a nuclear weapon. However, I think what Iran was doing, considering the fact that they're in a region of thugs in Israel who clearly have been announcing that they want regime change in Iran, they wanted a deterrent. I think that's what they were doing. And as this war in Gaza, this genocide in Gaza continues, I think they wanted some form of a deterrent, much like Israel has with their over 90 nuclear weapons

that they don't acknowledge, of course. They're not part of the non-proliferation treaty, even though Iran was. Just really interesting comparisons there. Okay. General Kim, I know you have to leave us. Jonathan Kinrick is I will come to you in one moment, but I just want to ask the general to respond to that. Is there a naivety by many on the left, you think, about Iran's intentions with this enriched uranium? Because I oppose the Iraq War as a newspaper editor in the UK very vociferously.

It cost me my job in the end, actually. But I think I was vindicated over time by subsequent events. But here I just looked at that independent atomic energy report, and I thought, what else could they possibly be doing? If you enrich your uranium at that level and you have enough to build potentially 10 atomic bombs, I don't know what else Iran wanted the world to think it was doing. Enough about 9 to 5. What about the most important bit, the 5 to 9? It should be the most comfortable part of your day.

And today's sponsor can help. Cozy Earth's bamboo sheets are temperature regulating and designed to wicker away both heat and moisture so you can sleep several degrees cooler. They're soft, breathable and guaranteed to give you a more comfortable night sleep. They also have high-quality breathable clothes for all-day luxury. You can try it all risk-free with Cozy Earth's 100 night sleep trial and a 10-year warranty. If you don't love their products, you can return them hassle-free. But trust me, you won't want it.

Luxury shouldn't be out of reach. Go to CozyEarth.com and use code Peers, P-I-E-R-S, for up to 40% off. Cozy Earth's bestselling, temperature-regulating sheets, and more. You will feel the difference on the very first night. That's cozyearth.com. Promocode peers. Stay cool. Listen, I think we need to recognize that for the past 30 years, Prime Minister Netanyahu has been warning the world about the Iranian nuclear threat. What is different about today? Listen, the excuses and the rationale that was used are the same ones that could have been used

20 years ago. The fact remains, October 7th changed everything. The axis of resistance and the ring of fire was a deterrent to Israel ever since it was established. Hundreds of thousands of weapons, hundreds of thousands of missiles and warheads were aimed at Israel and could, as was said at Thermopylae, could blot out the sky and overwhelm any kind of air defense system that the Israelis had put up. Since October 7th, the Israelis have methodically taken away and torn away and destroyed most of that capability. Deterrence was off. This is a once-in-a-lifetime generation for the Israelis to attack. And every Israeli pilot for the past 30 years has wanted to be the first one in the cockpit to end that nuclear program. The fact that the ring of fire was destroyed and it was now a manageable threat from a

Iran no longer deterrence. There's the once-in-generation opportunity, and Netanyahu took that opportunity. Final question before I let you go. But it wasn't Israeli pilots. It was American pilots. Let's be clear about that. American pilots did this incredibly risky mission. Luckily, none of them got hurt. But this is going to start a full-blown war with Iran, a war that the United States should not be fighting on behalf of any foreign country, including Israel. It's unacceptable. All right. We don't know. We don't know. How many years? Do American taxpayers and our members of our military need to be slaves to the Israeli government? I need someone to answer that question.

Okay. Listen, I know, General Kennedy does have to go. I just want to ask you before you go. Just one last question. Would you as a military commander have been comfortable about what the IDF has been doing at the behest of the Israeli government in the last three months in Gaza? Well, I'd rather answer the question directly of Gaspar. Look, as somebody who's worn a uniform for 30 years, the conditions that had been set by the Israeli defense and the Israeli air forces and Mossad meant that this was not only the most lethal attack since Hiroshima, but it was also the safest attack.

The fact remains, the IAF had wiped out the air defenses. Mossad had put a lot of pressure. This was the safest operation. not to include the Great Deception Plan where President Trump used Winston Churchill's axiom, that the truth is so important, it must be a bodyguard of lies. And I would tell you right now, there's not an American pilot that was worried about this attack and had anything but pride for this attack. Okay, and just finally, the answer to my question?

If it was about Gaza, again, I think that when you, I certainly don't commend the killing of innocence and civilians. But you know that when the enemy wraps itself around civilian targets, civilian facilities. You support genocide. That facility is now no longer, it is now a military target. I don't necessarily see at this point that it's genocide for the simple reason that the Gassens and Hamas have an opportunity to end that. And that's to return the hostages and end this carnage.

In previous actual genocide. And you know it. You know it. They're shooting and killing civilians at humanitarian aid hubs, dozens of them on a daily basis. Literal children are getting shot in the base. It is a good time. It's a genocide.

It's a genocide. It is a good time for me to leave. I thought we were going to have a discussion, not propaganda. Thank you. General Kim, I appreciate you joining us. Thank you very much. We're going to be joined on the panel by Kave Afra-Ciabhi, a former advisor to Iran's nuclear negotiating team who was arrested in the U.S. Related spying before being pardoned by Joe Biden. But before we speak to him, I want to talk to Jonathan Kim Rickers. A lot has been said in the last few minutes. What's your response?

Well, hello, everyone. You know, I can. even though I've never met the person who is constantly interrupting others, I don't think we've ever even communicated on X. But I can feel your frustration. No, don't interrupt me. I can feel your frustration. I can feel how sad

you are. I can feel how difficult it is for you to see Israel teaching the Iranian regime a lesson and Israel winning on the battlefield. I can understand that it's frustrating for you. I can understand that you're having a tough time dealing with reality. You have to actually address the substance of my argument.

Why are IDF soldiers shooting and killing children at humanitarian aid hubs? You genocidal prick. And frankly, really, your talking points are tired. The whole world sees you guys for what you are. Mrs. Interruptor, I'm not here to answer your questions. Last time I checked, this wasn't your channel. This wasn't your channel. And you've done nothing but interrupt and talk nonsense.

You've only been talking nonsense so far. in the form of American lives and in the form of American taxpayer dollars. And you keep on screaming. All right. You guys, you need to hear it individually talking. Don't talk over each other. There's no point.

I can't stand these people and they're disgusting lies. As children are getting slaughtered and then you start that interrupting and you're screaming. You're impolite. I can speak over you. Not even facts. I'm not. We can't have a debate.

