"There Were NO Talks!" Trump Calls Off Iran Deadline on Strait of Hormuz

They want very much to make a deal. We'd like to make a deal too. Otherwise, we'll just keep bombing our little hearts out.

My guess is he's working on himself to find a way to pull out of this thing and claim some type of victory, which, of course, he will do.

We're not going to allow him to walk away, rearm himself, prepare himself, and then launch another attack six months from now, a year from now.

Some people think this military operation is gonna make Iran more radical and more angry. That's insanity.

No one wants to fight for Israel!

I still feel very concerned about what we're committing American troops to, the cause we are. It's for the Greater Israel Project, and a key aspect of that project is to weaken the West.

There's so much craziness that I just heard. I don't even know where to begin. Do not interrupt when I'm speaking. I let you speak. Do not interrupt me when I'm speaking.

The media expends a lot of energy talking about the influence of Netanyahu's Israeli government on presidential decision making. It's increasingly clear that the invisible force of a stock market wields equally outsized sway. President Trump famously waited for the markets to close for the weekend before announcing war on Iran.

And when the Dow Jones Index plunged 900 points two Mondays ago, he called CBS to declare that the war was very complete, just in time for the markets to rally before closing. This weekend, he imposed a chilling 48-hour deadline for Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz or face the total obliteration of its energy facilities. This morning, with gas heading up and stocks heading down, the president said the strikes were off for at least five days.

An all-caps statement on True Social hailed the very good and productive conversations regarding a complete and total resolution of our hostilities in the Middle East. The five-day delay would of course take us up to the closure of the market on Friday, and the president was talking up the chances of a full ceasefire including Israel a couple of hours ago.

If these talks go well and you reach a ceasefire agreement with Iran, do you believe Israel would abide by that agreement?

I think Israel will be very happy with what we have. We just spoke to Israel a little while ago. I think they'll be very happy. This will be peace for Israel, long-term peace, guaranteed peace. If this happens, and I can't guarantee it, but I think it's going to, my life is a deal. That's all I do is deals my whole life.

I think this is something that's going to happen. And why wouldn't it happen?

Well, for its part, Iran is taking a victory lap. A state news agency denied there's been any contact with Trump and says the U.S. backed down because it threatened to hit targets across West Asia and unleash economic chaos. All of this after Iran tried and failed to hit a US-UK base in the Indian Ocean, leading to speculation that its bombs could reach as far as Britain. Whether we're really any closer to a total resolution is extremely unclear. It's hard to see how Trump can declare any kind of victory right now. The

regime may be weakened, but it's unchanged and remains in charge, far from complying with the US and Israeli demands. They're still bombing Israel. They're still able to throttle the Strait of Hormuz. And it's still sitting on uranium stockpiles. If the best case scenario is that the same regime staggers

on, but reopens the Strait and pauses its nuclear program, we'll be roughly where we were before the $20 billion war began. The only side crowing about victory will be Iran. And whether the markets like it or not, it's hard to see how President Trump will settle for that. Well, to debate all this, I'm joined by Anthony Scaramucci, the former White House communications director and host of the rest of Politics US, Hogan Gidley, the former White House Deputy Press Secretary in Trump's first term and senior advisor at Power Us.

Brian McGuinness, the US Marine Corps veteran turned anti-war protester and green candidate for Senate. And Goldie Gamari, the former Canadian MP and host of The Goldie Show. Well, welcome to all of you. Anthony Scaramucci, welcome back to Uncensored.

Been listening to your stuff on Racist Politics US, so I know where you come from here. I gotta say, I've been really struggling. Normally I can see the logic of Trump's big moves. I may be distracted by the rhetoric and some of the contradictory things that he says, but I can normally see an underlying logic.

I'm really struggling with the attack on Iran and particularly with its timing just a few months before the midterm elections and the reasons I've been struggling I think have become crystal clear the longer it's gone on is that none of the original war aims appear to have been achieved and now it looks like whilst it can't compete militarily, Iran has been very, very adept at competing economically by controlling the Strait of Hormuz,

where 20% of the world's oil comes through every day, and by attacking its Gulf state neighbors, both in its refineries and also in tourist areas, which has had the effect of scaring the hell out of them and the people that may want to live there. I don't I just don't see how any of this constitutes any kind of victory as things stand.

And yet I also think there's an impending urgent need for Donald Trump to somehow get out of this.

And if that means he declares a Pyrrhic victory, well, so be it. I, I think, I mean, let's be fair to the president for a second and let's go to the logic side of this thing. I think the pitch to him was this is a six day war, a 12 day war. This will happen very quickly. We'll hit them very hard. And the Mossad told him that there would be capitulation and regime change as a result of

riots in the streets and overwhelming the IRGC. And so that didn't happen. And I've obviously asked around and you're a terrific journalist, Pierce, you've asked around. I think the Mossad really miscalculated on this. I don't think they were misleading the president. So now you're into the second phase of this where I think your illogic starts to happen because what he originally thought was gonna happen, and he also said this,

he tipped everybody off a few weeks ago where he said, well, I didn't expect, or none of us expected the Iranians to hit the Gulf allies. And he thought this was gonna be be like the 12-day war last June, where there would be some retaliation, but it would be measured.

So you're now in that overtime period where, my guess is, he's working on himself to find a way to pull out of this thing and claim some type of victory, which, of course, he will do. No matter what happens here, no matter how bad it is, just like when he lost the debate to Kamala Harris in September of 2024, he'll claim victory.

But I think there's the logic. You know, the intelligence briefings were wrong

and now he's stressed out about how to end the thing.

Hogan, Gidley, welcome to Uncensored. I think the last time I physically saw you was in the bowels of the Churchill war rooms in London.

Churchill's bunk, yep.

Yeah, I was just thinking that when I interviewed President Trump in his last term, and it was a great interview actually, and I gave him one of Churchill's hats as a souvenir, which he loved. But an ironic setting for our last meeting,

because of course he's been saying that Keir Starmer's no Churchill because he hasn't stepped up in the way he wants the UK to step up, and so on. You know, you were a former Trump White House press aide. One of the big, big problems I have with what's been going on is the really contradictory messaging that's been coming out here,

not just from President Trump, but a lot of his senior aides, you know, I mean, to what Anthony just said, we all heard what came out of Marco Rubio's mouth when he was asked, why did the United States attack preemptively? And he said, because Israel had told,

we didn't name Israel, but it's obvious who he was talking about, another country had indicated they were about to attack Iran and Therefore Iran would respond by attacking American assets and therefore we had to get in first which sounded at the time Incredibly convoluted and then there was a big raining back on that and so on but you know as we sit here to debate this Very little of what we were told at the start of this war would be the immediate after effects of it has happened

We see no rioting on the streets at all. There are a number of reasons. Obvious ones are bombs flying over the streets. Obviously, a lot of protesters were killed in January and it's quite clear that the regime remains in charge and that the IRGC remain in control of the people.

