‘This Is SURRENDER’ Trump Iran Ceasefire Threat As Israel Bombs Beirut | With Megyn Kelly & Joe Kent

The reality is nobody thinks this was a big victory.

The Iranian people are arguably worse off than they were before. And it's all based on baby Netanyahu's special intelligence, which cost at least 15 American lives, the fracturing of the Trump coalition, probably at least the next two elections for Republicans. So great job.

The Israelis have been slaughtering the people of Lebanon all morning. Carpet

bombing cities just out of rage. First thing that President Trump has to do in order to make sure this lasts is actually restrain the Israelis, take away key components of the military aid that we give them. We would restrain our ally, who by the way just helped us achieve one of the greatest military victories of the modern era, we would restrain them instead of trying to use the threat of continued belligerence from them to extract

more punitive terms from the Iranians as silly.

The fury about President Trump's vow to end Iranian civilization was not about a fear he was about to do that or a hope that he would. It was about the foundational idea that the United States is a bulwark against exactly the kind of atrocities he foreshadowed. If the US is capable and willing to eradicate an entire population, how does it have the moral authority to be a global arbiter of right and wrong? But Donald Trump doesn't seem interested in that. Clearly he sees the US as a muscular superpower which can throw its weight around to get what it wants. And to be clear, many people support him about that.

So amid the shrieking noise and spin about the 11,000 ceasefire agreement, it's worth asking a simple question. Did the US get what it wants? Well, the Strait of Hormuz is open, just as it was before the war began. But nobody is in any doubt about the fact

that Iran controls it. In fact, some versions of the text refer to guaranteeing Iran's dominance. The Iranian regime is wounded and weakened, but there's no doubt that it's the same regime. Several branches have been hacked off, but the trunk and the roots remain. Many of Iran's military targets have been destroyed, but Iran still has its uranium, its ballistic missiles and its proxies across the region. The Iranian plan, which Trump now calls a

workable basis for talks, includes reparations for the damaged cores, the lifting of all sanctions, and the release of Iranian funds seized by the United States. It's a multi-billion dollar windfall. What does he think they'll do with it?

And on the question of cost, the US has now spent more than $30 billion on the war so far. 15 US soldiers are dead, thousands of Iranian civilians are dead, Trump's approval ratings are at a record low and his base is at war with itself all as the US prepares for elections which could handicap or even end his presidency. We should all keep an open mind about what happens next. We should all be grateful for a pause in this war.

But if this is what a historic victory looks like, well, Mr. President, I wouldn't be so sure to claim that. First of all, I'm joined by Megan Kelly, host of the Megan Kelly Show. Megan, what's been the point of it all?

You gotta say, the deal sounds very much like surrender on our part, which I'm in favor of. I mean, great, this needed to end, ugly or any other way. It needed to end. It was folly to begin with. It was folly throughout. It remains folly. I'm sure Mark Levin and Lindsey Graham were feeling really, really good until the end part where we had to end it. And now they're very, very angry. Mark Levin was practically

in tears on Fox News last night because we didn't see it through, I guess, with the nuclear bomb that we were going to drop on Iran. We didn't go in commando style and seize all the uranium. We allowed, according to the Israelis, according to the Iranians, that is, the war against Hezbollah to stop, which he wants seen through. He would love to see Lebanon completely bombed and to be made to look like Gaza.

And there was really no point to going forward, other than more death and destruction. The Iranians proved to be tough MFers, and they realized that they had something far more

powerful than a nuclear bomb. They had control over the Strait of Hormuz. And Trump was warned prior to getting involved in this conflict by the chairman

of the Joint Chiefs that they were not likely to collapse easily and that they probably would maintain control of the straight and could cause a global economic panic.

And he didn't listen. What he did with the Dan Cain warnings was rush to truth social, Trump did, saying, all Dan Cain knows how to do is win. And if I tell him to invade, he's going to win.

Well, that's not really what happened. There was never any question we could decimate their Navy or their Air Force. Of course, no one would ever second-guess the power of the U.S. military. It's pristine and it's impeccable,

and it's truly awe-striking. But these battles in the Middle East have been fought now for 20-plus years, and we continue to learn the same lesson over and over. It is not their overwhelming air power or their incredible navies that keep us mired in quagmires. It's their insurgencies.

It's this disparate way of fighting that we don't know how to handle. We can't tamp down with the amazing power of an aircraft carrier, which by the way, we had trouble getting anywhere close there after they figured out how to attack it.

And you know, we've already learned this. Trump watched us learn it. And so what led Trump, what, at 79 years old, to sit in there in that situation room when Bibi Netanyahu was seated as an equal. Yeah.

Trump didn't even sit at the head of the table. Trump sat at the side of the table and Bibi was across from him as an equal in the American situation room. What led him to sit there and buy what that guy was selling hook, line and sinker when every other president was able to see through that liar. What was it?

Because he was told the next day by our own top advisors, from the chairman of the joint chiefs to the secretary of state to the vice president, that these are lies and that these objectives are not going to be attainable. Don't believe him.

We might be able to wipe out the Ayatollah, not regime change, Ayatollah, and we might be able to wipe out the Ayatollah, not regime change. Ayatollah. And we might be able to decimate some portion of their missiles and their military. Okay, that's true. But the goals as stated by Trump

when we actually did pull the trigger were all over the board and to this moment, he's pushing the BS claim that we affected regime change. No, we didn't. It's the same regime, just different players. There isn't somebody more, more moderate in there at all. We have no reason to believe that.

In fact, it looks like the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is in control now, which is far more radical and the fatwa that had allegedly been issued by the Ayatollah on developing nukes is gone. Iran is more powerful economically. It controls the strait and now is demanding the lifting of all sanctions against it. And what Trump did with that 10 point plan was go from Monday saying no, not good, to

Tuesday saying very workable, we can do it as a means of saving face to bail off of his insane threats about annihilating an entire civilization. So I don't know how we got here, Piers. I'd like to know just as much as anybody else, but all I can think's what's going on. And I think that's what's happening. And I think that's what's And I think that's what's And I think that's what's

And I think that's what's And I think that's what's And I think that's what's And I think that's what's And I think that's what's I don't know why. He was too weak to say no. He was too gullible to see through the lies. One way or another, he allowed himself to be pushed into this insane conflict that caused, forget,

forget, you know, the blood and treasure we spilled, as you point out, at least 15 service personnel, I believe, were being lied to about the total number of dead and wounded. But we don't know what the accurate death toll in Iran is, how many civilians in Iran died, how many died in our allies around Iran who now don't trust us.

What penalty do we pay other than the cost and the 15 lives that we expended, which count for a lot? But we didn't take the brunt of Iran's response, our allies did, with whom we did not consult prior to starting this war, who are very, very angry, many of them, about what was done to them. What's going to happen to the trillions of dollars Trump was touting that they donated,

they were offered to donate to the United States just to be nice guys and have great relations? You think they're going to spend that on us now? They're going to spend it on themselves. They've got to rebuild massive portions of their own countries thanks to the bombing campaign unleashed against them, because they were within reach, by Iran, who couldn't reach us.

So we've upset our allies. We've pleased Israel, although now they're upset that there's a ceasefire. We've upset the American base. The Trump coalition that got him elected is completely fractured and in smithereens. And he doesn't care, Piers, because he doesn't care about the Republican Party. He cares about himself.

If Trump had to get reelected, he probably would have handled this a little differently. But he doesn't care that the Republicans are going to lose the midterms. I think he thought that was a foregone conclusion. And I don't think he cares that JD Vance or Marco Rubio wins the presidency next time around. I think it's a piece of Trump that would like to say,

I'm the only one who could do it. The Republican Party is nothing without me. And the rest of us are going to be around to pick up the pieces.

I mean, a fascinating assessment. I remember early on you picking up as I did on what Rubio had said about the reason why America went in. And then the immediate backtracking the next day when they panicked and realized they'd let the cat out of the bag. This was clearly a Netanyahu-driven operation. He had persuaded Trump to come with him.

