← Piers Morgan Uncensored
Piers Morgan Uncensored
"I RESENT That!" Scott Horton HEATED Debate On Iran War & Donald Trump | With John Bolton
01:16:09
Loading summary
Transcript330 lines
- [00:01]
Piers Morgan
Some follow the noise. Bloomberg follows the money. Because behind every headline is a bottom line, whether it's the funds fueling AI or crypto's trillion dollar swings. There's a money side to every story. And when you see the money side, you understand what others miss. Get the money side of the story. Subscribe now@bloomberg.com
- [00:29]
Scott Horton
we are propagandized so heavily in the United States of America that the only reason anyone would ever criticize Israel is just because they hate Jews and want to kill them all or something. And for people to have gone from believing that to where they are now is due solely to two things. Israel's slaughter in the Gaza Strip and then dragging us into another no win war in the Middle East. Is it threatened to nuke London and Paris and Berlin, Berlin and Rome. It's called the Samson Option. They said if the Western democracy you
- [01:03]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
say you're not a crackpot. Conspiracy. No, seriously.
- [01:05]
Scott Horton
That's the second time you've tried to say conspiracy to me.
- [01:08]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
As though that debunks anything that I've said.
- [01:10]
Piers Morgan
Is the IDF the most moral army in the world?
- [01:13]
Bob Stewart
No, it tries to be.
- [01:15]
Scott Horton
That's not true. They deliberately target women and children.
- [01:18]
Bob Stewart
I don't agree with you.
- [01:19]
John Bolton
I wouldn't do a deal with the regime in Tehran. I don't trust them.
- [01:22]
Piers Morgan
So what would you do? Well, there are many reasons why Israel gets to blame all the credit for the Iran war. They include the words of the US Secretary of State, the speaker of the House, several senior US Senators, the former US Secretary of State, and the extremely detailed insider reporting of the New York Times and others. Even without all that, the fundamental truth is that Israel has the most to gain from a conflict which has so far delivered only grave costs. After nine weeks and $25 billion. The current peace talks are centered on opening a waterway that was open to maritime trade for thousands of years before this war began, and on limiting Iran's nuclear ambitions to the level they were at in the agreement, which the current US President scrapped. With inflation and gas prices heading up, while Trump's poll numbers head ever down, many are urging the US President to accept defeat, declare victory, and bring it all to an end. In a few minutes, we'll debate that with a special studio panel assembled in honor of the visiting Scott Horton. Scott, great to see you in the uncensored tube. We finally meet. We begin with Ambassador John Bolton, former US National Security Adviser, who thinks the US Must stay on and finish the job. Ambassador Bolton, welcome back to Uncensored. Glad to be with you what does finish the job mean? Because most experts I've talked to, whatever their view about whether this should have started or not, they agree that if the end game goal, which President Trump has now sort of tried to reinforce and ring fence of stopping Iran developing a nuclear weapon is still the goal, then that has to mean that the enriched uranium is either destroyed or handed over, and that the only way, if the Iranians resist that, of getting the enriched uranium, is to have a ground invasion. Otherwise, there's no way of getting it. So what does finish the job to you mean?
- [03:18]
John Bolton
Well, let's start with Trump. I don't know what his objectives are, and they've been unclear from the beginning. I know what my objective is and has been for 20 years, and that is there is no route to peace and security in the Middle east in any lasting basis until the regime in Tehran is removed. And that includes dealing with the nuclear program. Now, I thought that might have been Trump's objective at the beginning of the attacks. I don't think it is today. I think today he desperately wants to get out. But over the long term, even if the nuclear issue is the center of attention for Trump, and that's understandable, there's simply no secure, guaranteed way to accomplish the objective that he says he wants until you get a regime in Tehran that flatly disavows any nuclear intentions and does what Muammar Gaddafi's regime in Libya did in 2003, 2004, and allow, in that case, US and UK nuclear experts to come in and pack up the Libyan nuclear program and take it to Oak Ridge, Tennessee, where it resides today. That's how you deal with it, with certainty.