Otherwise, there probably would be out rioting. So none of these things to me make a lot of sense. Make some sense of it for me. If you're in the Trump White House right now, what does tell me? I mean General Petraeus wrote a book called How Does It End, right? And that should be the question he said you ask when you launch every war. How does this end and what does actual victory look like?

Well, listen, I think there are a lot of factors here that go into these planning military operations. As you know, as you mentioned, I was in that first administration and we gamed these things out top to bottom with all the brilliant top brass from every single branch of the military to find out what could potentially happen. These things are all gamed out in real time.

The president of the United States, though, I think, did clearly state at the beginning of this what he wanted to accomplish, and he has largely accomplished that. You have many people on the right saying, this is done, so go ahead and get out now.

And they were clear. You did not want Iran to get a nuclear weapon. That's virtually impossible now. Even after bombing the Fordow plant about a year ago, they began to rebuild almost instantaneously. He's knocked that out.

He wanted to get rid of the ballistic missile capability. He's done that in large measure, as well. And he doesn't want them to have enough money to fund terrorist proxies all over the world. That's in process as well. So there are some clear victories here that Donald Trump outlined at the outset and has accomplished.

The question always is, how long are you going to stay there and what do you want to happen after you accomplish the things you state you want accomplished? And those things have been done. So for me, you mentioned the people in the streets. Will they rise up and try and take back their government? I sure hope so, because there are, what,

90 million people there? Those folks should be the ones out there chanting in the streets and getting rid of the IRJC, et cetera. I don't know if that's going to happen. But let's be clear here, as well.

Whether you want this thing to have happened on the front end or whether you didn't, largely the perception or the opinion of this military action will be dictated by whether or not people view it as a win or a loss. And if the wins are racking up and you can put someone in place there that you can actually talk to and negotiate with in Iran to allow them to be kind of a burgeoning economic hub, if you will, or someone that doesn't slaughter its people

at the first sign of anger, then I think that will be a win that the American people will

understand and root for. I think you're being quite optimistic. I think it might be a win that the MAGA hardcore Trump base will go along with. But I think the problem for Donald Trump is going to be certainly electorally in the midterm elections. I think there'll be a lot of people who are on the more moderate side of the Republican Party or independents have voted for him in the general election who are just not happy

about this. And all the polling shows they're not happy about this. Let me bring in Goldie DeMott.

That depends on the outcome, Piers.

Yeah, but you see, I mean, Goldie, I'll come to you in a sec. The thing is, Hogan, I would say to what you said. Now, you said, okay, the nuclear capability has been pretty much ended. Except we were told that it happened last summer. That was the whole point of a 12-day war. And then it turned out within 10 months. They began to rebuild it. Right.

But why can't they do that again would be the obvious question. They can. If they could do it then, they can do it again. Secondly, the ballistic missiles being neutralized, they're still firing them. And in fact, they're going a lot further than anyone believed possible because the Iranians clearly were lying about their capability. But when they start to reach distances as two did last week, which means they could

potentially get to European cities like London and Paris and so on, that doesn't say to me that their ballistic capability has been neutralized. It says to me it's alive and kicking and a lot more dangerous potentially than we realize. Now, a lot of it may have been destroyed. But clearly, they are still firing a lot of missiles around. And I think the idea that somehow we've ended that,

we can walk away and they won't have any ability to rebuild any of that stuff, I think is for the birds.

Well, it depends on, again, who's installed to run the place. I mean, I think that's kind of the position moving forward. But yeah, they have missiles. Of course they do. And I don't know if we were aware of how many they had, but they're greatly diminished,

if not completely eradicated. Sands a few here or there. But I mean, that's what the whole point of this military operation was set to do. They're not talking about regime change,

although they do want to make a regime. Well, they did talk about regime change. See, it's not a point.

They want someone new there they can negotiate with.

Well, I know, but they did repeatedly talk about regime change. I mean, that's where I again would question it. It was like Donald Trump talked about regime change very early on. He doesn't talk about it so much now because it's quite clear the regime ain't changing. The leader's been decapitated and so have many of the other leaders but there are

plenty more where they came from. You know it doesn't look like the Ayatollah's son may even still be alive. We don't know. We haven't seen him or heard from him, which seems very suspicious to me. But the IRGC are clearly still firmly in control of the country. So this idea that the regime has certainly not been toppled. And I don't know who this moderate Iranian Islamist regime change guy is going to be, but I don't see many of them around.

Well, because he got rid of them. But the one he's talking about in the clip you just played, that's interesting to me because it's obvious Donald Trump decided, OK, hold on, I'm going to pause this for a minute to see if this negotiation can actually move forward and we can come to some type of an agreement here. And as you point out, with the missile capability potentially being able to hit places like Paris and London, it also makes you wonder when are these other nations going to step up and join in as well

and say, no, wait a minute, we didn't know you could attack us. Now that threat's on the table. Maybe we should actually join with our partner and ally, US, and do some more manoeuvres to protect our interests as well.

OK. Goldie, Amari, welcome back to Uncensored. I guess the big question is, people keep asking me, why has there been no uprising so far in Iran? And how much of the agenda do you think is being driven by the Israelis, who have maybe a completely different agenda

to the Americans? I think the Israelis would be quite happy just to have general chaos in Iran, whereas general chaos for the Americans would be a bit like the general chaos we saw in Iraq after Saddam fell, which was it led to the rise of ISIS and many attacks on American troops and so on and was a complete fiasco

and disaster. So you've got competing agendas by competing countries here.

Well, first of all, thanks for having me on, Piers. Great to be back. So with respect to why people haven't risen up yet, the answer is very simple. It's simply not the time. The United States is saying this. CENTCOM is saying this.

Israel is saying this. The crown prince of Iran, Reza Pahlavi, is a leader of the Iranian revolution. He's saying this as well. In fact, General Cooper went, did an interview yesterday with Iran International and even yesterday he was saying now is not the time for the Iranian people to go to the streets. When the time is right, when the United States has finished their military operation, we will let them know,

the signal will be very clear and at that point Iranians can go to the streets to rise up and take their country back. So I mean that's the very clear and simple answer to that. With respect to your question about Israel, I'm a little confused about where you came up with the premise for that question. These last 47 years, the only country that has really stood behind the Iranian people against the Islamic regime has been Israel.

And I mean, Israel has been the one true friend of the Iranian people against the Islamic regime has been Israel. And I mean, Israel has been the one true friend of the Iranian people. And, you know, now we have America on our side as well, thanks to President Trump and his administration. But we're very grateful for all of this that's happening. And, you know, with respect to what President Trump is doing right now, he made it very clear at the beginning, he wants nothing less than unconditional surrender.