Then we had Antony Blinken saying, well, actually he tried to do this when Biden was president, when Obama was president. And both times, those two guys said, no, we're not going to come with you. And then he didn't attack. So he clearly got third time lucky with an American president that would come with him. But I remember early on, you and I and others who suggested, dared to suggest that we take Rubio at his word, that actually this was all at Israel's behest.

Once again, we were anti-Semitic if we said that. This was a hatred of Israel that was driving our warped crazed minds. And then you read this deep dive in the New York Times, fascinating, I mean, what's most fascinating to me, they've got somebody on the inside

telling them exactly what happened in that situation, which is fascinating. But when you see it all laid out, it's crystal clear. That's exactly what happened. Netanyahu got in that situation room at the White House, like you say, unprecedented, the way he had the guy from Mossad on the big screen. He had him there with his, it was like two equal partners. And he persuaded Trump in that room to go in. And I think Trump will regret this.

Well, you're right, he may not care. He may want to just say, moving on, it's a big victory, blah, blah, blah. But the reality is, nobody thinks this was a big victory for the United States. Nobody can see anything,

but actually a bit of a humiliation, not militarily, because America can beat anyone when it comes to a military punch up. But what Iran has now discovered is that as long as it can control Australia foremost, it can control the global economy and therefore it can, if it has enough patience, play out the long game with President of the United States who will have to cave, because ultimately, it's gonna cause him so much economic and political damage,

he has no choice. That's what's happened here. Trump hasn't brought this to an end out of some great desire for peace. He's brought it to an end because he could see that the economic and political damage

was getting worse by the day.

Because the Iranians wouldn't fold. They realized what the pressure point was and that it was working. And they watched Trump's poll numbers spiral downward in every piece of the coalition that elected him. And they realized that their ability to just withstand the beating was working, was getting them to where they needed to get.

Because look, there was never majority support behind this war. There wasn't some groundswell of support behind this war. Right, there was a Republican-based support for the war, but the Democrats didn't support it, the independents didn't support it.

And very soon into the war, the Republicans stopped supporting it too. MAGA supported it. As MAGA dwindled, by the way, was already only about 15% of the population. It's getting smaller by the day. President Trump three weeks ago declared that to be MAGA,

you have to support Mark Levin, where upon which multiple formerly diehard MAGA, people who are dedicated to it said, I'm out, I'm out. If to it, said, I'm out. I'm out. If those are the stakes, I'm out.

Why would I support that warmonger who's frothing at the mouth over the idea of lives being cost in Iran, civilian or otherwise? He's a disgusting fool who's well past his prime. We should not be listening to him. But President Trump is obsessed. On Sunday, he tweeted out that we should be, the Supreme Court should be listening to Mark

Levin.

I know. All nine justices. I don't get it.

Which would double his viewership. Yeah, I don't get it because you've been loudly calling out the folly of this war from day one. I have. Tucker has. Candace Owens has.

Joe Rogan has. Theo von has, I mean, there is a massive cross section of people in our world, which is what I call the unfiltered world, where you're not controlled perhaps by other forces that own networks and so on that sort of send out a directive about what you should and shouldn't be saying.

So in the free spirit world, where you can say what you really think, pretty much everyone has been agreed, this looked like madness. There's a very interesting piece, I think, with Stephen Chung pops up in the New York Times piece, who emerges as one of the smarter characters,

actually, that Trump has around him, who said, well, how does all this sit with we're not going to go and wage war in the Middle East, which is what we campaigned on? How does this sit with America first? This will have an obvious effect on prices,

on inflation, on gas pump costs and so on. How does any of this work? And there's no real answer, according to the New York Times in the room to that. He just raises this specter of this is the elephant in the room. This is exactly the opposite to what we campaigned on. So I think politically it's been disastrous for Donald Trump. And I just don't understand, other than he got bamboozled by Netanyahu,

why he took such a gigantic risk.

I don't either. And it wasn't just Steve Chung, who is a master messenger and saw the storm coming. It was JD Vance, who according to the New York Times, was in there specifically saying, it's going to fracture the coalition.

And boy, is that an understatement. The Trump is now underwater, and he wasn't before, with men. Don't forget the gender divide that happened in 2024. Women went overwhelmingly for Kamala Harris and men went for Trump. Now he's underwater with men,

including with young men and young people. The young person coalition that Charlie Kirk delivered to the president is gone. They've abandoned Donald Trump. The working class peers, the latest poll that just came out showed he's two points underwater with the working class. That's been Trump's base from the beginning. They were the unshakable foundation that got him elected over and over. And they're gone.

They're very angry. They care about what's happening in Iowa, not Iran. They don't want days and days and more weeks of debates over the Strait of Hormuz. No one cares. They care about their own lives. They care about the fact that they can't pay for health care.

They can't buy a home. Young people cannot get a home, even though two people are working nonstop, round the clock with no vacations in this country. President Trump promised he would do something about that. Now we see the leaked soundbite saying, eh, can't really worry about anything at the federal government level other than military.

Everything else has to be private. Well, it's gonna be the campaign ad for every Democrat in these midterms. So he's lost working class, he's lost men, he's lost young people. He lost Hispanics by some 50 points.

Every single gain with Hispanics is now gone. It's eradicated. He had made some inroads with black voters. Done. You name it, they're all gone. The question is now not who has he lost, the question is who remains. And sure, it's the diehard MAGA, Trump can do no wrong, he's some savant, whatever he says is right. That's great.

He'll always have those people. You can't win national elections with some fraction of 15% of the electorate. The vast majority of Republicans would call themselves America first, but not necessarily MAGA, certainly not the way Trump is now defining that term. And he misunderstood his own base twice critically

in the past year, and both times are really undermining him right now. One was Epstein, thinking he could just say, Epstein, who still cares about that? No one's talking about Epstein. He misread the base, which very much cared about Epstein,

not so much because they care about Jeffrey Epstein, but they care about elites being able to get away with murder and protect each other when the common man cannot. And the unwillingness to turn over stones that the base had been demanding be turned over

so we could figure out, is there some sort of child predator sex ring? Is there an elite cabal working to hurt people that gets protected because they have money and we don't? And Trump could not get rid of that with a shrug of a shoulder,

and ultimately it resulted in legislation he had to pretend he favored that was crammed down his throat and he had to sign, though it had enough loopholes in it to drive a Mack truck through. But in any event, it was a step forward on Epstein that he didn't want to make and was forced to. And this is the second one.

And this is a much, much bigger and more serious betrayal of what he ran on and of what was important to his base, which does include the America firsters and not just MAGA. Or as Marjorie Taylor Greene has been saying at this point, she's not America First, she's America Only. And I think a lot of us are getting to that point. We are sick of being the policemen of the world, of being dragged into conflict after conflict by Bibi Netanyahu, by Israel, who's supposed to be our special ally, but what

they're special at is getting us to fight their wars and get involved in their conflicts that they can't fight by themselves. That's what Dan Kaines said to President Trump the day after Netanyahu came for the seventh time and was sitting in that situation room like an equal.

He said that they're great on intelligence. That's supposed to be the area in which they're so special to us. They share their intelligence. They're great on it. But that intelligence doesn't always seem to pan out. Like the regime will fall easily. The Iranian people will revolt in the streets

and take over. With how? They don't have guns. Bombs would be raining down. Wasn't this thought through? There isn't regime change.

The Iranian people are arguably worse off than they were before. And it's all based on baby Netanyahu's special intelligence, which caused at least 15 American lives, the fracturing of the Trump coalition, probably at least the next two elections for Republicans, not to mention the amount of lives and blood and treasure

that was spilled in the Middle East. So, great job.

Megan, I've got to leave it there. Wish I could talk to you for another hour because it's blistering stuff, but you're so right. You said at the start, one word folly. What a folly it's been. And I think the repercussions are going to be enormous.

Thank you very much, David, for joining me. Good to see you. Just about everybody on all sides of the Iran war debate is taking a victory lap today. Everybody was right, it seems, and everybody has won. The notable exception is Israel. As we speak, it's continuing to pound Lebanon. Israeli officials say the ceasefire doesn't include Lebanon and the war must go on, a

direct contradiction of the Pakistani and U.S. position. Today the leader of Israel's opposition said that if this ceasefire is as good as it gets, it will amount to quote one of the most severe strategic failures in Israeli history. None of this bodes well for a permanent end to the war unless that is President Trump is about to break with Bibi Netanyahu. Somewhat lost in excitement of Trump's vow to end Iranian civilization yesterday, New York Times released an extraordinary report on how Netanyahu made the case for war in the White House. The Israeli premier, it says, planned a simple mission with swift regime change.