We can't have a debate if you don't let Jonathan. At least let him. At least let him. Or not just let Jonathan say what he wants to say. Peers. Listen, Pierce, this isn't going to work. Clearly, you can see that she's here to instigate. She's here to instigate.

She is here to instigate. She constantly interrupts. That is not a way to have a meaningful discussion. And if I ask you to kindly put her in place so that at least I could say two or three sentences. Put her in place. That's the first one. Now, I can understand the frustration of,

so many people that are Israel haters disguising as liberals, disguising as humanitarians. I can see and feel, and I even have compassion for your feelings, that you see the great empire that the Iranians built against us. It is being decimated piece by piece, and there is nothing you can do to stop it. And it must be frustrating. It must be frustrating to see Israel defend itself after a Hamas attack on October of the seven. But all those boomers are going to be gone one day. to see Israel persisting and winning and defeating our enemies despite the efforts of the likes of you and many others who have teamed up against Israel. And I can understand the frustration, but guess what? It's not going to help. Your opinion isn't true. It is not reality-based, just like you just said in the beginning that Israelis are fleeing. On the contrary, Israelis are lining up and there's actually a national airlift to get home. There's an Israeli national airlift to get Israelis home from all over the world, from Greece and from Cyprus.

Can we please not everyone speak of us to be with their families as Israel is being attacked. Go back to Israel. Put your uniforms on. All right. I'm going to bring in Dinesh here. And I would appreciate if everyone just let each other talk. Otherwise, the viewers can't hear a damn thing. Deneh, thank you for your patience in waiting so long to speak. First of all, what is you? I mean, look, there's a lot of speculation.

about what Donald Trump may do next. I happen to think that he is instinctively anti-war. I don't know if there's any chance he wants to put any boots on the ground here. I think if he can make it one and done with the strikes that he ordered, I think he would be happy with that as he was with the strikes against Syria, against Soleimani, against Baghdadi. He's a guy who likes to go in, targeted and out. I don't think he wants any kind of prolonged war.

However, once you do something like Trump ordered at the weekend, it can be out of your hands. It really depends how Iran responds. What do you think is going to happen here? I think that we are learning that Trump represents a repudiation of the Bush tradition, but he doesn't represent a repudiation of the Reagan tradition. Trump is quite willing to use force, but he uses it discriminately, uses it quickly and decisively, and Trump's own rhetoric very much supports this. I think that a lot of this anxiety is because of the bad lessons that came out of the Iraq war. But Iran is not Iraq, and Trump is not Bush,

and the fictional weapons of mass destruction in Iraq are not the same as functioning nuclear facilities, enriching uranium in Iran. So I think that it's important to look at this situation for what it is. Now, who can argue that the world is not better off when Iran doesn't have nuclear capacity? Whether there's a 50% chance of they were going to get there, a 70% chance, a 90% chance, it would be really good to have a zero percent chance that they could get there at all. This is a fanatical militant regime. It is different than places like China and Russia.

In that, it has always had an ideology of global involvement, global destruction, global terrorism, death to America. You don't have to seek for a motive here. They deliver it to you from the Iranian parliament on a pretty daily basis. So the United States has very definite interest. here. The interest is not necessarily in regime change, although I, for one, would welcome it. Who can argue that Iran would not be better off than under the mullahs? And I think the big losers here are, in fact, Iran, Hamas, but also the global left. The global left has partnered in a way with these Hamas radicals. And so they are taking a tremendous beating here, all their idiotic

campus protests or for not. So this is why we're going to be. getting all this screaming and hysteria from Anna because she realizes that not only is Iran going down, so is our own ideology. I don't like watching children get slaughtered by a genocidal regime that we're unfortunately funding with our taxpayer dollars and with military weapons. That's what I don't like. Look at Konriquez. Look at how flippant he is when it comes to children getting killed. That's the kind of person you are, Conriquez. Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. The international community sees it. And honestly, Janusz, it is a stage on America's reputation. You are not going to work. We are literally funding modern-day Nazis today in their genocide against policy.

Okay, Anna, you made your views about Jonathan clear. You're disgusting terrorists. All right. Can we try and keep things, please, less ad hominem? It's a bit pointless to screaming abuse of him. Let me bring in, if I may. I mean, what do you call a regime that slaughtered children, willy-nilly on a day-nilly? You can have your arguments about it.

By the way, I share a lot of your arguments, but I think abusing another guest on a panel for as long as you've been doing is a bit pointless and self-defeating. I don't think viewers like it. You don't think it deserves a little bit of abuse? considering what he's been in favor. Sure. And you've given him more than a little bit of abuse. I should we do not. Let me bring in. And actually.

Let me bring in our other guests. You said, answer to a word. Let me bring in Carve Afrasiabi. I mean, the big question I would have for Iran is why were you enriching uranium to 60% if you had no intention of building nuclear weapons to a weaponized degree? It makes no sense. Mr. Morgan, I'm very unhoused. happy with how you mischaracterized me a minute ago. I was not charged as a spy for Iran. I was an

international affairs consultant for Iran's mission for 13 years under UN norms and guidelines. And in the last 24 hours of the first Trump administration, he decided that I'm in violation of U.S. law and brought these phony charges against me. What I was doing was in line with all the other consultants for other country missions, none of the whom have registered as a 40 million. Everything I said was accurate. So let's get, look, everything I said was accurate. So.

No, no. You are not accurate and you're not putting yourself up in legal. Well, you were accused of spying and you were pardoned by Joe Biden. And I will bring a major defamation lawsuit on your head. Well, fine. Let me ask you two questions. Let me ask you two questions. Let me ask you, let me ask you. Let me ask you, let me ask you, can you stop talking? I have at Harvard for 30 years. Let me, please. Supreme Court against Harvard right now.

Fine. And I will bring a major losses. I'm sure you will. I look forward to receiving it. Let me ask you two. Let me ask you two questions. Let me ask you two questions first. Is it true that you were accused of spying?

No, absolutely not. You were? No, I was not. What were you accused of? And I sued successfully the UPI. I said, is it true? You were accused of spying. Is it true?

You were accused of it? No, absolutely not. I was accused of violating the 40 agent registration Act, FARA, which requires registration, but not for people who work under the UN mandate, which is what I was doing. I was arrested for 24 hours. Okay. I denied the charges. I represented myself. I didn't say you were found guilty. No, you accused me of being working as a spy for Iran, which is an outrageous life. I didn't. accuse you of anything? No, you said that I've been charged with being a spy. No, I didn't. I said you were accused of it.