So what I think is happening here is President Trump is setting up these negotiations in a way for this, you know, if it actually is Qalibaf, he's setting it up so that Qalibaf can surrender. And then once Qalibaf and, you know, whatever leadership is left surrenders, that's when I believe he's going to give the signal to the Iranian people to go back and reclaim the country

because the IRGC will not fight back. That's how I see this playing out.

OK, Brian McGuinness, welcome to Uncensored. Now, you served in the United States Marine Corps from 2000 to 2004. You opposed this war. And in fact, you were forcefully removed from a Senate hearing after shouting nobody wants to fight for Israel. We've got a clip here, you actually had your arm broken I believe in the process of your protest here. Have we got that clip? No one wants to fight for Israel!

His hand, his hand! Sir, sir, sir.

Control your Senate!

Arms tucked in the door.

A US Senator just broke the hand of a Marine!

Hand's stuck.

A US Senator just broke the hand of a Marine. You're a coward.

So Brian, first of all, how are you? Was your arm actually broken?

Well, my arm was stuck between those two doors, and as you can see from the video, my arm broke. Not trying to talk about it too much because I'm in the middle of a legal process, but I would really like to be able to share my sentiments related to that protest of mine.

I still feel, you know, very concerned about what we're committing American troops to the cause we are. It's for the Greater Israel Project, and a key aspect of that project is to weaken the West so Israel can be

the dominant power in the Middle East. Our bases over there are getting hit with missiles, killing 13 Americans so far, erasing American presence while elevating Israel's dominance, and we're spending $2 billion a day

increasing our national debt, all while attacking a country Joe Kent clearly stated posed no imminent threat and that we're doing it because of Israel's influence. Bring our tax dollars back to the Americans who pay them. Instead, the investor class, which includes the Epstein class, profit while the working class watch their sons

and daughters, moms and dads go fight for Israel. Israelis believe they're God's chosen, while our elected officials send them our troops and treasure. I believe this is wrong, and America doesn't want this.

I mean, look, there are lots of people who say a similar version of what you just said. And as I said, what Marco Rubio said clearly pointed to a lot of Israeli influence on this decision to attack Iran. But other people say, look, the United States

is the biggest superpower in the history of planet Earth. Donald Trump is not a shrinking violet. These decisions were made by America and Donald Trump because they also believed it was in the interest of the United States. I mean, I think that is probably true.

It doesn't mean there wasn't influence or encouragement by the Israelis to go along with it. But ultimately the responsibility for American involvement surely lies with the United States and the president, doesn't it?

I think it's a bad idea to believe Donald Trump, a businessman, a man of poor character, over Joe Kent, the National Counterintelligence Director. And he specifically stated why he resigned because he got in good faith, continue to support this war that does not,

against Iran that not, they did not pose any imminent threats and it was caused by Israeli lobby influence.

Okay, just hold fire panel for a moment. Let me join now by Shushank Joshi. He's the defense editor at The Economist. Welcome to Uncensored. I need you to do what I've been struggling to do, which is make some kind of sense about all the strategy here

that's going on. I mean, take our own country, for example. And initially, the UK prime minister said, well, we're not going to allow even the bases that we share with the Americas to be used. Then within 36 hours, a complete U-turn on that.

Now, I think they can use some of the bases, but only if it's for defensive and not aggressive reasons. I'm not quite sure how you take part in defensive bombing. I'm sure someone can explain it to me. So that's just the UK. And you've got similar kind of contradictory positions

by a lot of other countries too. What is happening here? I mean from a defence perspective what is going on? Yeah good afternoon Piers. Shall I start with the UK side? Does that make sense? I think what's happening is that the belief in government is this is a really needless counterproductive and harmful war that is destroying the global economy and will result in Iran perhaps emerging more ideological, more radical and more of a threat than it did before.

But, of course, they can't say that because they also, quite understandably, like any prime minister, have the relationship with the United States to manage. And the United States is the most important ally of the UK, whoever it's led by. It's absolutely critical to our defense capabilities, our intelligence cooperation, not to mention our nuclear deterrent. And so you've got to manage that relationship. And so whilst they think it's a terrible war and a terrible idea, and that bombing Iranian forces, even along the Persian Gulf coastline, will not open the Strait of Hormuz, only an end to the conflict will reopen Hormuz, they nonetheless have to be seen to be cooperative.

And that's why I think you have Mark Rutter, the Secretary General of NATO, insisting Europeans are in support of this when he knows, of course, they aren't. This is very simple. You might call it cynical diplomacy, but equally you could argue that it's fairly pragmatic management of an alliance. And in terms of the way that the American and Israeli combined military have gone about this, do you think they really underestimated the way that the Iranians would respond so

adeptly in terms of strangling the global economy by using the Strait of Hormuz as a weapon in the way that they have by effectively closing it to all but a little bit of oil. But secondly, by attacking the Gulf state neighbors in the way that they have, including attacking refineries, including attacking tourist spots and so on. Do you think they just dropped the ball a bit here, the intelligence from America and Israel in terms of what was going to come

back at them, because it does seem that they've been taken extraordinarily by surprise, if that is the case.

Yeah, first of all, I think anyone competent in the US intelligence community would have fully recognised the risk of Iran both striking Gulf states and also closing Hormuz in the event that this was a war of regime change, of killing Ayatollah Khamenei, killing the leadership, bombing infrastructure. That's not like the previous wars, of course. That's not like Operation Midnight Hammer last year, where only Iranian nuclear sites

were struck. And so in a more dangerous situation, the regime would be desperate and would respond in a desperate and quite effective fashion. But I think actually, Piers, it's even more canny from the Iranians than you've said, because not only have they succeeded in closing off most of the traffic to Hormuz, what they've also done in a way that I think many experts even didn't anticipate

is allowing Hormuz to be used for their own tankers. They've managed to get their own tankers out. I mean, don't forget, just nearly 100 tankers have left the Persian Gulf since February 28, including tankers of oil being sold to the Chinese and to the Indians. And so they've in a way got the best of both worlds, shutting off this flow, causing turmoil in global energy markets, whilst also applying pressure and continuing to get revenue for themselves. So I think there's been an enormous failure here of statecraft.

And I think that's really why you're seeing Donald Trump try to scramble around for means to try to reopen Hormuz by military ways, that is sending Marines to the region by trying to look at your potential occupation of Harge Island, but ultimately realizing, as you've seen, I think, in the last 12 hours,

that there is a diplomatic way that will be much easier and quicker, and frankly, much more viable in getting himself out of this rather difficult situation he's got himself in.