But it had to be now. General Kaine, the top US military official, reportedly told the President, Service is, in my experience, standard operating procedure for the Israelis. They oversell and their plans are not always well developed. They know they need us and that's why they're hard-selling. All of this appears to echo the position of Vice President JD Vance and the former Secretary of State Antony Blinken. For

several weeks now we've been told it's an anti-semitic conspiracy theory to say that Israel dragged the US into this war. Perhaps the only people who complausibly declared victory today, are those who said the evidence suggested otherwise. To debate all of this, I'm joined by Joe Kent, the former director of the US National Counterterrorism Center,

and Will Chamberlain, the senior counsel at the Article 3 Project. Well, welcome to both of you. I mean, Joe Kent, a lot of what you said when you resigned appears to have been pretty much confirmed

by that New York Times report, which is extremely detailed, and paints a picture of Netanyahu in the White House, in the Situation Room, with the head of Mossad appearing on a screen next to him, in which he laid out a four-point plan for why this

would work, decapitating the regime. The people would rise up, they would be too powerless to shut the Strait of Hormuz and so on, most of which has not happened. What do you feel about the fact there's now this ceasefire, albeit it seems quite perilous one?

Is it a recognition, do you think, by President Trump that he's got to get out of this?

Well, I think it's a good thing that President Trump took the opportunity to enact a ceasefire and to get both sides to the negotiating table. I think what's key, though, is that President Trump has to realize in order to accomplish our strategic goal, which is ending this conflict, reopening the Straits of Hormuz and maintaining the alliances that we have in the Gulf, he has got to restrain the Israelis.

The Israelis have a different strategic goal than we do. They want to take down the entire regime. They don't care how long it takes. They don't care how much we have to commit in terms of blood and treasure. So the Israelis and us have parted ways in terms of strategic objectives. We have to be honest with ourselves.

It sounds like, considering the fact that someone shared that, shared the origins of this war with the New York Times, that that is recognised now by this administration. So the first thing that President Trump has to do in order to make sure this lasts is actually restrain the Israelis, take away key components of the military aid that we give them so that they lack the capability to go on the offence and to spoil this ceasefire.

Will Temerlin, your response to that?

I mean, I think that's a completely incoherent idea, not merely wrong, but just incoherent. First off, it presupposes we have the ability to take away their offensive capabilities. Newsflash, they already have them. We can't just seize them. Are we going to invade Israel and take their planes? We can't.

They have the F-35. They have these capabilities. Remember, they launched the 12-day war on their own.

So even if they have itself, it's not acceptable. But on that point, Will, the Americans could withdraw their funding. Sure, but it wouldn't be the winning. The billions of dollars that go to the Israelis, which they use to fund their own military,

that could just be withdrawn. So America isn't powerless. It can it can exercise that power. Right. But the offensive capabilities they would need to strike Iran they already have. They're the second biggest air force in the world today. Even if we said we're not going to give you four billion dollars a year going forward that wouldn't stop anything. And then the second point is that this is an unbelievably silly approach to foreign policy because we haven't hammered out final terms with the Iranians yet. We're still in the middle of negotiations. The idea that we would restrain our ally,

who by the way, just helped us achieve one of the greatest military victories of the modern era, we would restrain them instead of trying to use the threat of continued belligerence from them to extract more punitive terms from the Iranians is silly. It's just completely antithetical to how things should work. And the idea that we need to be worried about our Gulf neighbours who would be upset if we didn't

restrain the Israelis is also absurd, because our Gulf neighbours are on our side and this war has not only solidified our position militarily, it solidified it diplomatically, because all those countries are furious with the Iranians and are on our side and want to strengthen cooperation with both us and Israel. But what is clear from that New York Times report, it seems to be incredibly well sourced. So somebody's been talking who was in that room. What is clear from that is that the Israelis,

maybe this was an honest mistake on their part, a misreading of the situation, but they certainly appear to be of the belief if you took out the Ayatollah and some of the top people with him, that this would then lead to an uprising by the people.

And that amid all this chaos, there would be no ability to close the Strait of Hormuz. Well, none of that has really happened. Yes, they got rid of the Ayatollah, but he's just been replaced by other similarly minded people.

And then there's been no uprising by the Iranian people whatsoever. And of course, the Strait of Hormuz has been held in a kind of stranglehold by the Iranians in a very powerful way. It has to be conceded, which has caused enormous damage to the global economy. They've basically controlled that strait now for four or five weeks, and it's caused hell. And none of that appears to have been predicted

by the Israelis in their sales pitch to Trump to join them on this war.

Well, so I think you're overstating a number of things there. First off, I mean, you know, the Iranian Navy is gone, right? They're controlling the strait by threatening to shoot at people, but they don't have any naval forces

meaningfully in the area. And the idea, remember, they were thinking that card, which is their only Trump card, that's the maximum explanation they have.

But it's a very powerful card. And it's one that the Israelis did not think

they had the power, according to the New York Times report. The Israelis might have made a slight misjudgment on that effect, it's war. I think the Iranians made a much bigger misjudgment overall when you talk about the complete destruction of their military capability.

Right, but if you take away the Strait of Hormuz issue, then you've got overwhelming military dominance by the Americans and Israelis. Yes, the Iranians would have still attacked their neighbouring Gulf states, but that would be a military conflict part of it. The fact that the Strait of Hormuz has been shut pretty much for five weeks, that has been an asymmetric war, which, you know, with the best will in the world, has been wielded

very successfully by the Iranians. For whatever reason. I don't think so at all. I think that's actually been wielded quite poorly. And prior to this war... Let me finish my point, Joe, and then you can speak.

Two weeks ago, the Iranians were saying, we're not going to give up the Strait of Hormuz unless we get a permanent peace deal, a permanent commitment to non-aggression and reparations. What are they trading it for as of yesterday? Two-week ceasefire, no promises. from the Israelis to stop fighting Hezbollah. That's how badly they're beaten. Okay.

Well, Joe, he called you silly and incompetent, I think, earlier. So this is your chance to respond.

Prior to this war, the Straits of Hormuz were transited by anybody trading oil for free. Post-war, the Iranians are going to be able to extract a fee. That's one of their negotiating chips they have now. Prior to the war, the Ayatollah that we killed was actually at the negotiating table with us.

The reason why none of this was taken into account is because the Israelis didn't really care about what would happen to the Straits of Hormuz. They didn't care what would happen to our Gulf allies. Our Gulf allies right now still technically are with us, but the fact that we were unable to provide them with security guarantees lowers our status in the region, potentially could threaten the petrodollar in the region. And so right now we're in a weaker position because we listened to a foreign government

that had a different strategic goal in mind than we did. So it's great that we got the ceasefire. We need to maintain that ceasefire and we have to actually Withhold things from the Israelis which we can do the Israelis do have a modern Air Force But they rely on us for a lot of the logistics the refueling in order to be able to reach into Iran So we very much are in the driver's seat of what we that's not true Joe. That's just obviously Help them. We know it's a hundred percent. They can't reach into, they cannot reach into Israel. I was actually, I've actually been in the military, man.

I've been part of these operations.

Then explain how they did the 12 day war without refueling.

Right?

If we weren't participating in the offensive operations of the 12 day war, we'd get struck the hell out of it. Well, we helped them out a good deal with logistics. They can't sustain operations without us. They wouldn't be able to continue to sustain operations all the way into Iran with conventional military forces in any meaningful way without our support. We have to pull that back. We also have to pull back their ability to go on the offense outside of their borders because it's going to interfere with the peace that we're trying to achieve.

Right now, we're paying for their defense. we're paying for the offense, and also in terms of our status in the region and our ability to keep commerce and oil flow going out of the Straits of Hormuz and the Middle East, all of that is being negatively affected by us listening to a foreign government. So we have to put Israel back in the junior partner role if we're going to accomplish

our strategic objectives. Why couldn't you persuade Pete Hegseth of any of this?