Yes, you did. You're a damn liar. I did not say that. I did not say that. I did not say that. And when you watch this back, you will regret your outbursts because you misheard me. No, I would bring a major lawsuit on your head.

Oh, you know what? Do you like, mate? I couldn't give a damn. You know, I'm a plaintiff against Harvard. I represented myself for 30 years. Do you want to do an interview or not? I mean, the U.S. Supreme Court. Do you want to do an interview about what's happening or not?

Okay, I will answer your question. I will answer your question. Well, answer it then. First, first, what the U.S. did was a violation of the IAEA statute prohibiting armed strikes against nuclear facilities, which should have been immediately condemned by the governing board of the IAEA. Just as the EU 10 days ago, issued a statement by the IAEAEA. That wasn't my question. You said you were going to answer my question.

You're not answering my question. My question was why did Iran enrich its uranium stocks to 60%. That is my question. Okay. I answered you by first of all pointing out that what you said, that the IAEA says that there's no other purpose for it. It's a lie. There's no such a thing in IAEA report.

The IA report of March 2020-5 says, and I quote, Since February 2025, Iran has been facilitating the implementation of a strengthened safeguard at its facilities. Now, is that the profile of a nuclear profile? And then came another report. We said that Iran was obfuscating and not allowing access to international supervisors. Let me try. Let me answer. Let's not forget the last damage report of the Board of Governors of the United States. You're not even part of the non-proliferation treaty. How about you got?

Okay. 60% enrichment has medical uses for medical ice. It is not a lot. It does not represent a violation of the IAEA safeguards. All the facilities that were bombed were under international safeguards. And it should have been condemned immediately because it's also a violation of the UN Charter. Because Iran has not threatened the U.S.

U.S. engaged in a unilateral act of militarism against Iran. Your supreme leader has literally... Are we going to get to an answer of why the Iranian regime was enriching to military-grade uranium? Are we going to hear why, Mr. negotiator? And again, I hold you in high respect because I think you and the people like you, I think you have done a tremendous outstanding job. A tremendous outstanding job for 25 years you have facilitated for the Iranian regime

to develop nuclear weapons and it is through the skill. and rhetoric of people like you that this has gone on for so long. But can we get to the answer of why the Iranian regime is enriching? And you think that it can come and dictate to a country 80 times. Can we get to an answer of why your regime is enriching to military grade, why it builds a heavily-havened facility underground, 80 meters underground. You don't do that if your intentions are peaceful. Mr. Negotiator, you don't do it if your intentions are peaceful,

you have nothing to hide and you have no reason to build for the facilities. You are such a hypocrite. You think that Israel is exceptional, is a chosen people. The last report of the Atomic Agency Board of Governors stated clearly. Iran is in violation. Iran is not allowing international inspectors to come and see. And Iran has enough fissile material for 10 nuclear bombs. That was the smoking gun that eventually caused President,

to understand the severity of the situation. Yes, and that was what tipped the scales. You know, you just... All right, let me ask the kids. People can't... If you all talk over each other, nobody can hear a word anybody says. Let me ask you, Mr. Afra-Ciab.

Let me ask you this. Do you deny, for the record, that Iran has sponsored terrorism through Hamas, the Houthis, and Hezvah, going back several days, I've been very critical of Iran's support for Hamas. I wrote an article right after October 17 USA today, denouncing Hamas's ISIS-type attack on innocent civilians. I've been very critical of Iran's obsession with Israel in various books, including Trump and Iran right behind me, which has been highly praised in foreign affairs, as well as many other articles I have called on Iran to stop its Israel phobia, because it's not in the national interest of Iran to be so obsessed with Israel, which incidentally, in 1984, I've written a book

on an Israeli operative, I mean, Ram Nair, who was singularly responsible for shipping out missiles to Iran defending against Saddam Hussein. Iran should be thankful to Israel for the support that was given to it to safeguard. it against... Well, see, you've now said something. If you don't mind me being... You've now said something genuinely interesting and surprising and constructive to the debate,

right? Which is... You've acknowledged that Iran should not have been sponsoring terrorism with groups that are wedded to eradicating Israel off the face of the earth. And that's been the problem... Absolutely not. But that has been... And Iran should have never said Israel should be wiped off the map.

Because it's contrary to Iran's national interest. The moon laws have done a lot of things wrong, and I'm on record. Well, that's good to hear you say it. Huh? That's good to hear you say that. No, but I cooperated selectively with Iran for the sake of a nuclear agreement, which was a win-win and non-proliferation net plus. And President Trump made a terrible mistake,

and Netanyahu's pressure to withdraw to set the stage for today's invasion of me. The problem is, I've got to jump in, you're running at a time, But the problem is that the last report made it clear that the Iranian regime has been obfuscating and lying and hiding stuff and stopping them from doing their job. So you have a significantly enriched uranium program going on, going up nearer and nearer to weapons grade, and they're not allowing the inspectors to do their job.

You put the two and two things together, and you get four if you add two and two together. Let me ask, Deney. Let me ask Deney. Hang on, hang on. Hang on. Dinesh, you wanted to say something quickly. I wanted to make a point about the issue of who is responsible for what.

Now, when regimes start wars, they are responsible for the fate of their own children. I mean, if I come and do a home invasion on you, right, and threaten your children and you strike back, and then I go grab my own kids and stick them in front of me and say, don't shoot, don't shoot, because I'm holding my own kids. The truth of it is, I am putting my kids in jeopardy. not you. You have every right to retaliate against me. And I am the one. I am the one. When Israeli civilians get killed, I am the one who is putting those civilians in danger.

You better use the same standard, but you won't. Hang on. You won't use the same standard. I want to hold you. I want to hold the panel here for two minutes. I want to just have a quick conversation with Ambassador John Bolton, the National Security Advisor to Donald Trump during his first term. Mr. Bolton, thank you for joining me.

I realize you only have a few minutes here. I'm not a warm, dear. Well, Mr. Bolton, if you could just tell me, what is your assessment of where we are right now? You have the Israeli strikes now, the America strikes. Many people fearing that Iran is going to react in a spectacular fashion by way of retaliation. Others think their capability to do that has been severely diminished. People fearing there may have to be a ground invasion and so on. Where do you think we really are here?