Right, I mean, I suspect, looking at Donald Trump's behaviour and his rhetoric, that he's urgently looking for some kind of off-ramp, but isn't entirely sure what one would look like, which gives him a plausible victory or one indeed that the Iranians would allow to happen. I mean, what do you think is the most realistic way

this all ends? Well, you know, you're absolutely right. I think part of that is an off-ramp of the Hormuz. That is, if this war ends now with Iran successfully in control of Hormuz, I think that looks like a defeat for Donald Trump. So part one of any off-ramp has to be some kind of settlement in which Trump is seen to have reopened Hormuz by diplomacy. And of course, the Iranians will only do that in exchange for some

kind of concessions. Concessions, for example, about not being attacked again. Concessions about the future of their nuclear program. Concessions, I think, most of all, which may appeal to Donald Trump, on sanctions relief, on future Iranian sanctions. But the other thing here, Piers, is the reason America launched this war, ostensibly or so it says, is Iran's nuclear program.

There is still, as you know, 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium sitting under the rubble in Fordow, as well as Isfahan, and it was something called the Uranium Conversion Facility, and in Natanz. As long as that material is sat there, if Donald Trump ends the war with Iran in control

of that material, which is enough for about 10 nuclear bombs, again, that will look like a very odd sort of victory. And so any deal, any off-ramp must also cater for that nuclear material. But Iran will demand a price. And I'm not sure whether Donald Trump is ready to pay that price,

which is why I think the odds of an end to this now are still no better than 50-50.

And it's already the biggest seismic shock to global energy we've ever seen. And the after effects of that could reverberate for many months. I mean, I'm told that once you close the Strait of Hormuz in the way that's been closed for a few weeks, it can take months for that to properly play out in world food supplies and so on. So we could see real big spikes in food prices, in inflation, and so on coming in the next

few months. But if this was to escalate or just continue in the way that it is for, say, two, three, four more months, how bad will this get for the global economy? Well, if it goes on for several more weeks, you'll see oil at $150 a barrel.

But it's not just oil. I think, as you very sensibly point out, it's about all the other commodities flowing through the Strait of Hormuz. And that includes things like fertilizer products, it includes aluminum products, it includes certain types of critical minerals used in manufacturing, it's the semiconductor industry as well.

So there will be knock-on effects, perhaps not at the same level as those we saw in the supply chain shock of COVID, but approaching that level. And what really interests me, and you know, I'm not a political expert by any stretch of the imagination, but the downstream political impact of all of this, including in the United States, where petrol prices have gone up. Donald Trump, of course, as you know, is six months away from midterm elections. We know that the American electorate is always sensitive to input prices of petrol, gasoline, as they call it. And whilst they enjoy

considerably lower costs than we do here in Europe, they are still very conscious of how this affects their checkbook. And poor Americans, as you know, drive much, much more than poor Europeans. So they are hit relatively harder

by the impact of these shocks. With the midterms approaching, I think a lot of people around Donald Trump will be saying, you are already in a difficult position going into the midterms and your prospect of holding on to the House and the Senate. What does this do to those prospects? And for that reason, while I'm

not confident on an end to this conflict in the next week, I do think it's very unlikely this goes on beyond the end of April, because the costs for Donald Trump economically and politically, forget about those to us here in Europe and to those in Asia,

Pakistan is running out of LNG, for example, are very high.

Yeah. Shujaan Joshi, thank you very much indeed for joining me. I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Let's go back to the panel. Anshu Skaramuchi, you did one of the shortest, but probably most famous, tenures speaking for Donald Trump from the press podium. How do you spin your way out of this? I mean, what is, given how potentially cataclysmic

it is politically, nevermind anything else, but what would you be advising him right now?

Well, first of all, I just want to point out on Friday night, Hogan said I was there for 10 days, but Pierce, I was actually there for 11 days. I remember that. So don't let Hogan get away with that on this podcast.

He diminished your standing in a shocking manner, I have to say.

I think it was generally unfair of Hogan to do that to me. But if I were with the president and I would say, listen, get it down to three things that in your mind makes this a success. What are those three things? And then when we get to those three things, I would declare victory as quickly as possible. But as your prior guest pointed out,

it's complicated because they're controlling that straight. And so what I'm worried about, because I understand the president's personality, you've got 4,400 Marines in the Marine Expeditionary Forces, two different groups heading for the area.

And I know he's been briefed on this, that one of the ways to clear out that strait is to put ground forces, US ground forces in the area, try to clean up the situation. And so I'm praying that that doesn't happen, because I think that's an escalation trap for the United States.

But again, for me, I would tell the president, pick one or two things, pin your hat on that, and let's go home. What's the best thing he could pin it on? Well, I think the best the best thing is that you you they're not if you thought they were a threat, I know Joe Kent said that they weren't, but the president obviously thought that they were. But do you now not think that they are a threat? Have they been sufficiently degraded? And if that that answer is yes, then I think it's time to go home and then we can begin the process of diplomatic negotiation.

You know, listen, there's one avenue here that I really would love the president to pursue because he is a dealmaker. One avenue would be, and it's a more nuanced avenue, but to go to the Iranians and say, okay, we've got you degraded. Let's open the strait together. Let's get your oil back on the market, which would be very good for the global economy.

I don't think the Israelis are going to like that one. But I do think that that's an avenue, given his dealmaking chops, peers, that's an avenue I would like to see him pursue.

Hogan, we keep an eye on the prediction markets. And Polymarket has been asking, will the traffic in the Strait of Hormuz return to normal by the end of April? And there's currently a 36% chance, they think, from the money that's come in, that that will happen. Do you think that's realistic?

I mean, if you listen to the experts, the longer this Strait of Hormuz remains effectively closed, the more damaging everything gets for the global, nevermind just American economy. Do you think that will be a priority of President Trump to just get it open come what may?

Yeah, of course. Listen, a couple of things that have happened in the last 10 minutes I do want to address here. Joe Kent being against this, sure, but he was for it before. So it's kind of a Mitt Romney, I was for it before I was against the thing with him.

Second is, your journalist you just talked to, Pierce, made the point that some people think this military operation is going to make Iran more radical and more angry. That's insanity. They already want to kill everyone

that isn't of their belief. They already want global domination and destruction. It'd be like when you and I were in that bunker and World War II was happening, and you were saying, we don't want to really fight Germany, because after all, they'll hate Jews more?

Like, they're already killing them. That's insanity. They're the world's largest global sponsor of terrorism. And everyone from Hillary Clinton to Kamala Harris to Joe Biden to Barack Obama all have said that Iran can't get a nuclear weapon.

Donald Trump's the only one really doing something to prevent that from happening. And at the same time, the journalist you just brought on said, but they have all this nuclear material in these different locations.

Okay, are we going to do something about that? Was he advocating that we should just allow them to keep it? When that regime was in power, we know the death and destruction they caused all over the globe, whether through proxies or whether through their own capabilities.