Well, I tried. So that therefore I had to leave the government.

He didn't agree with you. He has better intelligence than you. You weren't privy to any of this stuff. Like you just don't know. That's why you're now on the outside doing podcasts instead of inside the administration trying to shape policy.

You don't know. From the inside, look, my letter of resignation has been out there. What's important right now is that we support President Trump in getting this peace deal and making sure it actually sticks. The problem is, as confirmed by the New York Times, that was well sourced from within the West Wing. The Israelis were in the driver's seat for all of this. Well, if you read the article, I think it's pretty evident.

You know how leaks work in Washington, D.C. Okay, well, well, well. With the New York Times. Well, if you say, if you say it wasn't well sourced, well, which part are you contesting?

Oh, no, it was well sourced. You guys are just mischaracterizing how much influence Israel had based on what was written in that article. What? Which was Israel gave a presentation. And then after the Israelis were offline, right, then you had the meeting between the US principals, in which John Ratcliffe and others were talking about, yeah, the Israelis are overselling their ability to achieve regime change.

That's probably not going to happen. But they said, you know, on what we've and what we've thought for a while is when it comes to missiles and when it comes to their ballistic shield, when it comes to their Navy, we have the capability to do that. And we should do that. And so the idea that we didn't get suckered into a regime change war. From the outset, American goals did not include regime change.

From Trump's very first speech, every public statement

by Hegzeff and Rubio. Donald Trump literally talked about regime change early on. Literally. Donald Trump literally said regime change.

Trump said regime change was an objective of the war. Fact check me on that after. He never did. You don't think Donald Trump ever mentioned regime change? Incorrect. I didn't say that. I said it wasn't a military objective of a war. He said it would be nice to have.

Donald Trump is still claiming today that he has affected, he's claiming today he's affected regime change. What are you talking about?

He's affected it. That's because he's basically saying we killed all the senior leadership, which we did, by the way, in an unprecedented fashion. So who's running the country? That doesn't mean it was an original military. Who is running Iran right now? Fact check me on this, man. Go look at his original statements. It would be nice to have, but

it's not an objective of the war. Trump changed his goalposts every 10 seconds.

That's been part of the thing. This has been remarkably consistent from Hegseth, Rubio on down. Why did America launch a preemptive strike against Iran, Will? Oh, to essentially prevent them from building up a further ballistic missile capability

as a shield behind which they would be able to develop their nuclear weapons program. That was not the reason given by the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio.

False. Go look it up, man. He said it over and over and over again.

On camera, he said when he was first asked the reason the United States launched a preemptive strike against Iran was because another country, brackets Israel, had indicated they were going to attack Iran and therefore the Americans knew there would be attacks against some of their interests in the Middle East, so they got in first. Marco Rubio's own mouth on camera.

That was the reason for the timing, not the reason for the strike. The strategic reason for the strike, which Rubio explained in that very same press conference. I remember the exact one you're talking about. It's like a gaggle.

I think he's in Congress after having a meeting with people. This is very early in the war. He says the reason for the strike is to prevent them from developing their ballistic missile shield further The reason for the timing like why today why February 28th? was the fact that they had this intelligence about the meeting of I had come any and everybody else and that Israel was gonna go ahead with that under any circumstances

So we should start we should do it now, but I mean go again go back and look at that I know exactly what press conference you're talking about. And I don't think your memory, you're you are remembering one piece of it, but you're not remembering.

It's a pretty significant piece when the secretary of state of the United States on record says that the reason for the preemptive strike by the United States. For the timing. Was because Israel was attacking Iran. And then we hear from Antony Blinken, one of his predecessors, that Netanyahu had tried to sell this to both Biden and Obama.

And when they both rejected the opportunity to join him in attacking Iran, guess what? Israel didn't attack. So it looks like he got third time lucky with Trump, who went along with it. But had Trump said no,

I don't think Israel would have attacked. Well, but then why did they strike in the 12-day war?

They did that without American offensive.

Well, let's talk about the 12-day war. Let me bring Joe back in this. The 12-day war is fascinating because I distinctly remember, and I'm sure Will will remember differently to me, but I remember Donald Trump at the end of a 12-day war, saying that this had put back any aspirations by the Iranians to build a nuclear weapon decades, that we had obliterated their nuclear capabilities.

It was done, done, gone. And here we are, nine months later, having to launch a full-fledged war in Iran because the threat remains apparently not just the same, but so imminent that America had to act immediately.

Now try and make sense of that for me, Joe.

Well, this is what the Israelis do. They've always wanted this regime change war. And so they continually use their influence through official channels and then also through their echo chamber in the media to move the red line. They did this with the enrichment issue. President Trump initially said our policy is no nuclear weapons for Iran. The Iranian Supreme Leader agreed. There was a lot

of space there for negotiations. There was negotiations that were taking place for several months. Then the pro-Israel lobby basically came in and convinced President Trump that the new red line was zero enrichment. 12-day war happens, Operation Midnight Hammer happens. We take away the ability for them to enrich. The Iranians withhold their proxies, they don't retaliate in any meaningful way, they get right back to the negotiating table. And then we're hearing basically what Will just said, oh, now we have to go in and attack

Iran because of this ballistic missile capability. So the red line moves again every time Israel needs a new justification for the war, and they get the outcome that they want by using their pressure network and their media echo chamber and their official engagements with the U.S. government. They were still worried that we were going to get a deal with the Iranians. And so therefore they went ahead and said, hey, we're going to preemptively go into Iran and attack.

And knowing that this attack would be against the regime, Iran's reaction to an attack directly against the regime would be to enact their contingency plan, which would be targeting our bases in the region. So the only actual imminent threat that Iran posed, or that was posed, was the attack, a threat by the Israelis against Iran.

There was no imminent Iranian threat attack against us.

No, I don't think there was for a moment. Will Chamberlain, I mean, as we sit here today debating this, the regime remains in place. Trump wants to argue it's different people, therefore it's a new regime. But it's the same people.

It's the same regime. It's just the faces of-

Minus the 100 senior leaders who are up there.

OK, so a few of the leaders have gone, but they've been replaced by others. But they've been replaced by others from the same regime with the same ideology. It would be like saying you've decapitated the Trump regime, but he's replaced by a bunch of people called Trump.

It's like, you know, it's kind of a meaningless. I mean, that's what happened in Venezuela, right? Like, I mean, we effectively took out one person in Venezuela.

Now we have a cooperative government. Well, the regime hasn't changed in Venezuela. All that's changed is the president got picked up in the middle of the night and put in a New York prison cell. But the regime's continues, his own number two is running it. So the regime is still there. So I think we should be clear about what regime change means, right? With my quaint old head on, regime change means you change the regime. Not that you just take out a few people on the top of it and they get replaced by other people from the same regime.

Secondly, the enriched uranium remains in Iran. None of that has been secured by either the Americans or Israelis as we speak. Thirdly, the Straits of Hormuz remain under the control of the Iranians which they weren't, it wasn't in control of it before this war started and it is despite what you say, they are now charging money. Apparently they want to charge a dollar a barrel, was the last thing I read.

And Trump's all for it, because it's going to make everyone rich. So they've got the control of that. They've continued to fire rockets, it seems, at some of their Gulf state neighbors. So I'm looking at this historic victory,

and I'm thinking, well, where's the victory? What is the victory? Because I don't see it. And forgive me if I take with a pinch of salt this idea that now, that now, now.

Let's try this by historical analogy.

Let me finish my point, then you can respond. Apparently, we're now supposed to believe that rather like eight, nine months ago, Iran's capability of building a nuclear weapon has been destroyed, like it was nine months ago. Well, why can't they just pop up again in nine months? They've still got all the enriched uranium.

What's gonna stop them? So look, I put it to you that the charge sheet against the claim of historic victory is pretty big.

All right, so I'll deal first with that minor point on the enriched uranium, right? President Trump has said- Minor point? Untrue. No, no, no. I mean, in relation to you saying we lost the war, right?

I didn't say America's lost the war. I'm disputing the claim. You didn't think it's a big victory. I'm disputing the claim to historic victory, given the checklist I just presented.

