'Debate Me on IRANIAN TV!' Iran War Debate Feat Mohammad Marandi

Summary

Podcast Summary:

Piers Morgan Uncensored – “Debate Me on IRANIAN TV! Iran War Debate Feat Mohammad Marandi”
Date: March 5, 2026
Host: Piers Morgan
Episode Focus: An urgent and fiery debate on the outbreak of US-Iran war, regime change, freedom of speech in Iran, and western foreign policy—with panelists, former US National Security Advisor John Bolton, Senator Mark Warner, Iranian professor Mohammad Marandi, and several journalists with diverse perspectives.

---

Episode Overview

This episode dives headfirst into the outbreak of war between the US (along with Israel and allies) and Iran. Piers Morgan orchestrates a combative, multi-voice debate dissecting the rationale, strategy, and morality of regime change, as well as the legitimacy of the war’s pretext. The show scrutinizes US decision-making, the legitimacy of the Iranian regime, western double standards, and the question of whether Iran’s government could be realistically toppled.

---

Key Segments & Discussion Points

1. Opening: The War’s Endgame and Regime Change Rationale

(00:08 – 06:15)

• Piers Morgan lays out unresolved questions about the war’s goals: are we seeing surgical strikes or a long-term campaign? Is regime change really feasible, or is it just damage control to contain Iran as a threat?
• John Bolton strongly argues the real US and Israeli objective is regime change “whether the White House says it or not,” citing the regime’s nuclear ambitions and regional terrorism. He claims the regime is at historic weakness across multiple social groups (youth, women, ethnic minorities).
  • Quote: “For the interest of US national security and Israeli national security, the only alternative is regime change…” (02:27)
  • Bolton draws parallels to protests after Mahsa Amini’s killing (2022) and emphasizes opportunity for opposition factions.

2. Lessons from Iraq and the Dangers of War Without a Plan

(06:15 – 08:11)

• Piers challenges Bolton with Iraq war parallels: US had no real plan for post-Saddam Iraq, resulting in chaos and extremism. Is the US repeating its mistakes?
• Bolton: “It’s not possible to lay out a 500-page plan of what the day after will look like,” arguing that historical regime changes in the US lacked detailed blueprints but worked nonetheless.
  • Quote: “It seems impossible to believe we could get a worse government than the one that's there now.” (07:00)

3. Personal Risks and Trump’s Leadership

(08:11 – 11:11)

• Bolton jokes about being targeted for assassination by both the Iranian regime and the Trump administration.
  • Quote: “For me, the question is, who gets me first, the Iranians or Trump?” (08:53)
• Discussion about Trump’s inconsistent approach and lack of US public preparation for the war. Bolton is skeptical of Trump’s knowledge and states: “There’s no telling what he’s going to do.” (10:09)

4. Panel: The Military Situation and Clarity of War Aims

(11:44 – 20:00)

• Matt Todia (US Special Forces vet): By military measures (low casualties, destruction of IRGC assets), the war is “going extremely well” for the US and Israel. However, acknowledges Iran’s subterranean defenses make total victory difficult.
• Aaron Mate (The Grayzone): Argues the war rests on a “transparent crime… the pretext is so incoherent” and blames the US/Israel for sabotaging diplomacy. Questions shifting rationales and condemns the “regime change” agenda.
  • Quote: “People are like, how can those two things be true?... the Trump administration’s real goal… is regime change, because Iran insists on the right to defend itself from Israeli aggression.” (15:16)
• Todia & Mate clash over the JCPOA, Iran’s support of proxies, and the legitimacy of US claims of “imminent threat.”

5. International Law & Double Standards

(21:04 – 24:01)

• Piers questions if West’s Iran attack sets the precedent for other invasions (e.g., China on Taiwan).
• Emily Schrader (Israeli-American journalist): Calls comparison to Ukraine “apples and oranges.” Argues Iran/IRGC’s global terrorism justifies military action and dismisses the “war of choice” argument.
  • Quote: “They are the ones destabilizing the entire region… responsible for more deaths of Arab Muslims than any other single entity.” (21:28)

6. Morality, Occupation, and Hypocrisy

(24:01 – 27:29)

• Omar Badr condemns US intervention as “a moral abomination,” claiming American lives are wasted for Trump and Netanyahu.
  • Quote: “Their lives were wasted by Donald Trump because he is fighting this war of choice… to help his buddy Netanyahu.” (24:47)
• Badr fiercely accuses Israel of terrorism and occupation, asserting double standards around international law and nuclear weapons.

7. Senator Warner: Congress’ Role & The Case for War

(28:15 – 34:08)

• Senator Mark Warner (Democrat): Announces he will vote to curb Trump’s military authority. No “imminent threat” existed, and US messaging keeps changing. Warns against America being dragged into open-ended obligations if regime change triggers further chaos or massacres.
  • Quote: “If the President wants to make a war choice … he needs to come to Congress and the American public and make a case.” (29:14)
• Warner highlights US historical inconsistencies (Kosovo, Libya) and fears “war of choice” will yield humanitarian and strategic disaster.

8. Panel Reaction: Goals, Costs, and Catastrophe

(41:04 – 44:20)

• Emily Schrader: War is a “necessity,” not a choice. Downplays US spending compared to the cost of ongoing containment.
• Omar Badr and Emily Schrader spar over Iranian protest movements, civilian casualties, and the authenticity of claims about Iranian regime atrocities vs. alleged Israeli sabotage and regional interventions.

9. Freedom of Speech and Truth in Iran vs. the West

(50:42 – 64:58)

• Professor Mohammad Morandi (Tehran University) calls the war “an illegal blitzkrieg,” accuses the US of duplicity (sham negotiations in Geneva), and labels American and British elites “the Epstein class.”
• Piers Morgan repeatedly challenges Morandi to criticize the Iranian regime on air as a free speech test.
  • Quote: “If you’ve got such freedom of speech, criticize your regime right now. Go on.” (52:00)
• Morandi refuses, turning the tables: “When you give me 5 million,” and defends public freedom to criticize the government in taxis and universities.
  • Quote: “In Iran, we talk against the government, against policies. Day and night. You sit in a taxi, they're criticizing. You're on campus, they criticize.” (59:39)
• Piers lambasts Morandi as a “paid up stooge” and “comical Ali,” asserting that if he truly criticized the regime, he’d be silenced.
• Morandi repeatedly invites Piers Morgan to debate him on Iranian TV—a challenge that becomes the episode’s rhetorical motif.

10. US, Israeli, and Iranian Atrocities: Competing Narratives

(64:58 – 67:19)

• Morandi alleges US/Israeli instigation of unrest and denial of popular support for the Islamic Republic, while Piers maintains the regime is uniquely brutal and repressive.
• Memorable Exchange:
  • Piers Morgan: “You can try and take the high moral ground, but the reality is, that is the difference.” (62:19)
  • Prof. Morandi: “You are a genocide supporter… our children are being slaughtered as we speak… Your regime is bombing my country.” (62:19)

---

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• John Bolton: "For the interest of US national security and Israeli national security, the only alternative is regime change..." (02:27)
• Piers Morgan: "Wouldn't it be more honest for America and Israel to say actually the intention... has been to degrade the regime..." (03:29)
• Sen. Warner: "If the President wants to make a war choice... he needs to come to Congress and the American public and make a case." (29:14)
• Omar Badr: “This war is a moral abomination, and there is no way to defend it.” (24:47)
• Emily Schrader: "They are the ones destabilizing the entire region... responsible for more deaths of Arab Muslims than any other single entity." (21:28)
• Professor Morandi: “Might does not make right. As I learned from school, children know this. We are in the right.” (54:20)
• Piers Morgan to Morandi: “If you’ve got such freedom of speech, criticize your regime right now. Go on.” (52:00)
• Morandi: “I'm not going to [criticize the regime]. When you give me 5 million.” (59:53)
• Piers Morgan: “You’re a paid-up stooge of the regime. You know, if you do criticize them, they’ll take you off the airwaves.” (59:55)
• Closing challenge: “Come to Iran, and you and I will debate on Iranian TV.” (66:49)

---

Memorable Moments

• Freedom of Speech Challenge (52:00 – 62:19): The most heated back-and-forth, as Piers repeatedly dares Morandi to criticize the Iranian regime on air. Morandi parries, accuses Morgan of hypocrisy, and insists Iranians debate freely, concluding with open invitations to each other’s turf for live, uncensored debate.
• Bolton’s Dark Joke (08:53): “The Iranians are also trying to assassinate me… who gets me first, the Iranians or Trump?”
• Panel Chaos: Frequent, sometimes chaotic, interjections between Aaron Mate, Matt Todia, Emily Schrader, and Omar Badr, providing a microcosm of the global cacophony over Iran policy.