- [04:31]
Piers Morgan
Right. So what you're talking about, this job finishing, can only come if there's a change of regime and they agree to hand over the enriched uranium or destroy it. Is that how you see it?
- [04:46]
John Bolton
Well, I think that's the only certain way to do it. And it's not just on the nuclear side. It's on the support for international terrorism. And on closing the Strait of Hormuz right now, I think the ayatollahs and the Revolutionary Guard think they're in a position to open and close the strait, like turning a light switch on and off. And that's simply unacceptable, not just to the United States, but certainly to the Gulf.
- [05:10]
Piers Morgan
How do you stop. I mean, you know, how do you actually stop them? I mean, I think that's true. And I think there's been this asymmetric war where you have a military war, where America And Israel have been pounding the military capability of Iran, and I'm sure massively damaging it. But they very quickly realize, the Iranians, that if they control the Strait of Hormuz, they can cause enormous global damage to the global economic market, particularly in relation to energy and fertilizer and so on. And they've been whacking their neighboring Gulf states in a way that's been very damaging to their business models going forward. So if you're Iran and you think that the United States wants to get rid of the regime and decapitate your nuclear ambition as well, where's the incentive to do any deal that takes away your leverage now that you've realized you've got this tremendous leverage?
- [06:05]
John Bolton
I wouldn't do a deal with the regime in Tehran. I don't trust them. And I don't think that simply doing a deal.
- [06:12]
Piers Morgan
So what would you do is the
- [06:13]
John Bolton
kind of security you need? Well, let me make the predicate point, which I think is important. The regime didn't wake up four or five weeks ago and say, amazing, why don't we close the Strait of Hormuz? Nobody's ever thought of that before. Everybody knows. Everybody who looks at a map knows that the Gulf itself, not just the Strait of Hormuz, is easily disrupted. In the US Navy, they refer to sailing in the Arabian Gulf or Persian Gulf. You can take your pick as like sailing in a bathtub. They don't like being in there. And it's not like Iran hasn't tried to disrupt commercial trafficking, particularly in oil, in the Gulf and through the Strait. Before they did it in 1987 and 88, Reagan re flagged Kuwaiti tankers as American tankers, and we escorted them through. So this was obvious from the get go, as was the possibility that Iran would attack the Gulf Arab states, which it did. And Trump knew that. He may say nobody expected that. But I will tell you, in the first term, when I was arguing that our policy should be regime change, those who objected to it raised all of these potential contingencies. So the fact that this is a problem now is more due to Trump either not paying attention to what his advisors were telling them or thinking he could somehow fake his way through it without taking this into account. That's one of the problems with the way Trump has gone about this whole operation.
- [07:44]
Piers Morgan
Okay, so you don't want to do a deal with the regime. I mean, do you think a ground invasion is the only way that you could get to where you want to get to? And if not, I'm still no. Okay, so let's roll that off the table as well. I'm still struggling to see how you get what you want as an end game.
- [08:05]
John Bolton
Well, if you look at the situation inside Iran, I think the regime before the attacks was at its weakest point since it took power in 1979. The population is overwhelmingly opposed to the regime. Young people, who make up 70% of the population, are under 30, massively dissatisfied with the regime. When the Internet's on, when they look across the Gulf, they know they could have a different life. Ever since the murder of the young Kurdish woman Masyamini over three years ago, almost 50% of the population, that is, the women, are dissatisfied. They've told the ayatollahs, you do not speak the word of God when it comes to our dress code. It's not just about the dress code. It's a fundamental attack on the legitimacy of the Ayatollah system. The ethnic groups are dissatisfied. The Kurds, the Beluchis, the Armenians, the. The. Sorry, the Azeris. And inside Iran, the economy was a wreck even before the attack began. That's why people were demonstrating in December.