Diminishing that is important. But here at home, understand, cost is what matters to the American people. And while the American left will say it's all about affordability, I kind of find that a fake term because what's affordable to you, Piers Morgan, as wealthy as you are, not probably

affordable to me. But is the cost up or is the cost coming down? That's what matters. And if Donald Trump's military operation here brings down the cost of of oil, brings down the cost of gasoline here in this country, and around the globe, that's the victory. In addition, of course, to preventing them

from getting a nuclear weapon and causing terrorist threats all over the world in chaos, bringing that rational, responsible, strategic use and flow of oil through that strait is what's going to matter here eventually, I think, to the American electorate and how they decide to vote.

Well, it is. But of course, the damage may well have been done, and it will have been done by Donald Trump's decision to attack Iran in the first place, which led to it closing. So people aren't that stupid. I mean, they're going to think, well, if know, if in the end it's a messy ending to this where really any plausible victory is kind of laughed at, not least by the Iranians,

if they're all still in power there, then, you know, it's hard to see how you can spin rising inflation, rising cost of living prices, rising gas pump prices in weeks and months of pain to the American electorate. I don't know quite how you square that with, well, now they've come down again, therefore I'm the hero.

Well, they were at record highs under the previous administration, under Joe Biden, of course, and Donald Trump brought them down. This, as your journalist just mentioned, would make prices spike $150 per barrel or more. They predicted that as well.

Now they're way less than that, of course. These experts are typically wrong. The question, though, is even if the costs come down, how do the Americans feel about it? And that's something that's very difficult to quantify. So if the price spikes by $2 and then you bring it down $1.50, it's still 50 cents higher than it

was before, but still way lower than it ever was under Joe Biden. Then it's a whole messaging conversation and messaging war moving into the midterms. And it's a tough one to have. Don't underestimate it.

OK, Brian, I mean, you know, I'm just wondering how the average Trump supporter, I think in the polls, the MAGA crowd will always go with Trump. It's almost got religious further to it. But Brian, when you look at the overarching thing that I look at, which is this is a guy, Donald Trump, who I've known in 20 years, we're friends.

I've made no defense of that. I've always got on well with him, had a few blips, but I like him personally. But it's interesting to me that he would campaign so vociferously after four years out of office on no more taking America into wars in the Middle East because they're so ruinous economically and on human life, and a focus on America first and the American economy, boosting the American economy.

And yet here in one fell swoop, at the end of February, he launches the biggest war imaginable in the Middle East. And it's caused the kind of ruinous economic meltdown that many predicted would obviously happen if America and or Israel did that. So I just I really struggled to understand

why he would do that now and expect people to come out in November and vote for a Trump-led Republican Party.

I think it gives reference to the power of the AIPAC, American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee, and the great existence of Israeli influence. And Trump is very much susceptible to that. And I think they have the Greater Israel Project. They have everything. They've been wanting America to attack Iran for years.

They've said Iran has been two weeks away from nuclear bombs for 30 years. And so they finally got Trump to do that, to capitulate. And they've greatly weakened Iran. And this is a win for Israel. But this narrative is so hard to be on this panel.

I know it's an economic panel, but it's just not thinking about the many victims of the Gaza genocide and all the attacks Israel is doing against Lebanon and all the surrounding area. And I understand the plight of the Iranians and their struggles, but Iran has been under severe sanctions for years, for decades. And that's greatly contributed to the suffering of the Iranians.

And I see you shaking your head, but I don't think militarism by America is going to help the social issues. Iran can help themselves. I respect you in being that you are from Iran, but this is obviously not the time for American militarism to intervene and destroy this infrastructure, affect the global economy, and make this action.

The Iranians are a sovereign nation, and Israel's record of destruction in that region has to be pronounced. And I can't tolerate all this conversation just discussing Trump's exit ramp and how it will best suit him. There's so much death, and there's so much accountability

that must be had. So we must, I really hope that, well, I demand accountability. We have to, Trump has backstepped on all his campaign promises, and he's just, he's throwing us into a war,

and I do have concerns about a nuclear threat, and we do have to de-escalate

this and I hope that Trump's negotiations continue positively. Okay Goldie you were shaking your head

there your response to that? First of all there's so much craziness that I just heard I don't even know where to begin but where were you when two months ago in the beginning of January, the Islamic regime slaughtered over 40,000 innocent unarmed protesters just because they wanted to live in a free and democratic society. Where were you? Where were you when on Friday,

don't interrupt me when I'm speaking. Do not interrupt me when I'm speaking. I let you speak. Do not interrupt me when I'm speaking. Do not interrupt me. Where were speaking. Do not interrupt me. Where were you when the Islamic regime gang raped two nurses

because they were helping Iranian protesters? They took them, they gang raped them. One of them was gang raped so hard that they had to remove her uterus. Where were you for that? Where were you when on Friday,

the Islamic regime executed five innocent young Iranian men? Young innocent Iranian men, where were you? Nowhere. So don't bring your Israeli conspiracy theories here. No one's buying it.

No one cares for it. This is something that the Iranian people have wanted for a very, very long time. It's called the responsibility to protect. It is a UN doctrine. Do not interrupt me when I'm speaking. You are insulting the Iranian people's right

to self-determination by claiming that this is some sort of Israeli project. What Iranian people are saying inside of occupied Iran is that we are grateful for American and U.S. interventionalism.

And you would know that, except the Islamic regime Iran is that we are grateful for American and U.S. interventionalism.

And you would know that except the Islamic regime has shut down the internet for the last 24 days. The internet has been cut off. 90 million Iranians in occupied Iran do not have a voice. And what you, sir, are hearing is Islamic regime propaganda. So I would suggest you take a step back, open up your, you know, open your mind a little

bit more and maybe ask yourself, why did the Islamic regime shut down the Internet? Why is the Islamic regime cut off the Internet, silencing the voices of 90 million people? So please, sir, do not interrupt. Do not insult Iranians. Do not interrupt me when I'm speaking.

Have some respect. OK, Brian, you can now respond.

That was that they were they are defending themselves. And I am sorry for that. Those atrocities and is 90 million people. There's going to be atrocities happening like that. And I'm sorry for that. I don't condone any of that.

But militarism is not going to fix that. Sanctions by America is just contributing to the suffering of Iran. All the... and America's... and so... Well let him speak Goldie, you didn't like him interrupting you, so let him speak. And so my sympathies for those who are suffering in this world, but the militarism is not going to help this. Adding more pain and suffering is not going to help this. Destroying our

infrastructure for the globe is not going to help this. Destroying our infrastructure for the globe is not going to help this. And so this is a big money move that is just sacrificing American lives. If Israel truly wants to get rid of Iran as a threat, why don't they contribute, their soldiers? But they're too busy proliferating their land in Lebanon, which they've never held tight to their ceasefire.