Well, let's imagine, if you will, 1942, a month after Hitler declared war on the United States in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor. And the current military state of affairs is the entire German Navy is at the bottom of the sea, the Luftwaffe is destroyed, the complete Allied air superiority over Germany, Hitler, Goering, Bormann, and Himmler are all dead in a massive military strike. And yet the German press is claiming the Germans have managed to shut down trade via some rockets in the Danish straits. Who's winning?

Is that like not, I mean, people have lost context about what it means to win a war

because it's been so long. I've lost the plot with that analogy, I'm sorry.

In five weeks, we have decimated Iranian military capability. We struck 13,000 targets and they managed to hit a single plane and they couldn't even capture the soldiers that fell out of that plane. It's one of the most lost side of military conflicts in history.

A lot of them are older attacks on the neighboring Gulf states, hitting oil refineries, hitting tourist areas.

And the fact that you have a temporary restrained train and increasing gas by a dollar a gallon for a month does not change that in the slightest.

Really?

Yes, 100%.

So you're looking at this- a great victory and I've lost the plot. Great victory is the fact that we have a ceasefire and this could have been much, much worse. However, as opposed to making some like obscure World War II reference, because everything always has to be about World War II, let's just compare the situation between now and just a month ago before the war. The Straits of Hormuz before this last iteration of war kicked off, the Straits of Hormuz were open for commerce.

People and companies could transit that for free. Iran didn't have a stranglehold on that. Our GCC alliance was completely intact. There was still a guarantee of American security. That hadn't been fractured. We had a regime inside of Iran,

although they were not the best. It's not exactly what we wanted. They had a prohibition on building a nuclear weapon, and they were involved in active negotiations with us. They were closely adhering to a strict escalation ladder. Their proxies were not attacking us.

No, that's exactly what happened. They were not building a nuclear weapon.

They had 60% in resurrentium. What do you think they were using that for?

For medical purposes? If they wanted a bomb, they had decades, long before President Trump ever became the president, to develop a nuclear weapon. There was a prohibition by the Ayatollah, which was a reasonable and calculated approach. They didn't want to become like Libya. They didn't want to become like Saddam. They had reached a point where they would keep the capability, but not build a nuclear

weapon. They both had negotiations with Witkoff saying, you have 60% enriched uranium enough for 11 bombs and we won't give up our enrichment rights

and we won't give you up anything diplomatically

you can issue militarily. You are fast. The FAA was obviously fake. The Iranian nuclear archive, which is just nonsense. Look at the Straits of Hormuz, look at the GCC.

Let me ask Will a question, which is, Will, does Israel have nuclear weapons?

Yes, almost certainly. I mean, they haven't officially claimed it,

but almost certainly they do. Why don't we know for a fact?

Because they don't want to say so, because there's American statutes,

I believe that would create issues. Why do they get a pass about that?

Well, because they're our ally and Iran's our enemy.

Ah, so our friends- See, it's because we're the good guys, interesting omission. So our friends don't need to be transparent about their nuclear capability,

but our enemies do. Yes, that's exactly how it works. Hypocrisy, isn't it? No, it's only hypocrisy if you don't have a normative view of whether the United States is good and Iran is bad. There is no single good reason why Israel should be allowed to refuse to admit whether it has nuclear weapons. There's no reason. They should be called the international law police.

They should be. Again, the United States, they're a core ally of the United States and the United States is the most powerful country in the world. This whole multipolarity talk is just silly. There's a unipolar hegemon in the world. It's the United States.

And we're also very benevolent. And so Israel, our friend, gets to do things that the Iranians don't. And that's the way the world is.

When you say America is benevolent, how does that sit with the president of the United States two days ago talking about the imminent destruction of an entire civilization?

Oh, you mean like death to America, death to Israel? No, no. death to America, death to Israel, right? Like, we've dealt with for 30 years. Trump throws one post out and everybody loses their trap in the middle of a negotiation and signs a ceasefire within eight hours?

I'm talking about Donald Trump threatening to annihilate 90 million people in his own words, in his own words, on his post. Do you not care about that?

I just see it as negotiating bluster. Trump's been doing this stuff for 40 years. What's a threatened genocide. I mean, that's exactly what the Iranians have been doing to us. They had a clock in the middle of their downtown saying that they're going to destroy the entire country of Israel. So America should be as amoral, if not as immoral, as its enemies.

So what are you saying?

We should be sufficiently ruthless to get our, like, negotiated pieces that actually make sense, which we seem to have done here. Apparently this focused the Iranians' mind and made them realize they should come to the table.

Are you aware that threatening to commit an act of genocide in itself could be presented as a war crime?

I think that would be frivolous. Again, send the International Law Police to the White House if you want.

Joe Kent, what's remarkable is there's a kind of arrogance to the way Will is talking. Like, none of this matters. I think it does matter. I've known Trump a long time, I consider him a friend, but on this, I think he's lost the plot. And I think the idea that from the White House, you issue a statement, in your own words, threatening the annihilation of an entire civilisation,

an entire country of 90 million Iranians, I thought was disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful, and could well be a crime.

I'm glad that President Trump's tactic worked out and we have a ceasefire. I think what's critical is that we make sure that we keep the Straits of Rome open, get the negotiating table. We have to hold back Israel to make that happen.

If our goal was to make sure that Iran didn't get a nuclear weapon or that other states that were adversarial with get a nuclear weapon, we just set a horrible example here because Iran showed that they were going to play a ball with us, that they were in the negotiation process, that they just wanted some enrichment. And yet we came in and we killed the leader that put that prohibition on. The lesson that the other people who are coming up in the ranks in the Iranian regime have

learned is that they better get a nuclear weapon, otherwise this is going to happen to them too. Actually, one of the most vindicated countries in this whole exchange has been North Korea, who obtained a nuclear weapon for this very reason. So if we want to make sure that countries that we're adversarial with or rogue countries don't try to develop a nuclear weapon, the second one of them gets the negotiating table, the last thing that we should do is go and launch a regime change war, a decapitation strike against that leadership.

So I think the lesson learned here is that now this galvanized, harder generation of IRGC officers and ayatollahs are going to take over Iran, they better get a nuclear weapon. And that's going to be a major problem for us going forward. So that's why we need to take this round of negotiations very seriously. I hope President Trump used that that talk, that bolster, that bluster to get them to the negotiating table. But there's only so many different times that you can use that. So the next time if these

negotiations don't go well and President Trump says, like, I'm going to annihilate you, that might not have the exact same effect. Well, it won't happen. I think we have to be very careful with our language. That's the point, Will.

You know, I made the point yesterday. You become the boy that cried wolf, the emperor with no clothes. If you say we're going to wipe out an entire civilization and then nothing happens, well, you know, you become a bit of a lame duck in terms of your threats. I mean, I would put to you this. Did you want him to follow through? No, of course not. OK, good. Just checking. Of course not. But here's what's interesting.

Trump welcomed the 10-point plan as if it was somehow brand new, which it wasn't. But the 10-point plan, which he says is very workable in terms of the negotiations, let's just go through this. And I'll ask you, how many of these

do you think are acceptable? Number one, the Iranians want commitment to non-aggression. Number two, Iran's control over the... This is just totally misconceived. Like, from the outset, he said that the 10 points, he just truthed about this, the 10 points that the reporters are saying, the ones you're quoting from, are not the basis on which he said... Well, these are the 10 points according to the Iranian media. It's not what Trump has agreed to. And he's repeatedly said this is not the thing he's workable. And he put out a slew of truths today saying he's going to continue to insist full dismantlement of the Iranian nuclear program, return

of the highly enriched uranium, which again, this whole idea that there was a peaceful fatwa. Remember, they had 60% enriched uranium, 11 kilograms, or 450 kilograms worth of it, enough for 11 bombs.

Like, they didn't have a fatwa. bombs. So when Trump says he welcomes the 10-point plan, in fact he doesn't at all?

What? He's looking for, I think the basis for the negotiations is something that's much more favourable to the United States. So why would he say that he welcomes the 10-point plan? Well I think he was thinking of a different plan in his mind. That's the simple answer. But like, future posts have clarified that's not what he was thinking of a different plan in his mind. That's the simple answer. But like future posts and further posts have clarified that's not what he was thinking

of.