- [09:07]
Piers Morgan
Yeah, but none of these people have been demonstrating since the war started. So, again, I mean, I know that.
- [09:13]
John Bolton
I know the Israel, that's for sure.
- [09:14]
Piers Morgan
Yeah. But I know the Israelis.
- [09:15]
John Bolton
The Israelis murdered over 40,000 of them. That'll get your attention.
- [09:19]
Scott Horton
Right.
- [09:19]
Piers Morgan
And I just had that debate with a guy in Tehran. But the Israelis, according to the New York Times, sold Trump on a series of events that would be triggered by killing the Supreme Leader and a lot of the top members of the regime. That the IRGC would collapse from within, and that the people would rise up and you would get a natural revolution, and that the Strait of Hormuz would be a distraction that no one would be interested in worrying about. Well, the top bit happened, but all that happened was the supremely got replaced by his son. The others all moved up a notch. The IRGC appears to still have an iron grip on the country. There have been no uprisings whatsoever since this war started for a number of reasons. But none of the people that you're talking about have risen up in this war at all. And the Strait of Hormos has become this enormously effective weapon for the Iranian regime in causing massive damage, both economically and politically. So, again, I mean, I'm. I'm just asking, if you were in charge right now to get to finish the job, as you put it, what do you actually do?
- [10:28]
John Bolton
Well, it would take me about two hours to Go give me the short answer and explain what's wrong. Well, let's start with the idea that somehow Bibi Netanyahu conned Trump into this operation. You know, in the first term, Netanyahu was in favor of regime change, too. And he said to Trump, I'm sure, the same things he said in the second term. So the idea that the US Government is an unwitting tool of the Israelis isn't true. I don't know what convinced Trump to do this. I was as amazed as anybody else. But it wasn't because of Bibi Netanyahu. There must have been some other factor. And indeed, Trump didn't do a lot of necessary preliminary work before the attacks began. It's not a question of the people going out into the streets willy nilly so they can be machine gunned by the besieged militia. Again, it's a question of preparation. The widespread opposition needs resources. It needs telecommunications capabilities, it needs money, it needs weapons, all of which we could have been supplying but do not.
- [11:31]
Piers Morgan
Okay, but we are. Look, I've got to wrap this up, but we are where we are. And again, if you were the President of the United States right now and you say we got to finish the job, what do you do?
- [11:43]
John Bolton
I would do two things. One, I would clear the Strait of Hormuz militarily, which I thought Trump had started about 48 hours ago until he paused it in typical Trump fashion. And I would massively ramp up support for opponents of the regime inside, including the ethnic groups, many of which are already armed and organized. I think that kind of internal pressure, combined with maintaining the economic pressure of the blockade against Iranian exports and opening up the rest of the Gulf so that its oil could come out into international markets and bring the prices down globally, I think would be very powerful. It's not all I would do, but those are the two things I'd start with.
- [12:23]
Piers Morgan
Okay. Ambassador Bolton, always good to have you on our sense, and thank you very much.
- [12:27]
John Bolton
Thank you.
- [12:28]
Piers Morgan
Well, joining me in the studio, as I said very excitedly, Scott Horton, author of Provoked and a new book, which we'll discuss in a moment. Journalist with the Spectator, Jonathan Sacchadoti, and Bob Stewart, the former conservative MP and army colonel. Welcome to all of you. Unusual to have a three man panel in the studio. So great to have you all. Scott, you were, I would say sniggering was probably a right way of describing some of the things you were hearing there from Ambassador Bolton.
- [12:54]
Scott Horton
He's an entertaining guy.
- [12:56]
Piers Morgan
Go on, explain. I mean, he thinks this is quite straightforward. What you do is you basically militarily seize back control of the Strait of Hormuz and you empower and arm the people of Iran to rise up against the regime.
- [13:11]
Scott Horton
Well, and that's what he's been saying.
- [13:12]
Piers Morgan
And Israel didn't force any of this.