---

Flow & Tone

The episode is raw, highly adversarial, and deeply global in its perspectives—reflecting both the shock and confusion of a world on the brink. Piers Morgan’s style is combative, pressing for answers and “gotchas,” especially on freedom of speech, while also giving participants space to respond. Panelists frequently interrupt, debate, and trade accusations, while Senator Warner injects a note of sober congressional caution.

---

Recommended Listening Points

• Start of monologue/John Bolton (01:08 – 11:11): Sets the scene for war and regime change debate.
• Panel fire (11:44 – 24:01): Gets into the military realities, proxy war argument, international law.
• Sen. Warner interview (28:15 – 41:02): Key on congressional war powers, hypocrisy, and US messaging.
• Morgan vs Morandi face-off (50:42 – 67:19): The most electrifying and revealing exchange on propaganda, censorship, and global hypocrisy.

---

In Summary

This episode is a must-listen for anyone wanting a crash course in the new US-Iran war, the impossibility of regime change by airstrikes, Western double standards, and the limits of freedom of speech in and out of Iran. Panelists clash over facts, history, and moral authority, with no clear victor—except, perhaps, the urgency of debate itself.

Transcript

[Professor Mohammad Morandi]

The world moves fast, your workday even faster.

[Matt Todia]

Pitching products, drafting reports, analyzing data.

[Professor Mohammad Morandi]

Microsoft 365 Copilot is your AI assistant for work built into Word, Excel, PowerPoint,

[Matt Todia]

and other Microsoft 365 apps you use,

[Professor Mohammad Morandi]

helping you quickly write, analyze, create, and

[Matt Todia]

summarize so you can cut through clutter and clear a path to your best work.

[Professor Mohammad Morandi]

Learn [e-mail] M365 copilot

[John Bolton]

the Iranians are also trying to assassinate me. So for me, the question is, who gets me first, the Iranians or Trump?

[Professor Mohammad Morandi]

The leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, he was martyred because he stayed at home. And he said, I'm not leaving my office and my home because many Iranians have nowhere to go, and so I cannot leave.

[Piers Morgan]

If you've got such freedom of speech, criticize your regime right now. Go on.

[Matt Todia]

Let's give the people an entire picture of what's actually taking place on the ground and not just blow smoke up their butt.

[Piers Morgan]

Nine days ago, I spoke to former U.S. national Security Advisor John Bolton about the looming possibility of a US War on Iran. In my opening monologue then, I laid out some big practical questions which had to be answered in order to make the case for war, but going to repeat them so that you can judge for yourself whether they've been answered. Now the war has begun. Is the US Planning surgical strikes against specific capabilities and powerful men, or is this a longer, riskier, more complex operation? Is the aim to bully the current regime into compliance, or is it to change the regime altogether? The Iranian protesters don't have the guns. There's no opposition militia. So who is going to sweep in and govern a new Iran? And the biggest question most US Voters are now asking what? Why are we doing this? Well, in my view, all of those questions remain unanswered. Ambassador Bolton has made the case for war on Iran for at least 25 years, and he joins me now, hopefully with some answers. Ambassador, welcome back to uncensored. Glad to be with you. It seems to me we just don't know how this is going to play out. Donald Trump doesn't know. Benjamin Netanyahu doesn't know. I assume you wouldn't be bold enough to say, you know, but from what we've seen in this first week of this war, what is the most likely end game here?

[John Bolton]

Well, I think the hope and the intention is that by striking the instruments of state power that threaten the U.S. threaten Israel, threaten the Gulf Arab states, and also repress the Iranian people, that we can degrade and ultimately destroy them in a way that brings the regime into serious crisis. It already has a succession crisis on its hands and see fragmentation at the top of the regime that the opposition and elements of the regime that would defect to the opposition take advantage of and bring the government down. The reason for this action is that Iran's nuclear threat and its terrorist threat are policies the regime will never change. In other words, their behavior is not going to change. And therefore, for the interest of US national security and Israeli national security, the only alternative is regime change, which is what the objective is, whether the White House says it or not.

[Piers Morgan]

Right. I'm sure that is the objective, and Donald Trump has certainly suggested as much, albeit with the caveat of a number of other suggestions. And it seems to me that the least likely result here is, is actual regime change. What is more likely, given the size of the regime and the way its tentacles spread through every aspect of Iranian society, and given the failure so far to really witness any big uprising by the people, probably because just a few weeks ago, up to 30,000 of them were slaughtered by this regime. Unless the Revolutionary Guard turned on the regime. Again, no sign of that. All the paramilitaries and regular army below them not numbering well over a million. Unless they turn on the regime, this regime's going nowhere. It might have different people at the top, but the hydra remains intact. Wouldn't it be more honest of America and Israel to say that actually the intention all along has been to degrade the regime to a point where it's no longer as big a threat, because that seems to me to be the most likely way out of this?

[John Bolton]

Well, I think the regime is at the weakest point it's been since it took power in 1979. And I would have said that on Friday, before the strikes began. Among the people who matter somewhat, I suppose the regime is as unpopular as anybody can ever measure. It's unpopular because its economic policies have wrecked daily life for most Iranians. It's unpopular among the young people. Two thirds of the population is under 30. It's popular among the women who almost three years ago, when the regime killed the young Kurdish woman Masi Amini, who refused to wear the hijab. And their protest strikes directly at the legitimacy of the ayatollah's claim to power, the idea that they speak the word of God, the women said, when it comes to the dress code, you do not speak the word of God. And that calls into question the legitimacy of the ayatollahs across the board. And then finally the Ethnic groups, the Kurds, the Azeris, the Balukis, the Arabs, are unhappy with the regime and beginning to take steps on their own. So if there were ever a time when the regime was weak, this is it. And the degradation of the instruments of state power should be saying to people, certainly in the regular military and perhaps in the Revolutionary Guard, the days of this regime are numbered. It cannot protect its supreme leader. It cannot protect its key assets, the nuclear weapons program and the ballistic missile program. It cannot protect itself. And if it cannot protect itself, it's only a matter of time before it falls. Which side do you want to be on now?

[Piers Morgan]

Critics will say, listening to that, well, come off it, John Bolton. Let's go back to 2002, 2003. You would pretty much have made exactly the same speech in an interview like this about Iraq and about Saddam Hussein and about the threat from his weapons of mass destruction and the repressive impact he had on his people and women and so on. It's the same playbook 23 years later. But we've learned nothing. And that surely the lesson from the Iraq war was if you don't really have a plan for after you topple the leader of a regime like this, then all hell can break loose and actually you end up with 20 years of mayhem and ISIS and everything else.

[John Bolton]

Well, in fact, we did eliminate Saddam Hussein. We can debate the weapons of mass destruction issue. He kept 3,000 nuclear scientists and technicians together. He called his nuclear mujahideen who had the intellectual capability to put the nuclear program back together. And I would say that our mistake in Iran was not that we didn't have a plan, is that we had a plan that put the US in the position, through the Coalition Provisional Authority, of being part of the Iraqi political scene. I think that was our mistake there. The issue for the United States is the threat of nuclear weapons and the threat of terrorism. I'd like to see a transition to some kind of system that the Iranians are satisfied with. It seems impossible to believe we could get a worse government than the one that's there now. But it's not possible to lay out a 500 page plan of what the day after will look like. And that's been true throughout human history, not just in Iraq. In 2003 when the Americans declared independence from your ancestors, they didn't have a post monarchy plan either. Yet we were able to work it out. Why do you think the Iranians can't work it out?

[Piers Morgan]

Well, I think it's very complicated. You've got a country of 90 million people with so many different factions. When I read things like the CIA, I are going to encourage the Kurds to rise up. I'm thinking, well, that could, if you're not very, very careful, that's the kind of thing that could precipitate quite a widespread civil war with all sorts of factions jumping in and causing many years of chaos. But, you know, it's all very unpredictable. Do you feel, John Bolton, there's a sort of weird situation here for you personally. On the one hand, the Trump administration's trying to put you in prison, and on the other hand, you're emerging as one of the leading cheerleaders for its war in Iran.