Israel has a horrible record of not delivering on any ceasefires. They continue to kill the people in Gaza. They're annexing the West Bank. I've been to West Bank myself. I've experienced the cruel, brutal behaviors of the Israeli settlers. What you should be talking about is the Israeli settlers in the West Bank, their horrid actions. They are the true terrorists.

Well, there's certainly been some disgusting scenes coming out of the West Bank in the last few days. And I think that is extremely clear. And they're being committed by, in the main, Israeli settlers attacking Palestinians. And it's been appalling. Antony Scaramucci, just what's interesting to me looking at this from the politics again,

is there's been very little sign of JD Vance, for example, in all this. What does it mean for life post-Trump? You know, there's a lot of jostling for position about who the heir apparent will be. How impactful will the Iran war be, do you know, there's a lot of jostling for position about who the heir apparent will be.

How impactful would the Iran war be, do you think, in determining who that is? And is one of the reasons for Vance's relative silence that he wants to keep his name out of this?

Well, listen, I mean, it's been reported, you know, he leaked that to CBS News. They didn't want anything to do with it. And him and Tulsi Gabbard, Joe Kent, others were put in a separate situation room away from Mar-a-Lago, the people that were dissenting from the military action. So you know, I know this is a contrary statement to make, but it's not clear to me that Vance is going to run, Pierce.

His wife's pregnant. He does not have the support of the Pope, and I know people say, what does that mean? He just converted to Catholicism, as you guys know, and the Pope has really diverged from the president and from the president's policies and has been critical, and there are 80 million Catholics in this country. He's not gonna be able to win the presidency

without that level of support. So there's a good chance here he doesn't run, which would make Marco Rubio the apparent. And then you just have to tell me what the outcome of this is. If there's a positive outcome, it'll help Marco Rubio.

But if it's a quagmire, this will be a disaster for the Republicans come

2028. Hogan, there's a lot going on every minute, even while we've been talking, there's a lot going on. Donald Trump said earlier today there have been very strong talks between Washington and Tehran in the last 24, 36 hours. It was clear Iran wanted to make a deal. But the Iranian parliament speaker, Mohammad Bagar Ghalibaf, has reiterated that no such talks, as far as they're concerned, have taken place.

He posted to X no negotiations have been held with the US. And fake news is used to manipulate the financial and oil markets and escape the quagmire in which the US and Israel are trapped. Now, this is one of the people that we're supposed to believe the Americans have been talking to and, you know, someone that can be they can do business with.

Absolutely rubbishing any suggestion that there have been talks to try and end this and saying it's all just a scam by the Americans or the administration to stop the markets

crashing.

Okay. I mean the same people who said they lied about their ballistic missile capability into hitting Europe. I mean, these people are proven terrorists. They're lying all of the time, of course, and to sympathize with them and their quote unquote struggle is absolutely ridiculous when you consider all the death and destruction that they've paid for,

committed themselves all over this globe. People on the right and left here in America have been furious at Iran for so long and only Donald Trump did something about it. Now, how this ends up, of course, matters. And that's going to effectuate voting tendencies for the midterms, of course.

But the fact is there are people in Iran right now who have been oppressed by this regime for decades. This is not something Donald Trump did because Israel told him to do it. The only people Donald Trump, that he's beholden to, are the American people. That's it. And if it helps our interests around the globe

and, quite frankly, with our partners and allies, including the only democracy in the region, Israel, sure, then maybe we might do something. The America First agenda is designed to effectuate change and support and offer protection for the American people first, but it's not always America alone. He did this in the first term. And while the naysayers did what they did and said, anything he does in the region

is gonna make it break out into utter chaos and we're gonna see destruction in the streets, instead he got peace deals that no one thought was possible, several of them in just a few short years. This is on track to do something monumental yet again,

because all the people on the left who complain about these atrocities to women, who complain about atrocities to those who voice their own opinions, have been utterly silent. And oftentimes in my political debates, Pierce, what I think of is, who supports what I support,

and who's against what I'm against? The only real groups against Donald Trump going in to Iran with this military action is Russia, China, and the Democrats. They're all in league together.

Everyone else sees this as a global good. Donald Trump's the leader who's doing it.

Out of interest, I mean, given that Russia and China and North Korea all oppress their people in various ways, it's pretty awful being a woman in North Korea. And they all have weapons of mass destruction. Would it not be logical then that the United States would also want to attack those countries

and neutralize their ability to perpetrate evil? Or is it just one rule for Iran and one rule for the others?

Well, look, I was in, I went to North Korea with the president in the first administration. He was able to talk to and have conversations with that particular leader. Iran is a completely different issue.

Is it?

Really?

You think the Iranian regime is any different to the North Korean regime?

I mean, you, can you point to any of the last terrorist activity around the globe that North Korea has paid for or committed themselves?

I suspect the North Koreans are up to all sorts of stuff. Yeah, I mean, didn't they send 10,000 troops to help Putin?

You can suspect it.

What I'm saying is, are they doing something?

A lot is actively doing it. Well, they sent 10,000 troops to Ukraine to fight Putin's illegal war on a European sovereign democratic country for one. That was one of their recent actions.

Sure.

But if you're going to pretend as though all of the despots and dictators all over the globe are the same, they're just not.

But I'm just saying the reason why no one's attacked Iran in the past is because it's so big and the regime is so well-armed and it has control over the global oil supply that there was always a risk of exactly what has now happened happening. That's what's deterred people.

They're not as big and they're not as well-armed as they used to be.

In the same way that you wouldn't want to start, even though America has the biggest military in the world, they wouldn't want to start a shooting match with Putin or with Xi or with Kim Jong-un. I mean, similar arguments, but the argument appears to have collapsed with Iran. And many people are very concerned, understandably,

that what we're now seeing is the repercussion of a reckless decision, which has let a tinderbox off.

No, I would disagree, obviously, with the characterization of a reckless decision, but let's be clear. Joe Biden actually said it would be fine if Russia had a minor incursion into Ukraine. And what did the world do? Rallied around Ukraine, led by the United States of America. How come this administration in or excuse me, this this terrorist organization in Iran has nuclear weapons? Everyone agrees they shouldn't have them. Everyone hates them and says they're a terrorist entity

that causes death and destruction all over the globe. And yet they're holding back and not helping their major ally, the United States, in this. Now, I think they're going to come forward and actually start helping because they realize how difficult it's going to be for them in the future.

But regardless, these – listen, again, having worked in this White House, I worked in a White House with Donald Trump, understanding the global issues that this country faces, they are very nuanced. They are very difficult. They are rarely cut and dry. However, when you see a regime doing what it does to its people, what it does to the

American people since the 70s, and paying for other entities to cause death, to cause casualties. We just had several terrorist attacks here in this country alone by Iranian nationals, and not one single mosque, not one imam came out and said, no, this is bad. We're the religion of peace. We're not going to support this. If a Christian came out, a supposed Christian came out

and threw bombs at Mondami's house and said, I do this in the name of Christianity and Jesus, every pastor on the planet would come out and say, that is not Christianity. We disavow that. These people have come out in the name of Islam to destroy and kill and maim, and no single mosque, no imam in this country

comes out and says, no, that's not what we're about? That, to me, is quite telling. And again, a global issue here that the world faces, America's taking the leadership, of course, working with our partners and allies, but we're the ones capable of doing this.