Well, I think we've made a good first start in destroying the, Iranian nuclear weapons program and its ballistic missile program. I wish the U.S. and Israel had gone in together much earlier, but we are where we are. The president finally made the right decision. Now's the time to finish the job. And finishing the job to me means overthrowing the Ayatollahs. There's not going to be peace and security in the Middle East while this regime is in power. President, I don't think, is there yet, although he's beginning to signal. Maybe he is. Doesn't require boots on the ground. There are lots of ways to get to regime change. the population is extraordinarily dissatisfied with the Ayatollahs.

And I think you could see fragmentation at the top. That kind of instability is what you need to bring the regime down. But isn't the lesson we've learned from Iraq and Afghanistan, wherever we try to affect regime changes, it tends not to work? And then, in fact, the most effective way is to allow the people of a country, as we saw with Syria last December, actually doing the regime change themselves. Isn't that? I mean, I think actually that's what Donald Trump was indicating in his tweet.

I think that he was indicating a regime change coming from within from the dissatisfied people of Iran, as you rightly put it, not that there should be American interference facilitating any kind of regime change. Well, there are two aspects of this. First is the removal of the existing authoritarian regime, and second is the creation of the substitute. I think we did the right thing in removing the Taliban and the right thing in removing Saddam Hussein. And in Syria, the Hayat-Tahrir al-Sham group didn't prevail

over Assad without extraordinary Turkish help. So that's how it goes. Now the question is, how do the people of the country affected establish their own regime? And it clearly is the case that they should be primarily responsible. I said back at the time of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein that the U.S. role should be to hold the ring around the outside, prevent the Iranians from interfering, and basically say to the people of Iraq, here's a copy of the Federalist papers. This may be helpful to you. Why don't you form your own government.

You don't enhance political maturation by making decisions for other people. You enhance political maturation by making them make decisions for themselves, including mistakes from which they learn. Donald Trump is making slightly ambiguous statements at the moment. Would you want him to be clearer about his intentions, or is this all part of him not letting the other side know what he really wants to do?

Well, I don't think he knows what he really wants to do. I think he'd just gone around the circle now to see what he could come up with. But as others have observed, one very important change that I think he's making is yesterday, the vice president said, we do not want regime change in Iran. That is absolutely wrong. We should want regime change. How much we do is a different story. And I think Trump obviously is not going to kind of play putting troops in,

But I want to say, again, there are a lot of ways to achieve regime change. None of them involve boots on the ground necessarily. This is a different context. You have a very educated population in Iraq. The young people, 60% are under 30. They know they could have a different life. They can see it across the Gulf in Dubai and Abu Dhabi and Doha. I think things would move in a very positive direction

without particularly significant U.S. involvement. Ambassador Baldwin, I appreciate you joining. Thank you very much on a good of busy day. Thank you. Thanks for having. Anna Gospherian, I mean, here's my sort of issue, I guess, with a lot of people on the left in relation to this story, is that you end up sounding like your siding. Hang on one second, please.

Allow me to talk to different members of the panel. On the left, you end up sounding like your, you know, shilling for a vile regime. You know, the Iranian regime oppresses women. Well, hang on, hang on. I mean, hang on. They are oppressed women. I hate the regime in Iran. Right.

I hate the regime of Iran. So why wouldn't you want it changing? There are Armenians living in Iran right now who hate the mullahs. Okay, but regime change should not be spurred by the United States and Israel, which wants to install a puppet government on their behalf. And by the way, the Iranians know that. They know that. Polling indicates the vast majority of them want regime change.

They don't want it to be done by Israel. You have to be clear about that because I think there's an intentional mis-framing or false framing of what's happening in Iran right now and what the population actually wants. Now, with that out of the way, my issue, Pierce, is that the United States has been expending its resources and has been essentially sending its soldiers to die in wars on behalf of Israel, a country that goaded us into invading Iraq on a false... pretense of weapons of mass destruction. Be serious. And be factual. Not a single American soldier has even been wounded. Not one IDF soldier was sent to Iraq.

Our soldiers died on your behalf, Kouinriquez, on your country's behalf. Not at all. Not at all. I'm sick of it. You guys are committing a genocide right now, yet you're a nuclear power that's not in the non-proliferation agreement. Why? Why is that?

How come you guys get to play by completely different rules? Your genocidal. Your disgusting. The world sees you guys for what you are. Let him answer. You're the people of Israel. Let him answer. You're a genocidal government.

You guys make me sick. You make me sick. You don't make me sick. Let him answer. The entire international community looks at your government. Let him answer. We know that he makes you sick. Let him answer.

For God's sake, we're trying to have a conversation here. The history books will write about your government the way that Americans read about the Nazis today. a person instead of just screaming at me and looking like a lunatic who just keeps on screaming at other people, could you for a second allow me to say two sentences? No, you don't speak on behalf of anybody but yourself. You weren't elected. You don't represent anybody. You're a talk show host and you don't represent anybody. You have never stood for anything. You've never fought for anything. You're a talk show host and you don't represent anybody. And the fact that you think that it's effective

to accuse me of all kinds of nonsense, and you think that that will rattle me? I'm sorry to disappoint you. Many and better people before you have tried, and they have all failed. But let me tell you something. Your hatred is so showing. Your hatred of Israel is blinding you. You're not able to distinguish between different situations, and you find yourself supporting a genocidal regime

just out of your burning hatred towards Israel. And I think that is so. for people to see how you behave. Okay, don't all start talking as far as I'm going to literally give up. All right, let me, let me just, look, let me go. And I feel bad for the people of Israel. Let me go back, if I may, to Carve. Let me ask Carve this question.

Carvee, in an ideal world, Carvee, do you think it's right, as John Bolton said, that the young population? This isn't fair. She's been screaming over me the entire conversation. I've said one sentence, and I've been sitting here for 45 minutes. I agree. I would really like to say one sentence without her screaming like some crazy person. Well, then I think totally, totally. Let's see if she'll let you.

Totally consumed by her hatred. Because they're such victims. Right. So I would like to say one thing. The young woman is speaking over me. Contain yourself for 20 seconds. Could you contain yourself for 20 seconds, please? Like, you've been screaming and ranting all over this debate.

And it's not meaningful. You don't, people don't hear what you say. I have a visceral reaction to people like you. Sorry. Please let me talk. Do me a favor and allow me at least to say two sentences. The Iranian regime now is struggling like any dictatorship with a new and dynamic situation. They're not used to not being in the driving seat.