[John Bolton]

Well, the Iranians are also trying to assassinate me, as they are trying to assassinate Trump and others who they attribute the strike against Qasem Soleimani to. So for me, the question is, who gets me first, the Iranians or Trump?

[Piers Morgan]

I mean, that's a pretty. When you put it like that, I mean, there's a truth to that, isn't there? How do you feel about that on a personal level?

[John Bolton]

Well, not wonderful, but I think from a perspective of American national security, I think the case was true for 20 years that the answer was regime change in Iran. I'm only sorry I didn't persuade Trump to do it in the first term.

[Piers Morgan]

Many people are looking at Donald Trump now, and even if they voted for him, and they're thinking, does he know what he's doing here with Iran? Will this define his presidency, his legacy? Will it define how he's looked back in 100 years in terms of the history of this? You, in your memoir, the Room Where It Happened, obviously you worked with him in the first term. You said that Donald Trump was stunningly uninformed and lacked basic knowledge of major foreign allies. Given that assessment that you made, how much do you trust him with what's going on now?

[John Bolton]

Well, there's no telling what he's going to do. I think the objectives are correct. I think he's already made mistakes that may be fatal. I think they're correctable, but he needs to correct them. He didn't make adequate preparation in American public opinion to make what I think is the extremely strong case that regime change is the answer, indeed today because of subversives within his own White House, starting with the vice president, who don't agree with this policy. You can be sure of it, he's impairing his own ability to make the case. Likewise, and closely related, he didn't make the case to Congress in advance. He didn't prepare the groundwork with allies in advance. And as I mentioned a moment ago, my gravest concern is that he hasn't cooperated efficiently or sufficiently with the opposition. They're the ones that have to make a lot of key decisions and take key actions on the ground to help fragment the regime, without which the odds of success decrease significantly.

[Piers Morgan]

Ambassador Bolton, always good to have you on uncensored. Thank you very much.

[John Bolton]

Well, thanks very much for having me.

[Senator Mark Warner]

Taxact is here anytime you want to easily file your taxes. Taxact is here for the early birds who like to knock them out as soon as the season opens and for the procrastinators who like to wait until the very last minute. Tax act is also here for the middlers who file right in the middle of tax season. No one ever talks about the middlers, but taxact sees you and Tax act respects you.

[Piers Morgan]

Tax Act. Let's get them over with. Well, I'm joined now by my panel. Omar Badr, the Palestinian American journalist. Aaron Marte, investigative journalist with the Gray Zone. Matt Todia, the US Special forces veteran and host of Speak the Truth. I'm by Emily Schrader, the Israeli American journalist. Well, welcome to all of you. Matt tardio. From a purely military standpoint, you know, we're all watching this, I think, in the civilian world with kind of a mixture of shock and horror and awe and wondering what the hell is going on on the battlefield. It looks like Israel and America have attacked Iran, and Iran has now responded by attacking pretty much everybody. And, you know, when you see hotels in Dubai being hit and so on, people understandably are in the grip of panic. But from a military perspective, I saw Pete Hegseth today, the secretary of state for war, arguing very strongly that this war was going extremely well for America and Israel. Is that your assessment?

[Matt Todia]

I mean, I guess we got to figure out and define what victory would look like for the United States and Israel to determine whether or not it's going extremely well. Right. It's like you were talking with Ambassador Bolton. Are we looking for a regime change or what is our objective actually on the ground? Because it's changed over and over. But from right now, from what I can tell, yes, I would say that, you know, we. There's several different measures that we could use in order to say that it's going pretty well. Even though Iran's getting off a lot of ballistic missiles and a lot of drones, vast majority of them are, in fact, getting shot down, casualty numbers are extremely low for the amount that they have actually fired. Which tells, you know, what a great job the United States and the coalition forces are doing over there inside the Middle east, you know, the Red, or I'm sorry, not the Red Sea, but the Strait of Hormuz. We can take a look at that. I was actually just looking at that right before I come up here. There's plenty of ships that are still sailing through there despite Iran claiming that it's been shut down and the Iran Iranian Navy's been decimated. US just announced we sank another submarine, first submarine sank since World War II with a, with a torpedo. So I mean, by those measures, sure, we're decimating a lot of infrastructure, we're taking out vast amounts of the IRGC and their, their military capabilities. But the people also have to understand that Iran's got tunnels just dug into these vast mountainsides and they're storing a lot of their drones, they're storing a lot of their ballistic missiles. So when they're above ground, sure, we can attack them, but when they're dug into those mountainsides, you got to give credit where credit's due. They did a job planning ahead. It's very hard to target those.

[Piers Morgan]

Aaron, mate, what is your overview here? Because it seems to me there are a lot of people who have like extreme views either side. Let's take the most people in the middle, like most regular people I've talked to. We're in London, in New York, in Sydney, wherever it may be. They kind of think, look, the Iranian regime is awful. The Ayatollah was a terrible, tyrannical person. He repressed his people. Clearly Iran has sponsored terrorism throughout the region. There's kind of unanimity about that aspect of this. But they're not necessarily buying in, according to all the polling, and I'd be worried if I was Donald Trump about this, that they're not buying into the imminent threat that Iran was posing. Not least because last summer we had a 12 day war in which we were informed afterwards, Iran's ability to develop a nuclear bomb have been pretty well decimated. Yet here we are just eight months later with apparently an immediate pressing need to go into full blown war with Iran because of the impending, imminent threat of them creating a bomb, a nuclear bomb. And people are like, well, how can those two things be true?

[Aaron Mate]

I think it's hard for people to buy into the case for war when it's such a transparent crime and the pretext is so incoherent. The Trump administration in recent days has given us so many different explanations first, they claim that there was intelligence of an imminent threat to US Troops in the region. Then when the Pentagon briefed Congress, they had to admit that that was not true. Then Marco Rubio said the other day that, well, we knew that Israel was going to attack, and if Israel attacks, then Iran would retaliate against our forces. So to protect our forces, we had to strike first. And then that was immediately walked back because who signed up to go to war for Israel? And Trump even admitted that that was a lie when he said that he struck first because he thought that Iran was going to attack, which is also a lie, because the Trump administration has been lying the whole time. They lied when they went to these negotiations last week in Geneva. They told the Iranians, and I know this from sources who were there. The Omani foreign minister who brokered this has also confirmed this. They told the Iranians that they were okay to just discuss the nuclear issue. And on that front, Iran was totally accommodating, just as Iran respected the Iran nuclear deal that was reached back in 2015, which even the Trump administration this first term had to certify that Iran was respecting. Iran also was willing once again to have a new JCPOA that would have resolved the nuclear issue. And Wyckoff and Kushner pretended as if that was okay. Meanwhile, though, the Trump administration's real goal, which they've been planning for months with Israel, is regime change, because Iran insists on the right to defend itself from Israeli aggression. That's why the issue of Iran's ballistic missiles has been such a big issue, because Iran can defend itself. And Iran is among a small number of states that stands up to US Israeli hegemony in the region. That's why, from the point of view of the Trump administration, they had to go. And that's why they light us into another disastrous regime change war that threatens, just as the Iraq war did. To blow up the region has already caused so many casualties. We have to stress one of the first victims of this assault, this aggression, was a girls school in Iran where around 165 children were killed. And we all know the US and Israel did it. They haven't denied doing it, which to me is confirmation that they were behind this. And there's many more people who will lose their lives simply because Israel and the US Couldn't accept diplomacy. They couldn't accept a peaceful way to resolve an issue that really wasn't an issue, because Iran didn't even have a nuclear weapons program, as Trump's own intelligence community asserted just one year ago.

[Piers Morgan]

Okay. I would say, well, yeah, you can.

[Matt Todia]

Yeah, yeah. So first of all, he brought up the jcpoa, and I understand that Donald Trump ended up backing out of the jcpoa, but let's be honest for a second here. The United States and Iran weren't the only countries that were in the jcpoa. JCPOA were there. We actually had the entire EU we had the UK we had Germany, we had Russia, we had China. And all of those countries were also beholden to the JCPOA with Iran. So they weren't actually keeping up to that over time after the US Backed out. So if you're going to blame the United States of America for the reason Iran decided to start enriching uranium, we're not going to hold any of these other countries to account. You also

[Aaron Mate]

interrupt.