What happens on the backside, again, matters to the American people and to the electorate. But right now, he's doing what needs to be done to keep this world a safer place.

OK, well, I hope you're right.

Here's a quick clarification on just a very small thing. The acts of terrorism were not committed by Iranian nationals. They were committed by people hired by the Islamic regime. One of them was Pakistani, one of them was from Senegal. So not Iranian nationals.

No, that's an important clarification.

Yeah, that is.

That's correct. OK. Look, I've got to leave it there. A very interesting discussion. Thank you all very much indeed.

You too, Bion.

Thanks. As I said a little earlier, Iran's parliament speaker Iranians reported to be negotiating with the US through Steve Whitcoff and Jared Kushner. He's now denied that any talks have taken place. Joining me from Iran with his verdict is Professor Mohammad Mirandi from Tehran University. Professor Mirandi, thank you for coming back on Uncensored. Donald Trump posted this this morning. I'm pleased to report that the United States of America and the country of Iran have had

over the last two days very good and productive conversations regarding a complete and total resolution of our hostilities in the Middle East. Based on the tenor and tone of these in-depth, detailed and constructive conversations, which will continue throughout the week, I've instructed the Department of War to postpone any and all military strikes against Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure for a five-day period, subject to the success of the ongoing meetings and discussions."

Donald J. Trump. What is your response to that? Because all the official responses have been that there have been no discussions whatsoever. Is that your understanding?

Yes, there have not been any talks. The reason it is believed here that Trump made this statement was because he was worried about the markets, and he made the statement, I think, an hour before the markets opened on Monday. And, of course, these five days would end after the markets close on Friday. I think he's also deeply concerned about the fact that Iran said that it will retaliate with great force if these crimes against humanity are carried out, because obviously targeting vital infrastructure that ordinary people use is a crime against humanity. But of course, as usual, there's no outcry in the West

because for the West, we live in the jungle.

Well, I mean, my response to that would be that I think that there's always been an understood red line that you don't go after each other's energy plants. And that line was crossed. I think it was crossed by Israel attacking one of the Iranian power plants. Iran responded in kind attacking a refinery in Qatar and

threatening to do more of that. And we now get to a place where Donald Trump threatened to blow up huge amounts of the Iranian power plants and now appears to have backed down from that, claiming to have had discussions. So this red line is an important one, isn't it? Because it's in nobody's interest in this conflict

that Iranians' power plants get destroyed and they respond by taking out all of the neighboring Gulf States' power plants. That would be energy Armageddon.

So, Piers, do you condemn Donald Trump for threatening to take out Iran's critical infrastructure,

its vital infrastructure that is targeting 92 million Iranians?

Yes.

Good.

We finally agree on something.

I didn't agree with what Israel did in attacking the refinery. I wouldn't agree if America decided to attack more of the power plants. I think in particular, you have an issue with the Gulf states with the desalination plants, both in Iran, but also obviously in all the Gulf states, its neighboring states there, where having spent a lot of time in the Middle East,

I know that if you took out the desalination plants, then the ability of the populations of these Gulf states to drink water would very rapidly disappear. And you would potentially have millions of people unable to get to access water which would be devastating. That's why it's always been a red line.

But many red lines have been ripped up it seems to me in this war so far. How do you think this ends?

Well all the red lines were of, crossed by the United States. An unprovoked war, murdering 168 little girls on day one in the first strike, murdering the leader, denying that they carried out the strike against the girls, pretending that it was the Iranians. In other words, pretending it was the victims. But of course, this is the 47-year-old history of Iran in the United States.

The United States carries out aggression, and it always blames the victim, and the victim is somehow the problem. But I think the war will end in a strategic defeat for Trump. The Iranians are not going to let go until the facts on the ground change and Iran feels assured that this will never happen again, they're going to continue because we already went through this once. We were negotiating and Trump was secretly conspiring to attack Iran with Netanyahu eight,

nine months ago. Then again, this time around, as we were negotiating, he did the same thing. So we're not going to allow him to walk away, rearm himself, prepare himself and then launch another attack six months from now, a year from now, or two years from now.

OK, but the argument, of course, would come back exactly the same to Iran. And many people will laugh, you know, wryly at your description of Iran as any kind of victim, given its activities in supporting terrorist organisations all over the Middle East for decades, given the repression of its own people in the 47 years this regime has been intact. And you and I have debated that ad infinitum. You're never going to give an inch about any of it. I'm not going to waste more time trying to get you to now. But in relation to a settlement, the Americans and the Israelis will want exactly the same

from Iran. They will say the whole point of why they waged this attack. And look, I don't know what they know. But they say that there was legitimate evidence that Iran had been very rapidly rebuilding its nuclear capability, enriching the uranium to a point where it could create a nuclear bomb, and they could not allow that to happen. That was against undertakings that Iran had given the international community.

So they want the same thing from you that you have just asked for from them. So I ask simply, how does it get resolved?

No, there is no moral equivalence between an evil empire and its victims. There never was moral equivalence. Iran does not have terrorist organizations in the region. Hezbollah, which you call a terrorist organization, was created as a result of the Israeli regime's invasion of Lebanon and the occupation of the capital of the country. It was born to expel this regime that had occupied this country.

And in Palestine, all of the resistance organizations were created. Every single one were created as a result of occupation, ethnic cleansing, something that you know quite well, but you want to see otherwise. Or the resistance in Iraq or Afghanistan. You deny the people of these countries agency when a foreign power controls their fate, and then you want to blame Iran for everything that happens.

Instead of invading countries and occupying countries and murdering people, the empire should just go home and have normal relations with each country. And then we wouldn't have this sort of conflict.

So do you concede quite happily then that the Iranian regime has supported both with money and with arms, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Hamas. Are you proud of that?

Yes, why not? They are liberation organizations. Without Hezbollah, the US regime, the Israeli regime, would still be occupying Lebanon. They would still be controlling Lebanon. The same is true in Palestine.

By now, they would have ethnically cleansed the entire land of Palestine. Right now, as we speak, you know this as well as I, they are carrying out ethnic cleansing in the West Bank. And the West is silent. Not a single Western embassy protest. Why? Because

all of the West believes unofficially the same thing that the U.S. ambassador does in occupied Palestine. What does he believe? He believes that the Israeli regime has the most moral army in the world, like in Gaza with the genocide, and that if it takes over the entire region, that's fine. This is the unofficial policy of the United States and its European partners. The official policy is something else. So, without a doubt, it is the Palestinians who are the victims.