They're not used to not dictating events. And for the first time in 25 years, Israel is taking the initiative. And Israel has now peeled back the layers of the ring of fire around Israel. And Israel is, yes, and I can say this not officially as a spokesperson, but this is what what I understand. Israel definitely is trying to bring about regime change in Iran. Why? Because it would be better for the entire region, for the Iranian people, and definitely for Israel. But many people, but many people, Jonathan, hang on, hang on, hang on. Many people, Jonathan, also think there should be, hang on! But goodness sake. Many people, Jonathan, also think there should

be regime change in Israel because of what it's been doing. in Gaza. So there's a lot of talk of regime. Generally. Yeah. Well, okay. But yeah, but that's called elections. Sure. And I have many friends. I have friends and family who feel the same way. And I have others who feel differently. And luckily for Israel, luckily for us who live here, and luckily for the two million Arabs who live in Israel, Israel is a democracy. And we get to vote and we get to vote what we like. Currently, we have a government who I think

is definitely should be criticized for many things and how it has managed. those situations since October 7. But I think the government and the prime minister has done a very brave and good thing for the future of the region in attacking Iran. Okay. Let me give the final word to our Iranian guest. Over to you, Carve, for your final word here. Well, Mr. Morgan, it is abundantly clear that two nuclear-armed states are ganging up on another state, the regional arrival, using a lame excuse of proliferation in order to cause regime change, partly because Iran is part of a no multipolar world, member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, part of the Briggs Nation, and the United States has been seeking a rollback of the historic Iranian revolution for 46 years, and now are seizing

on this opportunity in a very systematic fashion using their mouthpieces, such as your guests here, in order to provide the state setting for this rollback strategy. And all these spinners like the warmonger who Mr. Trump himself, labeled as a warmonger, who didn't like a war that didn't start in the world, is not cheering Mr. Trump because Mr. Trump is exercising, implementing his script for regime change in Iran. Okay. It is a travesty of international law, the violation of the UN Charter. Most of the world leaders have condemned it.

And Iran, by the way, has paralyzed. Actually, I don't think that's true. He says the economy is paralyzed. They haven't condemned it. I don't think it's true that most war is nuclear end at all. Financial hemorrhage and hundreds of Iranian missiles have landed in Israel and have penetrated the paper dome, which you call iron dome. And you talk about regime change.

Go look at the destruction in Tel Aviv that's making Tel Aviv into another Gaza. Let's talk again in six months and let's hear what you say then. Let's talk again. I've got to leave it there. The tiny inconsequential Israel. Okay. Let's talk in six months and we're going to say. I've got to end it there because honestly, honestly, honestly, I am completely and utterly.

You are hallucinated. Okay. I tell you what, I'm hallucinating. Let's see you. I am hallucinating. I am hallucinating. The only regime change. Yes, I know.

It will be the genocidal. Okay. That's the only regime. Okay. I am hallucinating. I'm exhausted. I'm bringing it to an end. Thank you all very much.

Well, joining me now as former Israeli Prime Minister and former IDF Chief of Staff, Ehou Barak, Israel's former Prime Minister, defense minister, and IDF chief of staff. Mr. Bray, thank you very much indeed for joining me again on uncensored. We're going to talk about Gaza in a moment. But first of all, what was your reaction

when you heard that Israel had initially launched an attack on Iran? Because that must have been something that you had contemplated yourself when you were prime minister. First of all, not surprised, of course, was in the air for a long time. But the results of the first day and for eight days is extremely impressive. The false-sighted. And false-sighted. planning, the accurate preparation, the resolute execution, everything there was lack in October 7 was there. And it has a very good impact on the deterrence of Israel, on the respect to it among neighbors and in the world, even the self-confidence of the public in the capabilities of its own defense forces and of the leadership. So it's basically positive, as long as we

assume, and I believe and hope that the information provided is accurate, namely that there was a compelling need to do it, namely that there was a genuine intelligence material proving that Iranians trying or

starting the rush toward weaponization of their military nuclear program. I think that the last 48 hours made the world and the region in even better situations. It's America intervene in a concrete and focused target.

I think that is a important signal even to Putin in the Kremlin regarding to whatever, Moldova or Latvia, and even she in Beijing about, say, Kaku Island or Taiwan, it's a good message that America cannot just talk hectically and in a non-consistent manner, but also order action. Yeah, and I think what you touched, on there is very significant that it really comes down, I guess, to whether people believe that

Iran was planning to weaponize its enriched uranium. To which I've said to people, well, if it wasn't, then why would it need to take the enrichment of its uranium stocks from three and a half percent to 60 percent? There's only one reason that you would need to do that. And that is if you're preparing to weaponize it, isn't it? Look, there is no doubt. There is no doubt. There is a Iran intend to reach nuclear military capabilities that is trying to walk in the footsteps of North Korea, in a way, kind of Pakistan, not to repeat the mistakes of Qaddafi

capitulating after Lockerbie or the Black South Africa capitulating their aspiration during the change of regime and not risking the surgical attack like Israel, Israel's kind of launch on Shaddam in 1881, and later on a generation later on Assad, junior in 2007. So basically, they are trying to follow in the foot of North Korea, and they are doing it very systematically and bypassing and tweaking. But having said that, they were at 2018, when Trump went out of the JCPOA.

under encouragement from Netanyahu. They were 18 months afar from a state, a threshold nuclear state. As a result of American withdrawing from the... Again, there are now 18 days, or probably minus 18 days, they are basically there. And there is a major problem here. We are now under the essentialism of the obliteration of whatever,

fordo. Natas, that's not accurate. If you talk tomorrow to professional, they will tell you that neither Israel cannot delay the coming into nuclear weapon or nuclear demonstration somewhere in the desert of the capacity to have a nuclear reaction. We cannot delay them by more than several weeks. And the Americans cannot delay them by more than several months because they have the material, They have the know-how.

They have the scientists in spite of elimination of 14 of them. Iran is a scientific power. I follow physics for my personal background. And the amount of publication in physics, including nuclear physics, by Iranian scientists, is amazing, much bigger than the Israeli. I hope not more than the UK contributes. So I don't seem that they have any physical obstacle. I hope that Fordo was destroyed more than we can see from the satellite.

For soon, Natanz suffered the major damage. But that's not the case. You can enrich the 450 kilograms of enrich your range of 60% to do it to 90 plus, which is a weapon grade within two weeks, having several hundred, advanced centrifuges, some garage and some, deserted minds somewhere in Iran. We cannot, we do not, we should not pretend to know everything about Iranians.