[Matt Todia]

You hold on. No, no, no, I'm not holding up. I didn't interrupt you. And then we'll take it up a step further. We'll say that he lied to the Omanians, the, the mediators over inside of Oman. Why? Why would you say that? Because the fact is that Iran refused to discuss anything but the nuclear program. That's it. Just uranium enrichment. Just uranium enrichment. That's the only thing they wanted. And the Trump administration told them time and time again that that is not going to do it. That's not going to be enough. Further, you said that there was no imminent threat to U. S. Troops. When was the last time you were in the Middle east wearing a uniform, carrying a rifle?

[Aaron Mate]

Well, I was in the Middle east just a few months.

[Matt Todia]

When was the last time you were in the Middle east wearing a uniform, carrying a rifle? No, no, it was a simple question. If you can say never, that's great, because I have been. I have been for both my country and yours. And so when I'm over there, I'll tell you what the number one cause of US Casualties over inside of the Middle east was, and that was the irgc. One out of every five to every six US Service members wounded or killed in the Middle east came from the irgc. I'm sure you're aware of this. You just chose not to.

[Aaron Mate]

No, no, no.

[Piers Morgan]

Yes.

[Matt Todia]

There's always an imminent threat. No, no, I'm not done. There is an imminent threat to US Troops over inside the Middle east and there always has been and there's going to continue to be. They have killed thousands. Thousands. So don't sit here and pretend like they're not an imminent threat to, you know, U.S. troops. Then we can address your Israeli aggression, and they got to have ballistic missiles for Israeli aggression. Remind me again, is it the IRGC that funds Hezbollah, the largest non state terror organization in the world? Is it the IRGC that funds the Houthis down in Yemen? What about Hamas? Do we want to talk about those? Because those my threat and that, my friend, is aggression, whether it be through proxy organizations or not. So if you want to actually sit here and speak, let's give the people an entire picture of what's actually taking place on the ground and not just blow smoke up their butt.

[Aaron Mate]

Okay, let's take, okay, let's take.

[Omar Badr]

Let's.

[Aaron Mate]

Can I address his points or not?

[Piers Morgan]

You know, I want to come back to you because I want to give the other two panelists a chance to say something. I will come back to you, give you a chance to respond. Emily Schroeder, let me just talk to you here about. You know, I remember when Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine four years ago, there was a lot of general consensus that this was a despicable, illegal invasion of a sovereign, democratic country and he should be repelled. Right? But don't the validity of that argument, doesn't that get damaged if Israel and America just decide to unilaterally attack Iran? Doesn't it send a message to China that if they want to go and take Taiwan, well, they can now do so? They just have to present a case that they feel in peril, they feel under threat, as Putin said about Ukraine. In other words, if international law just gets completely ignored and shredded as it has been here, clearly, then where does that leave the world? Where does it leave us when people that America would view as very bad actors in the world stage use the same arguments to get what they want?

[Emily Schrader]

Well, I obviously understand your point, but I think it's a bit insulting to Ukraine to compare them to the Islamic regime in Iran. This is not a democratic state. It's a terrorist state.

[Piers Morgan]

Well, I'm not comparing the regimes. I'm comparing the decision making by those that attack and the way the world responds.

[Emily Schrader]

Fair point. Fair point. I'll give you that. But I don't think it's at all the same thing. I think it's comparing apples and oranges. I think that this, this is in coordination, in adherence to international law under Article 51 of the UN and I think that it's that this regime has posed a clear and present danger to US Troops for many, many decades. I mean, their entire ideology is built on this concept of death to America. One of their first actions that they did was to take over the US embassy and hold hostages for 444 days. Now, you could say, oh, well, that was just during wartime. That was something about revolutions. No, that's something they've continued throughout that time, since then. And I think, more importantly, you know, you want to talk about hegemony, look at what the Islamic Republic has done in this region. They are the expansionist power. They are the ones who are destabilizing the entire region. That Islamic regime is responsible for more deaths of Arab Muslims than any other single entity or organization in the Middle East. They're responsible for Hezbollah. They're responsible for the terror proxies in Iraq. They're responsible for the destabilization and terror proxies, including building IRGC bases in Syria. They're responsible for the Houthis in Yemen and launching a terrible, bloody civil war that happened there. Of course, they're responsible for Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza that have completely destabilized Palestinian society and kept it stagnant from progressing. So there's a lot of things on the table here, a lot of examples of how this regime has expanded their influence, and that is by design, the ideology of the Islamic Revolution, the concept of it, was to export the revolution. Those are their words, not mine. And that is exactly what they have done. So through their terror proxies and their efforts overseas. And it's not just the Middle east either, which is something that presses or rather makes the case for the military operation. Now, this is also in Europe. We know that the UK for example, has been used in a way as a playground for money laundering for the irgc. They have carried out assassinations and attempted assassinations, as well as attempted kidnappings on European citizens on European soil. And they've also done the same in the United States with the attempted kidnapping of Masih Alinejad. They've also attempted to carry out assassinations in Washington, D.C. it is not contained to the territory of Iran. And that precisely is the problem. Every action that Israel has taken has been in defense to the aggression and the attempt to eradicate the state of Israel, but also the entire West. And so this idea, this fantastical notion that everything they've done is somehow just in response to whatever the west has done or whatever the United States has done. It's delusional. It's absolute nonsense.

[Piers Morgan]

Okay, let me bring in Omar Badr. I mean, Omar, you posted this. Well, I just want to read to you something you posted. Omar, you said when it was four Americans have been reported dead. He said, four Americans whose families have been devastated just because Trump wants to help Netanyahu play emperor of his region. Hundreds of Iranian families have also been destroyed for the same reason. Thousands more to come. Unforgivable. I would say before I let you respond, that in relation to what Aaron said, we still don't know for sure what happened with the girls school. And I think until we know for sure, then we should at least preface it by saying we don't know yet for sure because there are counterarguments about how that may have happened. But, Omar, your response to what Emily said there?

[Omar Badr]

Sure. I mean, I'll address a couple of things on that note. I think that's absolutely important, just to put things in perspective of the fact that at this point, six Americans have been killed and they did not die honorable deaths defending their own nation or homeland. Their lives were wasted by Donald Trump because he is fighting this war of choice, this illegal act of aggression, in order to help his buddy Netanyahu, who is, by the way, a wanted war criminal, wanted by the International Criminal Court, to help him play emperor of the Middle East. That's what American lives are being wasted for. And frankly, when it comes to the school as well, all available evidence right now points to the fact that this was a strike either by the United States or Israel. There's been multiple investigations, including by Al Jazeera on it, that I think is worth checking out. So we're dealing with a reality where right now more than a thousand Iranians have been killed, their lives completely destroyed. Where you have these girls in that school will never grow up to become teenagers, and their parents will never see them again. And for what? In order for Netanyahu to play emperor of the Middle East. That is what we're fighting for. And there are endless lives that are going to be taken in the near future, not just in Iran, but in neighboring Arab countries and in Israel and American troops. This war is a moral abomination, and there is no way to defend it. And I just have to comment on the chutzpah that Emily just displayed, talking about Iran as an expansionist country at a time when Israel is illegally occupying the Palestinian territories, the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, illegally occupying a massive part of Syria that has expanded since the Syrian government has fallen, even though the new government is bending over backwards, telling Israel that they're going to protect them and do whatever they want, and occupying parts of South Lebanon, refusing to end them. Israel is literally physically expanding on the ground in contravention to international law, and they are the dominant, most significant terrorist regime in the entire region. And just on that note, I want to address Matt's moral confusion here, is that he seems to be under the impression that an Israeli regime that is engaged in illegal occupation, has a system of apartheid, engaged in genocide in Gaza, is allowed to have illegal weapons, including nuclear weapons. But how dare Iran on the other side have conventional weapons because he views them as a threat. International law doesn't mean anything unless it applies to everybody equally. Rules don't mean anything unless they apply to everyone. And if you judge by that double standard of saying people that we like get to do whatever they want, commit whatever crimes they want, and have whatever weapons they want, but people that we don't like don't get to, then that is just an elementary moral hypocrisy and it is not a roadmap for stability. You play in a world in which might make stride and you can do whatever you want. That is a recipe for eternal conflict and eternal death. It is simply not morally coherent to want to live in that kind of world.

[Matt Todia]

So I appreciate you.