- [13:15]
Scott Horton
Yeah, well he added the word unwitting as though Donald Trump wasn't convinced. Of course, Donald Trump is the president. He's the one who issues the orders and pulls the trigger. But he was convinced by Netanyahu. We all know that. No question about that. That the question was where do you move the red line? And Netanyahu convinced him to move the red line to enrichment at all. Any enrichment is the same thing as a weapons program and we won't tolerate it. As Trump says, no nuclear and just, you know, exceptionally vague like that. But you know, we have John Bolton on a recorded conference call with AIPAC in 2007 saying that through all the sanctions and all the bullying, this is in the W. Bush administration. They were trying to get Iran to withdraw from the non proliferation Treaty and kick the inspectors out of the country as he said then to put that would put us in a better position to launch the war. He wants full regime change. And then you hear his answer. He has no answer to how to do this. Oh, we'll arm some Kurdish communists from pj.
- [14:11]
Piers Morgan
That wasn't the most convincing way that this all gets resolved, I must say.
- [14:14]
Scott Horton
Yeah. And then, and then he says, oh well, arm the Balookis. He means Jandala, the Bin Ladenite head chopping, suicide bombing lunatics. That's who he means by the Balooki dissenters which America and Israel backed against Iran in the W. Bush and Obama administrations. And then I think it's so crucial that he continues and the war party on, you know, the media and in the government continue to push this lie, this completely preposterous hoax Pierce, that the Iranian government massacred 40,000 people in January to put down that insurrection. First of all, we already know Donald Trump admitted now that we're living in the future here. Donald Trump admitted last week or two weeks ago that, that Israel armed those Kurdish groups. Those weren't peaceful protesters. There were peaceful protests. But the fighting was not the mask of peaceful protests. The fighting was fighting against Kurdish communists who were sacking police stations and burning mosques and trying to overthrow the government there. And then just think about that casualty count. 40,000. That's like the Battle of Gettysburg, you know, the worst. Well, I don't know about all of them, but in Ukraine the worst massacre of the Holocaust was at Babyn Yarn in September of 1941, where the German Nazis corralled 30,000 Jews and massacred them and dumped them in a ravine. 30,000 of them. It was one of the absolute worst atrocities of the entire Second World War. We're to believe that the Ayatollah pulled that off, something like that. Maybe 10,000 more than that in January without corporate bombing his own city, without committing some kind of Dresden, without leaving tens of thousands of body bags everywhere. And what do we see in the propaganda? 12 body bags. And then they go, oh, how can you deny the massacre? But see, here's the important point is one is this was propaganda to get you outraged so you'll support the war. But two, it still bolsters this propaganda line that the regime in Tehran has no support whatsoever. Because why, after all, in January they had to kill 40,000 of the their own people to presumably make what, I don't know, the other hundreds of thousands of them go home. But it's just not true. It was some Kurdish communists who were attacking in a protest that they kind of co opted a protest that was started by the United States waging economic war against the currency. So it's just a lie that they were so desperate to cling on to power that they had to use that level of ultraviolence to do so. And that's why John Bolton and Donald Trump were so surprised when once the war started, there were rallies of hundreds of thousands of people in downtown Tehran in support of the regime there. Now, I'm not saying I support the regime there. I'm saying people there do, and especially when you bomb them.
- [17:00]
Piers Morgan
Well, there's no doubt they have a body of support there. I think that's unquestionable. Jonathan Sachadodi, your response to that?
- [17:08]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
I'd rather respond if I can, to what Trump's actually doing. Because a lot of, obviously we don't agree on quite a lot of things to do with the view of what's going on now. But what Ambassador Bolton said I firmly agree with, which is this seems like a really strange moment for Trump. You could have been thinking about this 24 hours, 48 hours ago and thought Trump is pulling off a masterstroke. He's paused the actual war, the military action, and instead he's now strangling the Iranian regime with this economic move. And it was working. It was costing them 40, 400, $500 million a day, the Iranians.