They are too sophisticated for this. I accurately vividly remember the running after the North Korean or the Pakistani or even those who remember running after Israel in the 60s by the Kennedy administration. In retrospect, you always find that the country was determined to which nuclear capability, found itself always ahead of the best estimates of foreign intelligence system. So we have to be careful.

I see four scenarios now. One, Trump joined hands with Israel with the denied objective of toppling the regime. It's probably a good wish for Israelis, but I don't believe that he's there. I think that Trump is for the one shot and hopefully not being the same. reattacked by Iran and responded in Qatar or in Bahrain, there are a huge American basis. The second possibility is that a weekend and in a way, vulnerable, somewhat even humiliated, which is not helpful in this situation, Iran will come to the negotiation table and hopefully an agreement,

which is somewhat better from the JCPOA might be achieved. Once again, we have to remember that in the previous one, they were held 18 months from being a threshold. Now, in order to do this, you have to do them to agree to probably take all these enriched uranium to Russia under commitment that they will not give them back unless certain terms had been achieved or conditions came to material. So that's the other for me.

It's a good, good possibility for both Israel and the region. The third one is that we will end up in a tuition war between Israel and Iran. Our air force against their missiles. Americans might help us with munitions for the jets and probably some help in defense with their anti-missile. The risk is that our interceptors, including the Americans, will dilute before. the Iranian missile. They still have 2,000. There is shortage of launchers because we hit the launcher back. Bearing in mind, the new exit started from Russia, Iran, or Korea, China, you might think carefully. Iran sent thousands of missiles, shortage, for Russia in order to be

using against Kiev. But it's not inconceivable that Iran will draw missiles, from North Korea, probably with launchers, probably with some crews, they sent soldiers to Lugansk and Donetsk, so they can send the launchers to Tehran or from Pakistan or even from China. So it's a very bad option for Israel. I hope also for, I think also for Iran, but I cannot be sure. The last and the worst possibility is that the Iranian conclusion will be that the only reason that the Israeli Air Force is flying over Tehran so freely is that they did not make the decision to turn into nuclear, throw the handcuffing of the MPT, and turn nuclear

several years ago. And they might reach the conclusion or the argument that they were attacked by Israel, which is according to foreign sources and nuclear power, backed by a well-known nuclear superpower, and they have no choice by the term power themselves. Under this scenario, we might find themselves trying forcefully and justifiably to delay the Iranian coming to nuclear capability. We might end up under certain circumstances advancing or accelerating it. That's a fascinating summary of all the potential outcomes. I really appreciate the detail you showed there. Just before we finish, I want to ask you about...

Pierre, I was afraid that you won't understand your question, so I try to answer the next. No, no. I thought you painted... Speak English slower. Yeah, I will. I will. You painted a very good picture of all the potential outcomes, and I appreciate that. I just want to...

Before we finish, ask you about Gaza. It seems to me that Israel has been very strategic and precise and targeted in the way that it went after Hezbollah. It's been very strategic and precise and targeted in the way it's attacked Iran so far. And yet in Gaza, it's been completely different. It's been a strategy of complete destruction, huge civilian deaths, a blockade,

which many viewed as criminal starvation, consistent bombardment. And now people like the finance minister Smodrich, brazenly talking openly about cleansing Gaza of all Palestinians, which many would see as illegal ethnic cleansing. Do you believe that Israel's government is now perpetrating war crimes in Gaza? I hope and believe it does perpetrate kind of crimes against whatever. military war crimes and so on.

I hope that's the case only detailed investigation when finally. But I want to clarify the situation. October 7th created a compelling imperative for Israel to make sure that Hamas will never wane over the Gaza Strip and being capable of threatening Israel from there. And the war is the result of it. But having said that the real challenge was to understand. So how to do it? There is a company in favor, how to implement it.

And here it somehow it turned more complicated because Netanyahu ignored the very four maxims that were the foundation for our security perspective from day one, from Ben-Gur. If we have to have a role, have it very short on the enemy's territory to, very aggressive and in an

order to end it as close as part to beginning when the international legitimate and still with us, always do it with a superpower on your side

and never lose grip of the moral high ground. We are not a superpower. We are a tiny country isolating the tough neighborhood. It's not the Scandinavia who would probably have to prefer to be born in Scandinavia, but we were there.

That's our homeland. So we have to be attended to all these elements. Netanyahu in Gaza seemed to forget all these elements and ignore the basic reality that the only way to defeat Hamas and reach this operation is by replacing Hamas by another legitimate power, legitimate in the eyes of international law, international community, the neighboring peaceful or Abrahamic all the

countries, and even the Palestinians themselves. So it cannot be a Swedish or British entity. It should be Palestinian entities. So the plan wasn't the table from day one. The President Biden even wrote it in an

article to Russia proposal where he felt that he is failing to convince and yet. It means calling upon inter-arab force to enter into Gaza, backed by majority of the Arab League, and if necessary, also, UN Security Council Resolution, creating finance will come from the UAE and Saudi Arabia. It needs a lot of money. A government of technocrats will be established. A bureaucracy of Palestinians being built.

It needs some 50,000 people to run 2.2 million. And gradually a new security force will be built with the training of the inter-Arab force, which be Egyptian Jordanians, Emirates, and under American supervision. The only two conditions that Israel should put, number one, not a single individual who was a part of the army branch and branch of Hamas, not just the first. fighter or the launchers of rockets, the guy in the lab or the spokesman, not a single individual who was part of it or part of the massacre of October 7th can be a member of any organs of this new entity. Number two, the Israeli military will pull out at first to the perimeter,

about half a mile, let's say, all along the street, and will not pull fully to the border before pre-agreed set of milestones toward the secure and stable situation had been achieved. That was the plan. It was very easy a year and a half ago because it would appear as saving Gaza from terrible destruction. It's much more sensitive right now because now it might appear saving Israel from sinking in the mud in Gaza. So it's more complicated, but my observation is the Netanyahu now based. on the achievement in Iran, should immediately turn to Trump and say, let's activate this solution now, immediately bring all the hostages, launch this resolution and activation, and let us

join the trans vision of a new Middle East normalization with Saudi Arabia, even participating in a trade corridor from India to the Gulf, to Israel, to Europe. And this is a great opportunity, a question which cached some. shadow about the consideration of our government in regard to Iran is that, according to Netanyan says it started to plan this operation immediately after the result with Hezbollah, as you mentioned, even with Syria indirectly, situation made it an opportunity to it. But to think that our cabinet shut down in November, and later on he said the date was in April and for some reason delayed to mid-June.

along all this machine, and then it came to their mind that before you open a new war, that's Iran out of any other place, that you don't end the war in Gaza, which is at your finger. It's crazy. That's very disturbing. It's crazy. I've got to leave it there, but I really appreciate it. Ehou Barrett.