[Piers Morgan]

Okay, I'll get the rest of the panel's response. Hang on now. Hang on, hang on.

[Emily Schrader]

Sorry, where was your.

[Piers Morgan]

I'm going to come back. Wait a minute. Emily, I'm going to come back to the panel for your response to that because I want to take a short break now to be joined by one of the most strident critics of the argument that the US Faced an imminent threat. Senator Mark Warner is a Virginia Democrat and a Senate Intelligence Committee member. Senator Warner, thank you very much indeed for joining me on Uncensored. Congress is due to vote on a war powers resolution to curb President Trump's use of force in Iran. It would call for an end to military operations in Iran, In Iran, within 30 days unless Congress provides authorization for use of military force or a declaration of war. So let me just first ask you, how will you vote on that?

[Senator Mark Warner]

I will vote yes. This is a war of choice. I am one of the strongest supporters of Israel in the Congress. But I think when we put American troops in harm's way, it should be based upon imminent threats to America. There was no imminent threat. I was a matter of fact down in the part of my state, Virginia beach and Hampton Roads, where the vast majority of the sailors were deployed on the Ford, who are in combat right now and hearing from their family and loved ones saying, why are they there? What is our goal? The administration has said initially this was about nuclear weapons, although the administration claimed those were obliterated six months ago, then it was about ballistic missiles. Then it was about recently they even said the Iranian navy. And then the President has called for regime change. And again, I shed no tears over the death of the senior Iranian leadership.

[Aaron Mate]

Awful.

[Senator Mark Warner]

That is an awful regime. 47 years of tyranny. But I worry, particularly on the last one. If the President is calling for regime change and if the Iranian people respond and there's 100,000 Iranians protesting on the streets of Tehran and the IRGC then goes out and murders 5,000, 10,000, 15,000, what is America and our few remaining allies obligation then? So I think if the President wants to make a war choice and Iran are bad actors, and if he wants to say we want to start a war with Iran, he needs to come to the the Congress and the American public and make a case. So far we've had three or four different cases made and I think most of the explanations have fallen short.

[Piers Morgan]

I agree about the mixed messaging. It should also be said that two Democratic presidents in history, modern history, have bypassed congressional prior approval for shorter or limited missions. Bill Clinton in Kosovo in 99, Barack Obama in Libya in 2011. They argued these didn't constitute hostilities under the acts definition. But you know, to most laymen, they would look at this and say, well, it's hypocrisy by the Democrats. When it's your presidents doing the same thing, then everyone signs up to it. When it's Donald Trump, suddenly it's a terrible thing that has to be stopped. What do you say to that?

[Professor Mohammad Morandi]

If you're a maintenance supervisor at a

[Piers Morgan]

manufacturing facility and your machinery isn't working

[Matt Todia]

right, Grainger knows you need to understand

[Aaron Mate]

what's wrong as soon as possible.

[Piers Morgan]

So when a conveyor motor falters, Grainger offers diagnostic tools like calibration kits and

[Matt Todia]

multimeters to help you identify and fix the problem.

[Professor Mohammad Morandi]

With Grainger, you can be confident you

[Omar Badr]

have everything you need to keep your facility running smoothly.

[Matt Todia]

Call 1-800-GRAINGER clickgrainger.com or just stop by

[Piers Morgan]

Grainger for the ones who get it done.

[Senator Mark Warner]

What I'd say to that is Pierce, normally in the case both in Libya and Syria, if my memory holds, it was in reaction to incidents that were taking place and our hand was forced. Matter of fact, if the President had decided to strike in early January where literally millions of Iranians were on the streets urging regime change, I might have agreed or disagreed. But there was at least a logical point in time and the reason he couldn't at that point. And this story needs to get out there More was one, because our military presence was not there, because we had our key aircraft carrier, the Gerald Ford off the coast of Venezuela on another of his military adventures. And our European partners in particular were obviously consumed by the President's, I think, kind of crazy folly to try to take on Greenland. So our ability to bring our Europeans who have ties with Iran into the conflict were limited. So he didn't act then. We've then seen a build out. There was no surprise on any of this. He's been building up forces for months. So if this is a war of choice and the President has the ability to make the case, he should come to Congress, make the case that this is in America's interest to try to take out the Iranian leadership, not have this dictated, frankly by the Israeli government's timeline. And I say this again as a strong, strong supporter of Israel. And one of the things that shows somewhat of a chaotic approach. If we knew this was coming, why hasn't the United States been better prepared to get our literally hundreds of thousands of American citizens out of the region? I think the Brits, other countries are getting their people out of the region while we are still leaving literally thousands of Americans trying to reach phone numbers to find a way out when nobody's answering why we were not better prepared. Listen, when America screws up, and we have many times, let me acknowledge that. And you know, I think again in many ways about the disastrous withdrawal under Biden, which I criticize from Afghanistan. But unfortunately, this is starting to take on some of those same characteristics. And I think America deserves better. And my fear is, you know, we would all agree we don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. We all agree the Iranian regime is awful, but the President made no effort to build a coalition to say, this is such a problem, we need to act. I will stand by my statement. Since day one, though, there was no imminent threat to the United States.

[Piers Morgan]

But it's interesting, it's interesting listening to

[Senator Mark Warner]

America's way, there needs to be an imminent threat.

[Piers Morgan]

I'm sorry, I understand that. But it's interesting that you conceded there that had Donald Trump done this in January, which is literally six weeks ago, you might have supported it. So it seems to me that you are intrinsically in favor of regime change. And I would argue that if you take that as your position, that actually the slaughtering of up to 30,000 protesters by the Iranian regime which followed that would have been an even more reason for America to get involved. By your logic.

[Senator Mark Warner]

In other words, the uprising, I'm sorry, Go ahead.

[Piers Morgan]

Well, no. What you're saying is you might have supported the Iranian regime in January when they rose up. Then, wouldn't the slaughter of nearly 30,000 protesters, wouldn't that have been an even more compelling reason to do it?

[Senator Mark Warner]

Well, I would argue there was at least the case. And I would not take your characterization. Do I think the Iranian regime is awful? Yes. Do I think. Do I lose any sleep over the fact that the Supreme Leader and others were killed?

[Aaron Mate]

No.

[Senator Mark Warner]

Do I think that would mandate a regime change right away without a plan? I would only make the argument that the logic of acting when there were millions of Iranians on the street and the president said to those protesters, don't worry, we have your back, a selective strike might have pushed things forward. What I feel we've had now is because he drew that red line, then brought an armada to the region, an armada that couldn't have been there before because he was focused on Venezuela and he didn't have support of our allies. To take this action now, not based upon an American timeline or an imminent threat, means, you know, presidents in American history have chosen to go to war. If they choose to go to war, they have to come to the Congress and make their case. He has not done that. And my fear now is not just humanitarian, but from a practical standpoint, he once again has said to the Iranian people, rise up. Take back your government. If they do rise up and hundreds of thousands of protesters appear in the streets, does that obligate America to put troops on the ground to protect those protesters? I think you have to think these things through. And what I see from this administration is this chaotic approach, thinking about all these things in isolation rather than the interconnectedness. And again, part of the proof of that is not only what will we do if the Iranians do rise up? Do we have an obligation to. But it also goes to the point of, why has there not been a better plan of trying to evacuate the literally hundreds of thousands of Americans not just in Israel, but in Dubai and Saudi and elsewhere. My office has been overwhelmed by calls of people pleading, how do I get out of the region? And I think Secretary Rubio is trying to beef up additional planes. But why was that not put in place? Because unlike some of the other actions where the president, Democrat or Republican, reacts to something that was caused by another. Another power, this was timing wise, dictated by the Israeli government, but we knew it was coming. Why not have all these pieces in place?

[Piers Morgan]

I guess the answer would be that if you prepared for the mass evacuation of Americans from all over the Middle East. It sends a pretty big signal to the Iranians what you might be up to. I just want to, if I may,

[Senator Mark Warner]

Senator, sending a giant armada to the region. I think it wasn't like this was all being hidden. We were, have amassed the greatest amount of forces since, I believe, the Iraq war.

[Piers Morgan]

It's a perfectly valid point.

[Senator Mark Warner]

People knew something was coming.

[Piers Morgan]

That's a perfectly valid, that's a perfectly valid point. I just want to end just quickly. It's interesting to me because on the right, you have people like Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly and others, very prominent right wing conservative voices who are hammering Trump over this. But on the Democrat side, you have many that share your view, but you have people like Senator Fetterman of Pennsylvania who say this. Do you see increasing support from Democrats

[John Bolton]

on President Trump's efforts with regard to Iran?