- [17:42]
Piers Morgan
The longer how much has it all been costing the global economy sure.
- [17:45]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
But if you ask Trump, isn't that the calculation? Absolutely. And time became the weapon. So I think that what happened here was that many people said, well, who can hold out the longest? And Trump said gas prices will go up a bit. They're not up as high as people thought they would be. He said people said $300. He said they're around $100. He said we can cope with that for a short while. And every so often he tries to manipulate them with some different statements. That might be what he's doing now, because the idea that he's capitulated to the regime, to the barbarians of the Islamic Republic regime now, after all of this, is almost unthinkable. And the reason I.
- [18:19]
Piers Morgan
But is it not also a possibility that Donald Trump, who's always trusted his gut instinct, that he has realized that politically and economically this is turning into a disaster because he's got the midterm elections coming within six months. They've already predicted Republicans to lose the House in that, which is normal, actually, for an incumbent president, but they now are highly likely to lose the Senate. He becomes a lame duck president. His nightmare to have two years probably, of facing new impeachments and so on. And he's scrabbling as he has been, it seems to me, from day one of this war, scrabbling for a way to declare victory. And now he's, I think, scrabbling for a way to get out of this where it doesn't look like he's capitulated, as you put it.
- [19:03]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
Well, I think that if he does capitulate, and if this isn't another moment of Trump calling people's bluff or lying or trying to regain an element of surprise, because he has no element of surprise. If he's planning to re engage militarily, it's not a surprise. All he can do is make a tactical surprise, as he did last time, by start negotiations and then act. But what I'm saying is I don't think he gets out of it in your version of this, because what does it look like? It looks like the Iranian regime beat Donald Trump United States.
- [19:30]
Piers Morgan
Well, I agree.
- [19:31]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
If he backs down. And so I don't think Trump is a stupid man. I think Trump knows that. I don't think it helps him domestically either. They'll say he took us to war with this huge expenditure and all this effort and then he capitulated. And I don't think it helps Iran certainly doesn't help the Iranians who want to get rid of the regime. It Destroys the credibility of the United States in the whole Gulf region.
- [19:50]
Piers Morgan
I agree.
- [19:50]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
The Gulf partners don't want to him to back down now and allow.
- [19:53]
Piers Morgan
No, but it may be he's calculating that he's got to do something and
- [19:57]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
I hope he isn't. I hope that this is another Trump bluff and you'll know Trump from your days when you were in his entertainment world and he is an entertainer as well. He's a guy that understands tv, he understands the news cycle and.
- [20:08]
Piers Morgan
Yeah, but that's been my problem with this.
- [20:09]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
How to distract us.
- [20:10]
Piers Morgan
Yeah, but you know, in a way, in a way I think he's treated the whole thing a bit like a reality TV show for sure. I think, and I don't think, I don't think it's been helpful that he every day has been out there with a new episode dropping with constant flip flopping of both the mission goals and what he's gonna do. One minute we're told he's gonna annihilate the whole of Iran, 90 million people.
- [20:34]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
Right.
- [20:34]
Piers Morgan
It's all gonna happen tomorrow morning and then the next thing he's doing a deal or this or that. I just think eventually you fall into the boy that cried wolf territory or the emperor with no clothes.
- [20:45]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
I think the interesting thing about that, and I completely understand your position, position on that and all of us, I think watch Trump geopolitics and Trump diplomacy aghast because nobody's done it this way before. But maybe you get the US Presidents that your time deserves and calls for. I don't know, I'm just saying that because that is his technique. We never know when he says, I have a one page deal, it could all be over tomorrow or by the time I go to China. Well, I don't know if we can believe him and I don't know if we can't and whether or not it's a good thing that he operates that way or not.
- [21:14]
Piers Morgan
I think in this world, if he
- [21:16]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
does carry out 50% of his threats on X or truth social media and not the other 50%, the only benefit of that strategy is nobody ally or adversary knows ever if this one this time is real.