The worst thing about this, the torturous knots that people have pulled with their own

You can literally just read his truth feed. He's like, and the White House rapid response on this. They've been like, no, this isn't true. Obviously, it's not true because if Iran was making getting these kind of concessions out of the United States they'd have also been able to save

Hezbollah but they can't even do that. Okay well actually it turns out that right now Iran has closed the Strait of Hormuz again and says it will not reopen as long as Israel's attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon. So who is... It sounds like they've put a new condition on the deal. Perhaps they'll get struck again.

That's probably very unwise of the Iranians.

Is it? Or is it wielding the most powerful tool in this whole war, which turns out to be a little piece of waterway which they can exercise control over and strangle and paralyse the

global economy. That didn't stop the United States from striking 13,000 targets over a period of five weeks, completely decimating the American military. None of that involved. If it was that powerful, it should have been able to stop that from happening and force an earlier ceasefire. It

wasn't. Okay, but the Strait of Hormuz remains closed. So how

successful is it? I mean, honestly, you guys, everybody's just over blowing the Strait of Hormuz closure vis-a-vis the United States. We're the largest oil producer in the world. It's good for us if oil prices go up.

Just to be clear, Will, the closure of the straits of Hormuz by most experts' analysis has been the single greatest shock in a negative way to the global economy ever. Ever. Well, that can't be true because oil prices were higher in the Ukraine, at the beginning of the Ukraine-Russia war. So that just can't be true. No, no.

This has had a greater negative impact on the global economy, specific to energy, of anything we've seen ever. And it's going to get worse.

I mean, again, then why did the price spike even more at the beginning of the Ukraine-Russia

war? You see, I know you're a facts guy. Go and check the facts.

OK. I mean, I'm sure somebody said that. I'm just saying, you know, all the economic analysts are overstating things.

All the economic analysts have said the same thing. This has been the worst energy shock that we've ever seen ever. But I'm sure you're right. I'm sure it's kind of what kind of

a trivial, a trivial detail. The complete destruction of the Iranian military. All right. I've got to leave it there. Joe, last word to you. You're not any weaker than a stronger position. Joe, last word to you.

I'm just saying, yeah, now the Iranians are in even a stronger position than they were prior to this war. The last 20 plus years of GWAD has shown us that we can basically take out targets, we can strike targets all day, and our enemies will endure simply leverage of the geography that they have at their disposal to have an effect that we can't sustain And that's the position That's that's why exactly I

They can be as mad as they want if they're throwing rocks it doesn't matter

Yeah, but if actually

To affect the straits and they can have a strategic effect. Yeah, they understand that now They probably didn't understand that or weren't willing to use it prior to this iteration of war. And that's why President Trump is at the negotiating table right now, because he realized the effect that was having on the American economy. And he made the right decision. I think President Trump made the right decision to get to the negotiating table. So now we have to pursue our objective, which is getting the straits open and maintaining the ceasefire and holding together the alliances that we have in the Gulf.

And so to do that, we've got to restrain our junior partner, the Israelis.

OK, I've got to leave it there. Thank you both very much for your time. I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you. The US could not be clearer. Pete Hexeth, the Secretary of State for War, says Iran begged for a ceasefire under overwhelming pressure. My next guest may have a different interpretation with a view from Tehran. I'm joined again by Professor Mohamed Morandi. Professor Morandi, welcome back to Uncensored.

Thank you very much for inviting me.

So the United States claiming overwhelming victory, but with a slight caveat on the battlefield. My take on this is that I think the United States and Israel have had overwhelming military success on the battlefield, but there's been an asymmetric war going on,

which has involved the Straits of Hormuz and also the neighbouring Gulf countries, Gulf states, where Iran could legitimately lay claim to have been very successful in responding to the military threat by effectively paralyzing the globe economically in terms of the energy coming through that strait. What is your take on this?

My take is somewhat different. I don't think the United States won militarily. And of course, the Israeli regime has a much smaller military. The United States focused mostly on civilian targets. And since it failed to destroy any of Iran's underground missile bases and it failed to destroy its underground drone bases or the factories that produce them. And that's why for 40 days Iran's missiles and drones were being fired 24 hours a day.

Because of that, they were frustrated, and they were constantly bombing civilian targets. In fact, yesterday they bombed a synagogue. And I think that that has not been reported anywhere in the Western media, but they completely demolished a synagogue in Tehran. And that's just one of thousands of places that have been targeted. Very near my home, they destroyed a building with a bank, just apartment buildings above

a branch of a bank. And they've been doing that across the city and across the country. So I think it's a military failure. I think it's a political failure. And of course, they forced Iran to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, because those Arab-family dictatorships in the Persian Gulf, they were complicit in this war.

They provided the United States with bases. They allowed them to use their airspace. They allowed them to use areas outside the bases to attack Iran. So Iran obviously would not allow their ships to go through the Strait of Hormuz. And when Iranian oil and gas and critical infrastructure was struck, they'd be hit

in response. And, of course, Iran was striking the Israeli regime 24 hours a day, as we all know. So I think that the United States and Israelis, the Israeli regime, failed catastrophically. It was they who changed their position. Trump said initially that he wanted unconditional surrender. Then after evolving his position, he gave a 15-point plan.

Iran rejected it. And then he ultimately, last night, accepted that framework, the 10-point plan that Iran gave as a framework for negotiations. That doesn't mean we'll have a deal. Iran is not naive. And Trump already attacked this twice as we were negotiating.

So Iran is prepared for renewed war. But it is a major achievement.

I mean, the major achievement is that the regime that rules in Iran remains intact. And the issue I would certainly have with Pete Hegseth and the others, including President Trump, when they say that it's a different regime because it's different people at the top, I would imagine it's crystal clear that it's IRGC, they remain the regime.

It is just a question of different people, but they're all part of the same regime.

Would you agree with that? No, I think the Islamic Republic of Iran is quite clearly a, it has a constitution. The leader is the person in charge. In fact, he was the person who made changes to Iran's proposal and ultimately turned out to be the 10 point plan. We have a president, we have a chair for the Supreme National Security Council. All of these institutions are very important. And I think the most important thing, though, Pierce,

which will ruffle your feathers, is that the Islamic Republic of Iran, whether you like it or not, has a high degree of popular legitimacy. And during the first week of the war, after Ayatollah Khamenei was martyred,

it was basically the people who were on the streets who kept everything running. It took a week for us to elect a new leader. Of course, during that week, the Constitution provided us with a three-man leadership, but it was the people who were holding things together.

There are no SKUs or lines at the gas station. No one went and rushed into, none of the people rushed into supermarkets. Everything was as normal. And every night we've seen millions of people on the streets throughout the country, on the streets, defending the armed forces, defending the leadership against this aggression.

Can you envisage a situation as part of a deal where Iran voluntarily gives up all its enriched uranium and where it cedes control of the Strait of Hormuz?

No, Iran will continue to enrich uranium within the framework of international law. It will be willing to have a deal. We already had a deal to have extra supervision if anyone is truly worried. But remember, Joe Kent, when he resigned, he wrote in his letter, and he wasn't a Trump appointee, a senior intelligence official. He said that Iran was no threat to the United States.

He said that Iran was not developing a nuclear weapon. And he said this war was not developing a nuclear weapon and he said this war is about Zionist pressure in the United States and the Israeli regime putting pressure on the United States. This is a completely and was a completely unnecessary war where the Americans murdered many, many Iranians.

Donald Trump has said that these are red lines, particularly the enriched uranium. If what you say is true and the Iranian regime will not give up that enriched uranium, it sounds like there may not be a deal. So what happens then?

Well, the Trump regime has said many things in the past. And we have been a victim of two wars due to the Trump regime and the Netanyahu regime. And we have come out on top on both occasions, and the world sees that. And we are prepared to defend ourselves in future again. And Trump, by carrying out this war at the behest of the Zionist and Israeli regime,

they have badly damaged the global economy, and it's going to get a lot worse. And as we speak, in fact, Piers, although Lebanon is a part of the agreement, and that is something that the Pakistani prime minister has said openly and in a tweet, the Israelis have been slaughtering the people of Lebanon all morning, carpet bombing cities just out of rage.