[Piers Morgan]

I don't know, but my, my support's there because, you know, especially when, when our military has been engaged, you have to go country over party.

[Senator Mark Warner]

Yeah.

[Piers Morgan]

You know, like, I know what parts of my, my base demands, but I'm always, it's easy. It's always, I'm always going to stand, you know, with, with our country and they're going to stand with our military

[John Bolton]

and the heroes as well.

[Senator Mark Warner]

And how, how can you celebrate that

[Piers Morgan]

the, the Iranian leadership has been eliminated?

[Omar Badr]

Doesn't that make the region more safe,

[Piers Morgan]

more secure, more just, more free?

[Professor Mohammad Morandi]

Yeah.

[Omar Badr]

And now, of course, there's other things.

[Piers Morgan]

It's possible right now, but right now, why can't you just acknowledge that? I mean, just very briefly, Senator, what would your response to that be?

[Senator Mark Warner]

Well, my reaction is I am glad the Iranian regime leadership has been eliminated. I think that is good. The question is, what happens next? If we are engaged in not weeks, but months or years, what obligation do we have if the Iranian people rise up to support them? What happens if the Straits of Hormuz will be closed and oil prices go up to 150 or $200? I will always stand with my country's interest over any party. And I have a long record of being criticized by my party for doing that. But I think there is always a smart, thoughtful way, and I'm not sure we have seen that smart, thoughtful way. And I do believe the President, United States, he has taken this action by choice, needs to explain what the goal and the outcome will be. I pointed out, here's, you know, was it nuclear weapons? Was it ballistic missiles? Was it bombing the Iranian navy? Was it regime change? The American people deserve an answer when we now have being killed.

[Piers Morgan]

Yeah. And when you have Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, basically, you know, giving one version one day and completely the opposite version the next day, that doesn't instill much confidence either that they all have agreed what the reason for doing this is. Senator Warner, thank you very much indeed for joining me.

[Senator Mark Warner]

Piers, thanks you much.

[Piers Morgan]

Let's go back to the panel for the reaction to that. Emily Schrader, you know, he's not wrong, is he? I mean, when you hear Marco Rubio say day before yesterday, well, you know, the reason we had to act preemptively is because we knew that Israel were going to attack them and Iran was then going to probably attack some of our bases, so we had to attack them. And then the very next day they clearly all got the memo, well, this isn't going to fly, so we're going to have to pretend we never said it. I just think forgetting which party it is, forgetting which president it is, none of that adds to public confidence that there's a clear narrative here about what the intention is.

[Emily Schrader]

Absolutely. I understand why people might not be clear on the reasons for that. I do want to take issue with what the senator said about Israel's timing. Actually, it was revealed today that Israel had planned to do this much later in the year. There was no plan to strike Iran as of now. The only plans that were discussed initially were back in January, shortly after Trump said take to the streets to the Iranian people. Israel had not been planning something. So that part is inaccurate at best. I also would take issue with the claim that it's a war of choice. I do believe it's a war of necessity. We know how this Islamic regime has been operating, how they've been targeting American troops and how they've been operating on foreign soil, how they've been trying to export the revolution. As I mentioned, it's something that we cannot miss when it comes to this issue and when it comes to the concept of forever wars. I just want to point out to this audience that every year the United States, excluding any involvement financially with Israel, any aid to Israel, anything related to Israel, they are spending up to $60 billion per year only on deterrence related to the Middle east, which is, of course, as Matt emphasized, completely related to the Islamic regime in Iran and the IRGC's activities. Now, they've already spent approximately 5 billion on this conflict just in a span of a few days. And they estimate that if this war continues, meaning that if it goes longer than what President Trump has stated, he wants it to. It could be up to 65 billion. Well, up to 65 billion is approximately what the United States is spending every single year. So the idea that this is so much more expensive or so much more difficult than what we're already doing. I mean, the status quo is not free. The status quo is extremely high risk. That sounds a lot more like a forever war to me than actually dealing with the problem once and for all. And the reason that there is some confusion about the things that Marco Rubio and the other officials have mentioned is because all of these reasons are true. They are developing. They're in the process of developing ICBMs. They are in the process of rebuilding a nuclear program. And let's not forget that they've held on to that 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium at 60%, which is 90% of the way to a new. OK, OK. We can't forget that they're. And sorry. One more thing I want to mention about Omar is that he's completely outraged about schoolgirls dying, yet he said nothing about the fact that IRGC poisoned schoolgirls in 2022 or the more than 30,000 protesters, including children, who have already been executed or shot in the streets during the protests in January.

[Omar Badr]

Yeah, I mean, obviously, you know what happened. There were peaceful protests against the Iranian government over the economy. An economy, by the way, that Scott Besant, the US official, was admitting it

[Matt Todia]

was a successful demonstration.

[Emily Schrader]

It is not just my sentence. Listen to what I'm saying.

[Omar Badr]

Why do you think you better tell the truth? Emily, you need to let me finish my sentence. You can't just jump down my throat every time I say something that you don't want the audience to hear.

[Emily Schrader]

Stop lying.

[Omar Badr]

There were largely peaceful protesters who are against their own government. And you know what Israel did? Its Mossad armed people within Iran to set fire to schools.

[Emily Schrader]

There is zeros, zero evidence.

[Omar Badr]

And turned this into riots for the sake of making this violence. And you know what happened?

[Emily Schrader]

You have 37 years that Iranians have been rising in the street protesting the government protest against their regime. And you take all agency away from them.

[Piers Morgan]

I would.

[Emily Schrader]

You take all angels, Emily.

[Omar Badr]

I'm tempted to appeal to your decency, so let me finish my sentence. But everybody knows that you don't have any. So let me just say you need to be quiet. This is not your show. And let other people finish their sentences. What happened is that every time this happen. Stop lying. By the way, Emily is so out of touch. She's got her friends who are, you know, Supporters of the former brutal dictator of Iran. And she thinks that this is having her finger on the pulse of the Iranian people every time. What happens is there is a swell of Iranians who have a problem with their own government. Are you talking about the Shah?

[Emily Schrader]

He's not allowed.

[Omar Badr]

And every time Israel bombs Iran, what happens is that these people shrink and what you end up seeing is massive protests in support of the government. While people who are critics of the government say we want no association with the Israeli assault on Iran, that's not what they want to be associated with. My social media feed is filled with people who do not like the Iranian government but say this is not the time to speak out because we definitely will not be in support of a foreign country that by the way is committing crimes throughout the entire region. Coming into Iran and bombing civilians, that is not something that they're going to stand behind just because they don't like the Iranian theocracy.

[Piers Morgan]

Okay, let me ask Matt.

[Emily Schrader]

So civilians aren't being bombed, but okay,

[Piers Morgan]

let me ask Matt Tardeo. Matt, how long is this going to play out? Everyone keeps asking me in the civilian world, what do you know, how long is it? I have no idea. You're a military guy. You've seen what's gone on this week. Give me, give me a likely timeline for this.

[Matt Todia]

Yeah. So realistically how it's going to play out, it's sad that that senator doesn't even know our own Constitution. Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution actually allows the President of the United States to conduct limited operations. Same thing with the World War powers Resolution of 1973. Within there we get limited strike capabilities up to 60 days without any anything else, you know, that's going to be dragging us in a little bit deeper and he's got to be able to bring that before Congress. How this is going to play out in the future is going to vastly depend on what's taking place on the ground over there. Over inside of western Iran we see strikes over in Kurdish regions vastly targeting IRGC forces. We also see reports of airstrikes that are taking place along the Iraq Iran border. Additionally, over inside of Iraq last night we saw targeted strikes against Iranian backed militias, Shiite militia organizations that were and have been targeting U S troops, which is something else I wanted to bring up to that center, which is we lost three US service members on January 28, 2024. Sergeant William Rivers, Specialist Kennedy Sanders and Specialist Brianna Moffett. Over in the tri border regions inside of two Jordan, they were targeted by an IRGC backed force, our troops have been under attack. So how long this is going to take is until the regime ends up giving in. And I believe our president, commander in chief of the United States military actually came out and stated that the other day that your time for negotiating is up because they're not negotiating. So it's just going to be whenever they give in.