Thank you very much indeed for joining me. Turning to Israel now. And Amichai Chikli is Minister for Diaspora Affairs and combating anti-Semitism in the Netanyahu government. He recently described my criticism of the suffering in Gaza as a troubling dissent into overt anti-Semitism. Well, welcome to you, Minister. Where have I been anti-Semitic? Well, I think that during the beginning of the war, you were very clear on the right of Israel to defend itself after the assault of October 7th. And but since then, by the way, you choose to bring people like.

Candence Owens, which is a Holocaust denier on your show, to bring Dan Balzary. And I think that giving the stage for conspiracy theorist Holocaust deniers such as Owens, such as Evans, Balzarian, these kind of people, to give them your platform, I think you have responsibility. And this is a wrong decision to give these people such a stage. And therefore, I think, I'm not saying that you're anti-Semitic necessarily. Well, you did say that. But I did say that.

You did say that. No, I didn't say that. And I'm just curious where you think, I'm curious. What's interesting is, the allegations I'm anti-Semitic only began when I decided to start being more strident in my criticism of what your government is doing in Gaza. You can criticize. Hang on. Hang on.

I'll finish my question, which is a criticism shared by many of Israel's allies, by at least two of your former prime ministers now. So I'm not alone in that criticism. Many people think what you've been doing in Gaza in the last few months constitutes war crimes. And we've seen from one of your colleagues, the finance minister Smodrich, that the big plan, as far as he's concerned,

is not actually getting hostages back or defeating Hamas, but clearing all Palestinians out of Gaza. Now, I'm just curious why me criticizing your government for things like that and for what people like Smodrich is saying constitutes anti-Semitism. So let me be very accurate. As I mentioned before, I never said that you are anti-Semitic.

No, you did. You did. You implied it, and I was immediately bombarded on X and other social media platforms. I said. I can tell you, thousands of people calling me anti-Semitic and a Jew hater because you, you decided to fuel that sentiment. Well, you did. Look, whether you are or you're not, that's, you know, that's... Whether I am, when have I ever been anti-Semitic?

Look, I think, as I mentioned... Why do you tell me? When have I been anti-Semitic? As you know, I've had people on, from both sides of this war, for the entire time, many of whom have expressed very controversial views. And when they have, be it Candice Owens, Dan Bilzerian, people on the pro-Palestinian side, people on the pro-Israeli side, on the more extremist side, I've held them all to account. I've questioned every time I've heard something I don't like.

What I want to know from you is, why do you think as an Israeli minister you can fuel people on social media viewing me as an anti-Semitic person or somebody who hates Jews? I'm really curious about that. Is it because I dare to criticize what the Israeli government is now doing in Gaza? I think there is no problem. There is no problem with. criticizing the government of Israel.

There is no problem with criticizing what's happening in Gaza. You can criticize whenever you want. But the fact is that your platform became recently the main platform for Holocaust deniers.

Absolute. The main platform from categorical, weapons-grade nonsense. Dan Balzerian is a Holocaust deniers. Kendens Owens this week, this week she said that Mengelais never made these experiments, these horrific experiments in Auschwitz,

spreading conspiracy theories. So I think you have responsibility and you can be much more, you know, much more fair and to bring much more serious people to discuss these issues. So in the last 18 months, just to be clear, you don't think I've been fair to Israel

since this war started. Look, I said at the beginning, I thought you were failed. Regarding Iran, I thought you were failing. Let's take an example, your tweet about the hospitals, okay? That you shared the Fox News man who said that we need to protect hospitals in Gaza and in Israel after a ballistic missile for Iran. Yes, Trey Yings. One of the best reporters.

Lended at the heart of hospitals. Yeah. Okay. So I'm saying you never mentioned, you never mentioned that. these hospitals in Gaza, and let me give you some examples, Shifa hospitals were the main headquarters of Hamas. How many of the hospitals that you've destroyed were Hamas run? How many? Give me a number. Give me a number.

I'm giving you a few examples. No, no, don't give me a few. Don't give me a few because more than half of all the hospitals in Gaza have been destroyed. Many others are almost irreparably damaged. How many of those, in your estimation, as a government minister, hang on. How many of those were Hamas wrong? Give me a number. I'm giving you a number and I'm giving you a few examples.

Shifa Hospital, which is the main hospital, by the way, is still functioning, despite the fact that it was a terror base. And when we raided the hospitals, 200 terrorists were arrested in Shifa Hospital. In Kamala Duan hospitals in Jabalya, 240 terrorists were arrested in the hospitals. So they're all terrorists. In the European hospital,

To be clear, are they all terrorist camps? Most of the hospitals in North and Gaza generally... They're terrorists. So where do people go to get treated? If they're all terror camps, where do they get treated? We're used by Hamas. Israel didn't try to destroy the hospitals. On the contrary, she sent troops infantry to weigh these hospitals

and in some particular cases used. let's let during the clashes with the terrorist obviously and also with the European hospitals with the European hospitals we needed to close the entrance to the bunker of Muhammad Sinoua. Another interest, why should I, who was hiding beneath the hospital. How can I believe you? And the fact is, and the fact is, the fact is, the fact is, the fact is, hang on minister. Okay. Listen, you're doing what you're doing what many of the ministers have been doing in recent months. you basically cast doubt over everything which reflects negatively on the Israeli government war strategy, to which I say there is one very simple way

that you can get independent verification of all the things you're saying, that all the hospitals were Hamas terror camps, that every story you read is IDF making mistakes, killing people when they shouldn't have done, and the rest of it can, that all of that, apparently, these are all just terrible mistakes, right? Why don't you let the international journalists from the outside come in and do their jobs?

Then they can verify everything you're saying. There's a reason that the Israeli government continues to refuse to let journalists into Gaza. It's not for their safety. You don't care about the safety of journalists because nearly 200 Palestinian journalists have been killed. I know what you're going to say. They're all Hamas. Okay, that's fine. Another of the claims that can't be verified because you won't let independent.