And yet Trump then goes out and says Lebanon was not a part of the deal, where in fact it was, and the Pakistani prime minister said so. So we're dealing with ruthless people. We're dealing with people who are utterly immoral, who have constantly said they will destroy Iran, obliterate Iran, send Iran back to the Stone Ages, and, of course, delete or erase an entire civilization.

This is what we're up against. But ultimately, the Trump regime recognized that this war is going nowhere, and it is devastating the global economy and it's going to devastate the US economy if this continues.

Of course all the things you've just said many people would apply to your own regime, the Iranian regime, but Tehran has apparently said today in the last few hours it will withdraw from ceasefire if attacks on the Lebanon continue, as from Iranian state media. Can you confirm that, that if these attacks in Lebanon continue, then Iran will withdraw from this agreement on the ceasefire for two weeks?

Yes, Iran has already said that it is shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, and it will also punish the Israeli regime if this continues. And the talks won't go anywhere if the terms of this ceasefire are not implemented. You know, I invited you a few times before to come to Iran, Pierson. You rejected to come for whatever reason.

Well, I've invited you to come to London. You've rejected that as well.

I've lived in the UK. I've been there. Maybe I'll go one day. I to come to London. You've rejected that as well. I've lived in the UK. I've been there. Maybe I'll go one day. I'll come one day. But you should come for the first time. But my advice to you and to analysts

in the UK and the United States is to read a book called Going to Tehran, written by two Americans who worked in the White House. One was the head of the Middle East under Condoleezza Rice, of all people. And the other was the head of the Persian Gulf at that time, Flint and Hillary LeBret. They wrote a book called Going to Tehran. If U.S. analysts had read books like this and dealt with Iran realistically,

instead of listening to Zionists and Netanyahu, the world would be in a much better place, and probably Iran and the United States would have had normal ties and there would be no war, obviously.

How are relations now, do you think, going forward between Iran and the neighbouring Gulf states, given that Iran has obviously been bombarding many of them with missile attacks using the fact that they themselves have been attacked as the excuse to do this, and that's carried on post the ceasefire. What is going to happen between these relationships going forward?

Well, they should not have allowed their territory to be used to slaughter thousands of Iranians. They wanted to have their cake and eat it, too. They wanted to be friends with the United States and allow their territory to be used to slaughter Iranians, and they probably thought that Iran would capitulate within a day or two, something that I told you would never happen. In fact, once upon a time, you told me that all the things that I was saying was bluster.

But we saw during the past 40 days what happened. These family dictatorships in the Persian Gulf misread the situation, misinterpreted Iran's capabilities, and they made a major and catastrophic mistake. They will have to pay reparations for what happened to Iranians. And from now on, the Strait of Hormuz will be used to ensure that happens, and also to ensure that the Persian Gulf will never be again used as a platform for aggression, whether

it's against Iraq or Iran or Yemen or Syria. These regimes have to behave like normal countries. Across Africa, we see countries that neighbor one another. They don't have foreign bases there to be used to bomb their neighbors. These regimes have made this mistake

and they have to pay for it. We want good relations with them, but they helped wage a war against us. Without their territory, this war could not have happened.

And when it comes to paying reparations, what about reparations then to countries like Israel, for example, who have been peppered with missile attacks from Hezbollah, from the Houthis, a barbaric terror attack from Hamas, all funded by Iran? Is there any accountability and responsibility

at your end and your regime for the mayhem that's been wrought against Israel by those three terror proxies?

I think if we look historically, Piers, and I think you've had very good guests who can explain this better than I, but if we look historically, if there are going to be reparations, then it would have to be the U.K., it would have to be other European countries, and the United States that helped with the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, with the colonization of Palestine, with the slaughter of the Palestinians, by pushing them into the slums of Gaza, the concentration camp of Gaza, by gradually taking more and more

territory from the West Bank, where the refugees from Palestine have gone to, along with Gaza, and all those millions of Palestinians that are in refugee camps around the region, I think those countries are the ones who have to pay reparations to the Palestinian people. And as long as we have ethno-supremacism, Pierce, and as long as people other than Zionists are considered to be Amalek and inferior, this problem is not going to be solved.

The Israeli regime yesterday, as I said earlier, bombed a synagogue in Tehran. Why did they bomb these Jews? Because they are non-Zionist Jews.

Professor Morandi, I'm going to have to leave it there, but thank you for joining me again on Uncensored. Thank you for having me. Well, as we've been discussing, Israel's assault on Lebanon continues despite a ceasefire deal which is supposed to recover every conflict in the region. The Iranians are warning that if Israel continues, the US-backed ceasefires in jeopardy. I'm joined now by Danny Dhanon,

he's the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations. Danny, welcome back to Uncensored.

Thank you for having me again, Piers.

There's a lot going on. As we're talking, the Iranians have closed again the Strait of Hormuz and citing specifically that it's because Israel is continuing its attacks on the Lebanon, contradicting what we were told by the Pakistanis and by the Americans that as part of this ceasefire that would also include Lebanon. Why is Israel continuing to bombard Lebanon when

there's a ceasefire in the wider war? Well, first, I beg to differ with you about the narrative. We are not bombarding Lebanon. We are targeting Hezbollah that actually started this cycle of violence against Israel after Iran started to attack Israel. So it's not that we are bombarding Lebanon. Actually, on the opposite, you know, the Lebanese government,

they are saying it in the last few weeks that they want to get rid of Hezbollah, but they're not capable of doing it. And we are actually doing it now. We are dismantling the presence of Hezbollah next to our border. And we are making sure that they will not pose a threat

to Israel anymore. And it's interesting to see that the Iranians, they look at Lebanon like their own Lebanon. But that's not the case. Lebanon is a sovereign state. So Iran is not in a position to actually dictate what will happen. And we should look at the UN resolution that called for the Lebanese to take responsibility

and to make sure that Hezbollah is not next to the border of Israel.

OK.

Numerous resolutions passed on that.

OK, but if you believe that this is not an attack on Lebanon, why is Lebanon's prime minister condemning what you're doing, saying it disregards all peace efforts and humanitarian laws in the Middle East? Nawaf Salam said on X, Israel continues to expand its aggressions that have targeted

densely populated residential neighborhoods. These strikes were, quote, heedless of all regional and international efforts to stop the war and showed a, quote, utter disregard for the principles of international law and international humanitarian law. That's the prime minister of Israel directly accusing-

Of Lebanon.

Oh, my apologies. The prime minister of Lebanon directly accusing Israel of flagrantly breaching all international laws.

Well, we can agree on one issue, Piers, today. That the Lebanese government is a weak government. You know, in the morning they would call Hezbollah to get out of southern Lebanon and in the afternoon they would call Israel to cease fire. It doesn't work that way. Who is actually going to dismantle Hezbollah?

Who is going to do that? You know, the UN presence, UNIFIL, they're not capable of doing much over there. The Lebanese government, you know, despite the fact they have a military of 70,000 soldiers that are deploying them to the south, and this military is a very weak one. So basically, you know, all the responsibility is on our shoulders. We have to send our boys and girls to fight again and again in Lebanon in order to push

the threat from our border. And I want to remind you that, you know, thousands of rockets were fired from southern Lebanon into Israeli cities. We didn't attack southern Lebanon just because we wanted to. We had no choice. And now we are dismantling the presence of Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and we hope that there will be quiet for the people of Israel and for the people of Lebanon.

The death toll in Lebanon has reportedly now exceeded 1,500. That's more than the number of Israelis killed on October 7th. A million people...

I don't know why you got this number, but maybe you can let me know how many of those people are Hezbollah terrorists. Because we actually. Well, you tell me. I think most of them.

I'll tell you why. Because we asked the population.

Well, do you know how many?

Do you know how many? I will tell you that most of them. because we asked the population to move out north of the Litani River and they did. It wasn't easy for them but the population moved to the north so actually the one who stayed in southern Lebanon are Hezbollah terrorists so I would estimate that most of the numbers you just quoted are Hezbollah terrorists.