[Piers Morgan]

Okay, I'm about to speak to Professor Mohamed Morandi who's in Tehran. I've spoken many times in the last few years. I'd be fascinated to see what he has to say before I go to him. I just want to give you, Aaron, just a very quick chance to summarize. You know, if you were the Iranian regime right now, what would you do?

[Aaron Mate]

Well, first of all, if we're talking about Iran, what the people want, the history, we have to have some basic facts straight. The US has been at war with the people of Iran for decades. Go back to the coup of 1953. We overthrew their government because they wanted to control their own oil. Fast forward to the 80s after the Iranian regime comes in because they overthrow the Shahu we support supported along with Israel. The US turns to supporting Saddam Hussein, one of the worst criminals in recent memory as he kills hundreds of thousands of people in Iran, including with chemical weapons which the US assisted. Then the US turns to trying to overthrow Iran via crippling sanctions, not aimed at the government but at the people to make lives miserable so that society can't function and think and life is intolerable. Now, Matt made a number of points. I can't get to all of them. But the jcpoa, the whole premise of that, the reason that collapsed is because the U.S. pulled out. Because the premise was the U.S. offers sanctions relief. We've got an Iran capture.

[Piers Morgan]

I'm sorry to jump in, but US broke. We're going to lose.

[Aaron Mate]

We're going to lose the line.

[Piers Morgan]

Professor Morandi. So I just wanted to focus specifically very quickly, just the advice for the regime.

[Aaron Mate]

I can't give advice to a government that's under assault from the most powerful government in the world. Iran has tried diplomacy. They went to Geneva. There was progress there. The Omani foreign minister who was brokering said that Iran basically agreed to stockpiling zero uranium. Iran was willing to redo the jcpoa, which it stuck to. Iran has accepted. Excuse me, Iran has accepted. Which Steve Wyckoff once said was fine until neocons in Washington freaked out because neocons in Washington, okay,

[Matt Todia]

because I corrected your fat taxes. You're lying. Yeah. Not to mention they also have 460 kilograms of enriched uranium, if you want. Not the 440 that the IAEA found.

[Aaron Mate]

Yes.

[Matt Todia]

So they've been enriching uranium. You don't want to admit to it though, do you? 60% enriched. They gained an extra 20 kilograms.

[Piers Morgan]

Yes.

[Matt Todia]

What do you do?

[Aaron Mate]

The Iran nuclear deal. That's why. That's why.

[Piers Morgan]

All right, I'm gonna have to end. I'm gonna have to end the panel. I'm sorry, because we've got. We have Professor Morandi waiting. I'm going to have to end it there without opening it up. So thank you all very much to my panel. I am joined now by Professor Mohammad Morandi of the Tehran University. Professor Morandi, welcome back to Uncensored. What is your reaction to what has happened in your country?

[Senator Mark Warner]

I'm R.J. decker, the private investigator uncovering

[Professor Mohammad Morandi]

the Sunshine State's darkest secrets.

[Aaron Mate]

Tuesdays, it's the premiere of ABC's hottest news crime show. RJ freaking Decker. As I live and breathe, he's a private eye.

[Omar Badr]

It's not a standard murder. Someone bigger and a public mass trying

[Senator Mark Warner]

to get some back to prison.

[Aaron Mate]

Today.

[Matt Todia]

You go to prison one time and

[Senator Mark Warner]

suddenly it's all the jokes.

[Aaron Mate]

RJ Decker series premiere Tuesdays on ABC and stream on Hulu.

[Professor Mohammad Morandi]

Well, just like nine months ago, when the Iranians were negotiating with the Trump regime, the United States was secretly collaborating with the Netanyahu regime to carry out a blitzkrieg attack. And Witkoff, who was negotiating with the Iranians, initially said that enrichment is acceptable, but he was lying, obviously, and he said that on Fox News. And then we ultimately saw after round five of negotiations and before round six, the murderous war, the illegal war, which apparently since now the west has imposed the law of the jungle across the world is okay, according to your leaders and pundits. And what we saw this time around was the same. The Omani foreign minister who is mediating, did not say anything similar to what Witkoff claimed just recently. He said progress was made. And ultimately we saw what happened. Again, the United States being a sinister regime, it carried out an assault. But this time around, the Iranians were prepared. They knew that they were lying.

[Piers Morgan]

But when you say Iran was prepared, 40 senior leaders, including the supreme leader, 13 top defense officials, were all confirmed dead on day one of the attacks. And you know, if you actually look at the respective military power of the United States against Iran on pure personnel, the United States has 1.3 million service men and women. Iran, 600,000 defense budget, United States $895 billion Iran 15 billion aircraft United States 13,300 Iran 550 aircraft carriers US 11 Iran 0. If it comes to a shooting match, as it currently is, how can Iran possibly expect to withstand the United States militarist before we involve the Israelis? So do you accept that militarily this can only end one way? If Iran continues to react the way that it's done, particularly if as it brings in all the other Gulf states and is attacking all its neighbors, as Iran has been doing, actually it's achieving the opposite of what it would have hoped to have done. It's rallying the Gulf states behind Israel and America.

[Professor Mohammad Morandi]

Well, first of all, these Gulf Arab family dictatorships, they host US Bases, and those bases are being used against Iran. So they are complicit in the murder of Iranians. They can't have their cake and eat it too. They cannot be a part of aggression and say that we are neutral. With regards to the number 40 that you say, that is American propaganda. The White House is always saying all sorts of nonsense. Far less people were killed this time around than last time around. The leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, he was martyred because he stayed at home. And he said, I'm not leaving my office and my home because many Iranians have nowhere to go, and so I cannot leave. And he chose to stay, even though everyone knew that he would be a primary target. Unlike your leaders and the Epstein class in your country, which do all sorts of things to ordinary people, he stood with his people and he stayed with his people. And that's why he's so popular. And unlike the propaganda that we see on your show all the time with these insane pundits who've never been to Iran, who know nothing about Iran, who just repeat these Epstein class talking points, the Iranian people are steadfast and standing besides and behind the Islamic Republic. And as we speak, across Tehran under missile fire, you see huge crowds of people in different parts of the city protesting against the United States and calling for the armed forces to resist. And might does not make right. As I learned from school, children know this. We are in the right. Your regime, your government, the American regime, they supported the Holocaust in Gaza, the ongoing Holocaust in Gaza we stood against.

[Piers Morgan]

Okay, the point I would make that. Let me respond.

[Professor Mohammad Morandi]

No matter how you try to frame it and pretend that we kill in Iran tens of thousands of people on the streets and all that fake media propaganda, the reality is the reason why Iran is hated is because we're against Ethnic cleansing. We're against ethno supremacism. And that is something that the Epstein class that rules over all of you cannot tolerate.

[Piers Morgan]

Well, no Epstein class rules over me. And the difference between me and you is I'm able to look at our leadership, from our prime Minister to our former UK Ambassador to America to the former Prince Andrew, and I'm able to publicly criticize them and say I find all of them, frankly, pretty deplorable and shameful to their country in the way they conduct themselves. You would never say that about your Supreme Leader, because had you said that on the airwaves. Well, hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on. Because had you. Had you. Had you. Because had you called your supreme. Let me explain to you. Yeah, if you let me just. I'll let you speak. Let me speak. Had you criticized your Supreme Leader while he was alive, publicly, had you done it publicly in the way that I can do about my prime minister or my royal family or my ruling political class, then you would have disappeared from the airwaves extremely quickly. You and I know that. And when it comes to the reaction of the people on the street in your country, you would like everyone to believe it's all one way. Everyone's on the side of the regime that you've propped up for years. But I would show you this scene. Look at this, and tell me what we're looking at. It looks like people to me, celebrating the toppling of a statue of your dead Supreme Leader.

[Omar Badr]

Wow.

[Professor Mohammad Morandi]

Look at those millions of people on the streets. Stunning. Why don't you show the crowds that are hundreds time 100 times larger in small cities than these crowds? Because you cannot do that. Because in order to remain on air, you have to pursue certain narratives. But if you were in my. At my university and you were in my classroom, you would see students with all sorts of views saying whatever they want. Student. A student would say, Iran is worse than North Korea, and I would laugh at him and make fun of him in a friendly way till the end of the semester. But you are. You have this alternative Iran in your. Somewhere in the universe, in your mind. And based on that, all your assessments are made.