It is the Lebanese who are the victims. It is the Yemenis who are victims. And it is the Iraqis who have been victims. And now it's the Iranese who are the victims. It is the Yemenis who are victims. And it is the Iraqis who've been victims. Now it's the Iranians who are victims. Your countries are all, you want to portray them as victims, but they go and kidnap presidents in Latin America.

They strangle people in Cuba. They destroy Libya and allow slave markets to emerge. And somehow you're always this innocent bystander

and we are the bad guys. Just to be clear, I've never described, I've never used the word victim about either the United States or Israel. I don't believe them to be victims, but I understand their arguments

for why they do what they do. I don't always agree with them, but I understand their arguments in the same way I they do. I don't always agree with them, but I understand their arguments. And the same way I listen to your arguments. My question for you, you asked me to condemn the notion of America attacking big power plants in Iran.

And I happily did that. I think it would be a terrible mistake, because I think Iran would immediately do the same thing to all the neighboring Gulf states. And it would be, as I said, an hegemonic get in. Would you condemn the terror attacks committed by 3000 Hamas terrorists on October the 7th, for example, in return?

We went through that the first time I was on your show, and I said I would condemn them if I were to condemn

the French resistance against the Nazis.

OK, so you don't condemn it, just to be clear, you're equivocating, but you don't

condemn it.

No, definitely not.

Okay, so look, viewers can make their own minds up. If you can't condemn 3,000 people coming over a border and attacking innocent people who are at a music festival or in their kibbutz or wherever it may be, killing elderly people, young people, kidnapping a baby, kidnapping Holocaust survivors. If you can't find it in yourself to condemn the actions that day by Hamas, people will judge you accordingly.

You can be as judgmental as you want against the United States and Israel and some of the points you make, I may agree with. But whereas I'm happy to condemn what would be a grotesque miscalculation if the Americans did attack your power plants, you can't even condemn the murder of 1,200 people and the kidnapping of another 250. And that says a lot about you, Professor Morandi.

No, actually, I think it says a lot about you because you know better than to say this, but you have to say this.

That's how you keep your job.

Why? Who do you think I'm answerable to? Oh, well, the resistance. Who? I own my own business. I own my own channel.

I'm answerable to nobody. Who am I answerable to? The people who keep your show on air. Who? Hang on, who? The people who keep your show on air.

Who do you think keeps me on air? Well, you know much better than the city of DeSoto. Give me a name. You don't want me to respond to you. The people that own the media industry. Who are you talking about?

Who do you think puts me on air? people, the people that own the people that own the media industry, who are you talking about? Which do you think puts me on? You know, quite well, give me a name that it is it is you don't want me to answer. Please give me a name. Give me a name. Look, here's the first time you invited me one day to talk one name or somebody who controls time you invited me, you allowed me to talk. And it didn't go well for you.

And it didn't go well for you.

And ever since then, you prevent me from speaking.

Just give me a name.

Because you know whenever I speak, you have no answer.

Give me a name.

Go and look it up.

If you don't know who owns the media outlet that your company works and provides services for, go and look it up.

Sorry, you don't seem to understand what my company is. My company is owned by me.

Yes, in any case, your company that is owned by you uses this format, this platform to speak to me and prevent me from speaking and you talk over me the whole time.

When have I prevented you from speaking? I've had you on multiple times in the last few years. In any case, you never let me talk. I never prevent you from speaking. You say that I'm under control by people, but you won't name them. Again, viewers can make their own calculations. Look it up. Look it up. Give me a name.

Look them up. I'll send it to name of the people who you work with. We're uncensored. I'll look it up after the show and give you the name. If you think I'm being censored, give me a name. Why do you invite me if you're afraid of me talking? Because you are a spokesman for the Iranian regime in Tehran, and therefore your opinions

in the middle of a war in Iran against America and Israel are pertinent and talk. You're talking nonsense because I'm not a spokesman for anyone, but this is how you like to discredit me. I'm an academic and I teach at the University of Tehran and I don't get paid for doing this work. I risk my life. Did you know

that a verified account on Twitter that has has paid partnership, is gathering money, a million dollars in order

to kidnap me? I saw that.

I thought it was disgusting. Yes.

Do you condemn?

I condemn it, yeah.

Do you condemn the owner of Twitter?

Elon Musk. You mean Elon Musk? I think Elon Musk should not allow that to be done on his platform. You condemn it. I think it's terrible, yes.

You condemn it.

Yes.

OK.

So I find it easy to condemn terrible things.

You don't.

But people like you who dishonestly say I'm a spokesperson, even though if I were a spokesman, that would not legitimise what they do. But by creating this aura that is dishonest, you create an environment where they can get away with these crimes, right? Well, just to be clear, once

again, now, once again, once again, just finish my point, afraid you of the things that you say and the actions that they take.

Let me get to God's issue. Just let me answer very briefly. You've asked me several times if I condemn various things and I have immediately condemned them. Let me respond to the first issue. I asked you to condemn one thing and it was the Hamas attacks on October the 7th.

And you chose not to and likened them to the French resistance. And people like I say, as they do with all our interviews, they will judge you according to what you say.

You don't want me to answer the question.

You don't answer.

I'll answer. Hamas is a resistance organization. Listen for a moment. The people who live in

Gaza come from Palestine. They are refugees that were pushed

into. I asked you if you condemned it and you said no end. And you answer the question. Listen, listen, I'm gonna leave it there. Professor Morandi. Listen, you chose not to condemn it. And you chose not to tell me who you think controls my show. Viewers can make their own minds up

about your answers. But you cannot say I don't give you a platform because I regularly do. And we don't censor anything you say. But I condemn things when I think they're wrong. You don't.

You don't. You don't, because you don't think they're wrong.

You think what Hamas did was perfectly justified.

I've got to leave it there.

I've got to leave you there. I said that you can have a live debate with me in Iran. Let's do it. On Press TV.

A live debate.

Let's do it. Whenever you like.

So come to Iran. No, no, I'm not coming to Iran. You can visit the country and see how awful it is. You come to London and sit in this studio and we'll do it. Done.

Deal.

I've been to London. I've been to London. I'll leave it there for now. I've been to London.

You've never been to Iran.

We've talked about Iran but you've never seen it. I appreciate you coming on Uncensored. If you want to come and have the balls to fly over here and sit right here opposite me, you do it. You're a free man. We'll air it. Uncensored.

You're a free man.

Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent. The only boss around here is me. If you enjoy our show, we ask for only one simple thing. Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Piers Morgan Uncensored on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate, and entertain. And we'll do it all for free.

Independent, uncensored media has never been more critical, Independent, uncensored media has never been more critical, and we couldn't do it without you.