Well Lebanese authorities estimate that 250 are women and children would you dispute that? I have no

knowledge of that number but I can tell you that the fact that people moved to the north, it saved their lives and we encourage them to stay up north until we finish the job. Out of interest, Danny, why is it

that Israel always knows exactly how many enemy combatants you have killed but you never know how many civilians you have killed? No, I

don't know to answer both questions. It is hard for us to know. You never know how many civilians you've killed. No, I don't know to answer both questions. You know, it's hard for us to know.

I mean, you told me most of the dead are Hezbollah. The Lebanese authorities say 250 are women and children. You're now saying you don't know. But at the same time, you're telling me most of them are

Hezbollah. Well, how can those two... Actually, the number you just the number of civilians killed in the war. How can you say that? You said that 250 civilians were killed in the war.

How can you say that? You said that 250 civilians were killed in the war.

How can you say that? You said that 250 civilians were killed in the war. How can you say that? You said that 250 civilians were killed in the war.

How can you say that? You said that 250 civilians were killed in the war. How can you know that if you say you don't actually know? You said it. You just said that 250 were civilians. No, I said the Lebanese authorities said 250 were believed to be women and children. That doesn't mean they're the only civilians killed, obviously. But you seem emphatic that the majority were Hezbollah, but at the same time you admit

you've no idea how many have been killed.

So you know, we have had a discussion like that in the past many times about Gaza. Yes. We regret the loss of life of any civilian.

You know Israeli civilians are suffering and Lebanese civilians are suffering. I know but the running theme in Gaza was always the same which was always Israelis would come on the show representing the government in some capacity and they would know exactly how many Hamas they said they killed. When I said well how many civilians have been killed they killed. When I said, well, how many civilians have been killed? No idea. So I'm just wondering, who does the counting?

And why is it only the deaths of terrorists get counted apparently, but not civilians? Seems weird.

Actually, we don't have the exact numbers, not for the terrorists and not for the civilians. But we know one thing, that the overwhelming majority of civilians left Southern Lebanon. It's not easy the civilians. But we know one thing, that the overwhelming majority of civilians left southern Lebanon. It's not easy for them. Now most of them are in Beirut, and they are waiting for us to finish the job so they can

go back to their communities. And I would say one more point. You have Christian villages in southern Lebanon, and they stayed there. They stayed there because you don't have Hezbollah presence in those villages. The Shiite villages, those are the ones that evacuated and they know very good if you stay in those villages, they are in danger.

Let us turn to Iran because we've got this ceasefire and yet there's this dispute obviously. The Pakistanis who seem to have facilitated this and the US both say that their understanding was that the ceasefire included Lebanon. Clearly, Israel has taken a different view. At the same time, we have this big piece in The New York Times has come out, clearly very well sourced, inside the Situation Room at the White House,

where your Prime Minister, Netanyahu, has been there with the head of Mossad joining from remotely on the big screen and they've laid out a four-point plan for what they believed would happen in this war, most of which has clearly not happened. It included regime change, well there hasn't been regime change, there's been a decapitation of the Ayatollah and some of the leaders of the country but they've been replaced very quickly. Secondly, they believed the Israelis,

according to this report, that if that was done, then there would be an uprising from the people, which has also not happened. Thirdly, that because of the double-pronged effect of these two things, that would mean it would be highly unlikely

that the Strait of Hormuz would be closed. That has obviously not happened either. So it seems from the reporting on this from inside that situation room as your prime minister sold this war to Donald Trump that a lot of the intelligence presumably from Mossad that was presented about the likely chain of events has simply not materialised. So did you guys just massively miscalculate?

Absolutely not. You know, everything is political. You know, I hear those voices here in the US and I hear some of those voices in Israel, you know, people who want to criticize the Israeli government or Trump's administration.

I choose to look at the results and the achievements of this operation. And I think we can be very proud of what we achieved so far. And the main point is that we send a lesson and a clear message to the Iranian regime that we will not allow them to achieve nuclear capability. You know, for years we spoke about it.

We threatened and we spoke about it. But people say, yeah, you know, it's only a declaration. And we decided to be serious about it. And we learned the lesson from North Korea, where North Korea was playing the same game with the international community. You know, they were signing agreements. Inspectors came in and out.

One morning, we all woke up, peers, and we saw that they actually achieved the nuclear capabilities. So, we decided it's not going to happen with Iran. And that's what happened in the last month. We decapitated that capability. And I think the Iranian regime,

they know very carefully that we are not going anywhere. If we have to go back, we'll go back against them. And we have the capability of watching

what's happening in Iran.

Okay, but look, from where I'm sitting, the regime remains intact, albeit with different people at the head, but they're all same ideology, same regime. The enriched uranium remains under the ground. None of that has been secured. The Strait of Hormuz is closed again,

specifically because you guys are bombing Hezbollah in Lebanon. So I'm at a loss to understand where this claim of historic victory, which America is trying to claim this all is, is coming from. Yair Lapid, who is the leader of the opposition in Israel, said, there has never been such a political disaster in all of our history.

The military carried out everything that was asked of it. The public demonstrated amazing resilience. But Netanyahu failed politically, failed strategically, and didn't meet a single one of the goals he himself set. It will take us years to repair the political and strategic damage that Netanyahu wrought due to arrogance, negligence and a lack of

strategic planning. What do you say to that? Well, as I told you earlier, you know, you have a lot of politics in this game, but I would agree with on one point. We haven't finished it yet. We haven't finished it yet. You still have the negotiations You have to evaluate it when you finish the process not in the middle of the process, but let me ask you one question Do you think Iran is stronger today? If you compare it to the point that we're actually negotiating. I think it's a very interesting question. I'll be let me finish the question Okay, they were negotiating with the US. They were very arrogant when they came to Vienna and met with a special

envoy Ritkoff and Mr. Kushner. I think when they will come to the negotiation room in Islamabad on Friday, they will not be arrogant. They know the facts. It's a weakened Iran. They don't have the same capabilities. And they understand that if they will continue to lie and play games, we need to hammer them.

OK, well, let me answer you. I would dispute your characterization of it on this ground specifically. I think militarily clearly they have been weakened. I think that's beyond any doubt. The American Israeli forces have pulverized Iran for four or five weeks and caused a lot of damage to their military hardware. I think that's indisputable. However, there's been a serious miscalculation, I think, driven by Israel in its negotiations with Trump to join this war, in which they have miscalculated the impact of decapitating the head of the regime and then thinking that the people would rise up, which they haven't,

and then not understanding, which the Iranians have clearly understood, that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz could be so disastrous to the global economy and to energy prices. And the fact that Iran's been able to indiscriminately attack its neighboring Gulf states in a way that's paralyzed the economies in those countries for the duration of this war,

driven many people to leave, caused enormous damage to the future business model of getting tourists to go there, people to go and live there, safe, sunny, tourism, sport and so on, enormous damage to that. So if you're the Iranian regime, you've had your military hardware significantly weakened, that is beyond doubt, But you've now got a very powerful belief because you've proven it over five weeks that by controlling the Strait of Hormuz,

you can control the global economy. And by attacking your neighboring Gulf states, whether it's oil refineries or it's tourism areas, you can actually paralyse their economic business model too. And that can end up making you stronger, not weaker.

I have to make two points. First, you know, when you imply that we actually dragged the US into this war, you know, with all due respect, we both know President Trump, no one can drag him anywhere. You know exactly what he's doing.

He made it very clear when he pulled out from the JCPOA more than a decade ago that he will not allow becoming a nuclear power. And I give him credit for standing behind this important position. And the second point about regime change, you know, we never promised a regime change. We always said we want to create the conditions for a regime change. And my personal opinion, I think it will happen. You know, maybe you want it to happen tomorrow

or in a week's time, and you want me to tell you when it will happen. But I think today, when the regime is weakened, it will be easier to see a regime change. But when you look back in history, in different cases of revolutions, no one can actually anticipate the exact moment that you will have the revolution. It doesn't work that way. It erupts. And I hope it will be sooner than later we will see the Iranian people rising up.

Danny Dillon, I always appreciate you taking time to come on Uncensored. Thank you very

much.

Thank you very much, Piers.

Piers Morgan on 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. And we'll do it all for free.

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