[Aaron Mate]

You're.

[Matt Todia]

You're.

[Piers Morgan]

Okay, well, criticize your regime then. Okay, well, criticize your regime then. If you've got such freedom of speech, criticize your regime right now. Go on.

[Professor Mohammad Morandi]

Pierce.

[Piers Morgan]

Yeah, you can't come here. It's full of hot air. You remind me of comical Ali in the Iraq war who kept just talking complete nonsense about his ruling, about his Regime and ruler.

[Professor Mohammad Morandi]

I'm at a. You know, the problem is.

[Senator Mark Warner]

I don't know.

[Piers Morgan]

You can't do it.

[Professor Mohammad Morandi]

Be quiet.

[Piers Morgan]

Can't do it or criticize your regime. Go on.

[Professor Mohammad Morandi]

I know you're afraid. Be quiet. Let me respond.

[Piers Morgan]

And I'm not afraid of anything.

[Professor Mohammad Morandi]

Don't be so afraid. In Iran, we talk against the government, against policies. Day and night. You sit in a taxi, they're criticizing. You're on campus, they criticize.

[Piers Morgan]

I wanted you to criticize your regime right now.

[Professor Mohammad Morandi]

No, I'm not going to. When you give me 5 million.

[Piers Morgan]

No, you're not going to, are you? Because you're a coward. And you're a paid up stooge of the regime. And you know, if you do criticize them, they'll take you off the airwaves. Your job is to get on the airwaves and promote the regime. That's why you can't criticize them. Yeah, and if you could criticize them, you would.

[Matt Todia]

Are you.

[Professor Mohammad Morandi]

Are you going to let me talk? Or are you just too cowardly to let me talk?

[Aaron Mate]

You're afraid.

[Piers Morgan]

I asked you a question. You could. You wouldn't do it.

[Professor Mohammad Morandi]

You're a coward.

[Piers Morgan]

Can't do it, can you?

[Aaron Mate]

You're a co.

[Piers Morgan]

I'm not. I can criticize my regime. I can tell you. I think Prime Minister Starmer has been a complete dud. What are you going to say about your regime?

[Professor Mohammad Morandi]

My country is under airstrikes from your criminal regime, Your Epstein regime. My country. The people in my city are being slaughtered by your garbage regime. And you want me to.

[Piers Morgan]

Actually, the people in your country were slaughtered by your regime, weren't they? Only a few weeks ago, up to 30,000 of your people were slaughtered by your regime, weren't they?

[Professor Mohammad Morandi]

Okay, professor, forget it. If you don't want me to talk, I'll just sit down. You do the talking.

[Piers Morgan]

Well, I'll tell you what. I'll tell you what. We'll end it like this. I've had you on my show many, many times, right? When do I get invited on Iranian state television? Ah, you've gone.

[Professor Mohammad Morandi]

I invited you to Iran, Pierce. I invited you to Iran.

[Piers Morgan]

I'll do it like you do. I'll do it like you do. Down the barrel of a camera. You put me on Iranian state television and let me say what I think about Iranian state television in the way that I let you come on my show and criticize my country and the United States and the West. Fair's fair, right, Professor? Cause you've got freedom of speech in Iran. There should be no problem in me, Piers Morgan, going on Iranian state television and hammering your regime. Only you won't let that happen. And the regime won't let it happen. Because amongst the many things that you repress, the biggest thing you repress is freedom of speech. That's why you can't talk out against your regime. And that's why you wouldn't let me go on state TV in Iran and talk out against your regime. And that is the difference between us. So you can try and take the high moral ground, but the reality is, that is the difference.

[Professor Mohammad Morandi]

You are a genocide supporter. You supported it in Israel, in Palestine, and you refused to come to Iran. And I invited you to Iran.

[Piers Morgan]

I literally did the opposite, actually. I literally did the opposite.

[Professor Mohammad Morandi]

You should watch uncensored more often on your regime tv. You don't even let me talk. You don't even. You don't know anything about Iran. And you just talk and talk and talk and you're afraid of me saying a single sentence. Iran is being bombed by your regime. Our children are being slaughtered as we speak. Your regime is bombing my country. And your regime sent in intelligence, the Israeli Mossad, the CIA, according to the former head of the CIA, according to the Mossad itself, they sent in infiltrate people to infiltrate. According to channel 14 of Israeli TV, which is close to Netanyahu, they brought in weapons that killed hundreds of police officers and office and volunteers on the streets. So the 3,117 people who were killed and all of them have their ID and information, they're well known. If you have any extra names, give them to me and let's see what your evidence is. All of those people are recognized and. Wait a moment. Wait a moment. And if there was one police officer killed in your country, what would the reaction be? Some young woman was turning to the right. They shot her in the face here. They killed 200 police officers and well over 100 volunteers on the streets. And you called that peaceful protest, but you ignore the millions of people on the streets as we speak in Tehran right now?

[Piers Morgan]

Let me tell you. And let me respond. Let me respond.

[Professor Mohammad Morandi]

I can tell you one, just one. I wanted to bring something for you to see. But forget it. Just one final sentence. For 47 years, you have been your government, your regime, your media has been saying Iran is unpopular. Iran is about to fall. The regime is collapsing, and it never happened. And do you know what? That is exactly the same thing that your media and your governments would say about Mossadegh when he was in power, they were saying, he's evil, he's criminal, he's corrupt. Go and look at the New York Times, the Washington Post. It's always the same. Your problem is that we are independent and that we do not accept the Epstein class that rapes and murders

[Senator Mark Warner]

murdering people.

[Professor Mohammad Morandi]

We will not allow your regime to kill our kids and get away with it.

[Piers Morgan]

Okay, I understand. But I would say in return that your regime, the Iranian regime for the last 47 years has waged systematic, barbaric repression against its own people, suppressed free speech. It has killed thousands of protesters. You say what would happen if it happened here? Let me tell you. If thousands of protesters got shot dead in the street of Britain, the people responsible would be brought down from power extremely quickly. And the Iranian regime has also sponsored terrorism all over the Middle east, from the Houthis to Hezbollah to Hamas. But you consistently deny that. Because you're comical, Ali. You're the guy they put up on TV to say, the sky may look blue to you, but you know, where I am, it's green. And that's the problem. But, professor, it's always good to have you on. And the truth is. The truth is, I let you come on here and you can say what you want to say, but you never, ever let me on state TV in Iran. I look forward to my first invitation. Why don't you get me on, Have a word with the regime and get me on state TV tomorrow. Down the barrel of a camera like you, and I'll say what I think of the regime on state TV in Iran. Have we got a deal?

[Professor Mohammad Morandi]

Come to Iran. Don't be cowardly and come to Iran.

[Piers Morgan]

Oh, well, you come to London, then get on a plane.

[Professor Mohammad Morandi]

You come here. You want to see.

[Piers Morgan]

You want to go on state tv. I thought so. Let the record show. I can't go on state TV like this, like you do, because you won't let me. And secondly, that I've given you repeated chances to criticize your regime, and you have bottled it because you know what would happen if you did. Professor Morandi. No, I'm going to leave it.

[Professor Mohammad Morandi]

Come to Iran, and you and I will debate on Iranian tv.

[Piers Morgan]

Yeah, you come to London and we'll have a chance. Good to talk to you, Professor.

[Professor Mohammad Morandi]

I will do that, Pierce. I will do that.

[Piers Morgan]

Great.

[Professor Mohammad Morandi]

You come to Iran.

[Piers Morgan]

I'll see you in a show you

[Professor Mohammad Morandi]

around the buildings that you helped. You helped justify the slaughter of all

[Piers Morgan]

these women and children.

[Professor Mohammad Morandi]

But after that, I'll take you to press TV and have a debate with you in studio where it will be broadcast and everyone can see it.

[Piers Morgan]

Perfect. Perfect. Yeah, but I'll do it the way you do it. Down the barrel of a camera. Professor Morandi, thank you for joining me. I appreciate it. Well, make sure you check out this week's episode of History Uncensored with Bianca Nobilo. She's put together a gripping account of Iran's remarkable history and how it will shape the success or failure of the war now raging today. History Uncensored. Wherever you listen to podcasts and of course, on YouTube via the link in our show notes, here's 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 on Media Uncensored on Spotify and Apple podcasts. And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate, and entertain. And we'll do it all for free. Independent, Uncensored media has never been more critical, and we couldn't do it without you.