You won't let independent journalists into verify. Unfortunately, Pils, many of these journalists were Hamas activists, who some of them are so proudly. How many? Many of them, dozens, dozens of them. So under the nearly 200, how many were Hamas? Dozens of them. Dozens of them were part of Hamas.

Many of them were Hamas. So you see what you're doing again. Some of them came. Abdallah al-Jabal, Islam, Islam. These people came. the hospitals are Hamas, all the journalists are Hamas, everything's Hamas. Every death that happens is Hamas is full. Every child that's starved is Hamas is full.

It's very difficult. Everyone who is shot in the cues for food that we've seen in the last few weeks, which is shocking to observe. Every one of those is Hamas is for. Everything is Hamas is full. The IDF does nothing wrong. The Israeli government does nothing wrong. And there's a reason you can say all this.

There's a reason you can sit back and say all this. You don't let journalists in. to do their jobs to verify what you're saying. That's wrong. So you can say what the hell you like. We all just have to accept it. You see the problem? Is that a conversation or you're just giving a speech?

No, it's a statement. Let the journalists in to do their job. The longer you don't, the more I don't believe you. 135 journalists went into Gaza from 80 different press organizations. They're all attached with the IDF, right? They're embedded with the IDF. Yeah? Obviously, they were a bit of, you don't want them to go free and be attacked by bombardment.

Yeah, yeah, we are in charge of their safety. Let me just end by asking you one more time. Can you think of any anti-Semitic thing that I've ever said? I'm saying again, first and foremost, I recall my tweet. Answer my question. If you want to pour, if you want to pour, as you did, if you want to pour hatred onto my head for being anti-Semitic, you've got to prove it. It seems that you are very concerned from this tweet.

I thought we're going to speak about Iran. I thought we're going to speak about more general issues than just about you. I'd rather talk about you. I'd rather talk about you calling me anti-Semitic. I said again, your choice to bring a stage with your millions of viewers to Holocaust denials and conspirators. Who I challenged for being Holocaust denials. Who I challenged for their views.

give them the stage. As I challenge people on the Israeli side, when they say outrageous thing. You do not interrupt them. You treat them respectfully. I want a lot of crap. You treat them respectfully. You never watch my show, do you? And when you are bringing people, like Natasha Hausdorf, amazing Natasha Hausdorf,

you are treating her as a bully. You're treating her as a bully. Really? Harassing her later on in parties. This is very embarrassing. Am I bullying you then? Am I bullying you now? You think I harassed her in a party?

Is that what you just said? Is that what you just said? You went and said she wouldn't talk to me? Wow. I'm saying once again. Wow. That's quite a claim. You were there, were you? Were you there for that?

Did you watch it? You said she wouldn't talk to you. Did you see what happened? You were mocking her on Twitter. Yeah, I didn't harass anybody. Did you moaked her on Twitter because she didn't talk to you? Yeah. And by the way, I've interrupted you as much as I've interrupted her.

So am I bullying you, Minister? Look, I'm talking about bullying. I'm a warrior. Am I bullying you? Look. Am I bullying you? It's very hard to talk with you. Am I bullying you?

You are? I say you are a bully. Oh, you're being bullied? At the moment. Oh, you poor thing. I hope you're okay. It's very hard to speak. You know what?

It's very hard to speak. I'll let you go. I'm so sorry for your hurt feelings. I hope you're okay. It's amazing how easily bullied you all are. I'm feeling excellent. When you're asked difficult questions, you all play the victim card. You all start saying I'm bullying.

No, I'm not playing the victim. Bad enough, you didn't do that when I went after the... When I went after people that wouldn't condemn Hamas, you all cheered me on, didn't you? That wasn't bullying. When I was interrupting them, by going after them, that you thought was great interrogating journalism. But the moment I come after you guys, I criticize you for indefensible actions you're now doing in Gaza, suddenly I'm a bully. You see how pathetic that sounds?

You finished? Yeah, you? I wasn't, it's very hard to speak. Yeah, you know what makes me laugh? Because I thought. You inspire thousands of people. Can I say something? You inspire thousands of people on social media

to call me a Jew-hating anti-Semite. And you have the brass neck to say I'm bullying you. Honestly, grow a pair. It's pathetic. Have you listened to this? interview? Have I? I've conducted it. Yeah, look, it's very hard to talk. Not really. You just have to justify why you call me anti-Semitic. You failed to do so because I've never been anti-Semitic. Look, I do take it personally and I don't like it. People like you just throw out

terms of anti-Semitic. Speaking about you and your self-esteem and your inability to take any, you know, criticism, any criticism. Oh, wow. Says the guy... Says the guy in my criticism. And let's go back to my tweet. Pierce, let's go back... Pierce, let's go back to my tweet. Doing this tweet, I said that at the beginning of the war,

you were relatively fell. But then, you became the main stage worldwide of Holocaust deniers who are spreading conspiracy theories against the Jewish people and the state of Israel. You've just made that up. I do watch. I do watch. I do watch. I had one person. I had one guest. I had one guest. And when you brought people who represent the state of Israel. Just to be clear. And when you brought people. You said something. I'm going to count you.

To represent the state of Israel. Sorry, to be clear. You don't let them speak. Sorry, to be clear. You didn't let Cipi Hu to bed. You didn't let Natasha house to speak. Who has even attempted to cast doubt over the Holocaust. And I chewed him up like I've been doing to you. So it's complete and utter nonsense what you've just said. Complete nonsense. And I will continue to go after people who say outrageous things which are not true. Whether it's Balzarian, being a complete moron, or whether it's you inspiring people to view me as a Jew hater,

because that is reprehensible. And just because I'm now more critical of your government, you should be looking to yourself and wondering, why are people like me now more critical of you? You can use this. You can use this interview, you can use this interview to have a serious conversation regarding Iran, regarding Gaza. Yeah, we could do, but you know what?

We were speaking about you. No, you know what? I decided to do. And your self-esteem and the fact that you were insulted. Yeah. Because of criticism. When you call me anti-Semitic, I take it personally. Anyway, I'm going to leave it there.

Thank you very much indeed. I didn't say you're anti-Semitic. Yeah. Thank you. We all read what you wrote. It's fine. Thank you very much for joining me. I appreciate it.

Bye, bye, good luck. Pierce Morgan Unsensored is proudly independent. The only boss around here is me. If you enjoy our show, we ask only one simple thing. Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Pierce Morgan 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 Unsensored Media has never been more critical, and we couldn't do it without you.