- [21:28]
Piers Morgan
But that's the boy that cry wolf problem. Colonel Stewart, great to see you looking a fine fettle, if I may say so.
- [21:34]
Bianca Nobila
Thank you.
- [21:34]
Piers Morgan
And I'm very envious of your jacket militarily. First, if Trump wants to prevent and have it be seen to be that he's prevented Iran from, from developing a nuclear weapon, then he has to, it seems to Me, get either Iran to provably destroy their enriched uranium or to get in there and get it himself with the US forces, which would mean a substantial ground invasion. Am I missing something or is that the only way that this can actually represent stopping them?
- [22:09]
Bob Stewart
Two options. The Iranian regime voluntarily get rid, gets rid of its nuclear intentions and proves it. Or if you really want to get rid of that, you've got to do some sort of invasion now. Invasion. People think Iran's a huge country. What do you invade? I mean, you.
- [22:32]
Piers Morgan
It's been no idea where this uranium is.
- [22:34]
Bob Stewart
Yeah, quite so I personally agree to start with, the aims were not clear. I hoped that a bash on the nose at the start of the war would actually bring everyone out on the streets again and actually topple the regime. But frankly, they're terrified. The Iranian people are terrified because as soon as they put their head above the parapet, the Revolutionary Guard will murder them.
- [23:06]
Piers Morgan
But they're terrified because the IRGC remains in firm control.
- [23:09]
Bob Stewart
Exactly.
- [23:10]
Piers Morgan
So all these claims that they've been destroyed and wiped out and the leaders have all gone, none of that can actually be true. If the people on the ground, 90 million of them, if none of them are coming out, it means they must be seeing with their own eyes in the streets evidence that the IRGC remains in tight control, otherwise they'd be doing it.
- [23:30]
Bob Stewart
And it does. And that's the problem. I mean, how do you get rid of the IRGC that is actually 250,000
- [23:38]
Piers Morgan
heavily armed, very well trained, ruthless Revolutionary
- [23:41]
Bob Stewart
Guards who benefit from the present regime, of course. And that's the problem. These people benefit from keeping the Ayatollahs in charge. And actually that is the problem.
- [23:54]
Piers Morgan
So what would you do if you're Trump now? Well, I know if he has quietly thought to himself, I've got to get out of this. And I think he should, even if it means he has to, you know, eat crow and just take a hit on it. I think the longer term damage of not doing that now is incalculable. So if you're Trump, what do you do?
- [24:12]
Bob Stewart
Well, he's going to, he's actually going to try and get out of the whole situation. That's what he's going to do. I mean, you could see it beginning to occur. I mean, the fact of the matter is they want to have the Strait of Hummus open. That's key now. But it was open before the war. It was open and we want to go back. The whole situation is quite absurd. It has gone wrong for the United States. Big Time. And I think Trump now wants to get out of the situation. If he can call it victory, he will. He will call it victory regardless of whether it is or not. But actually, the situation will not be resolved and the situation will remain as it is now. The Iranian government will remain in power, and the poor people of Iran, the long suffering poor people of Iran will continue to be absolutely dominated by the irgc.
- [25:13]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
Now.
- [25:13]
Bob Stewart
That's what's likely to happen.
- [25:15]
Piers Morgan
Yeah.
- [25:16]
Bob Stewart
And I cannot see the idea of invading a country like Iran is militarily mad.
- [25:22]
Piers Morgan
But I think also, never mind militarily, politically disastrous for Trump. If you suddenly had a load of Marines getting killed. Right. And they didn't get their hands on the enriched uranium, it's over for him.
- [25:34]
Bob Stewart
Yeah.
- [25:34]
Piers Morgan
I mean, I said at the start of this, Scott, I thought this was the biggest risk I've ever seen Donald Trump take. I always thought, interestingly, his foreign policy, certainly compared to people like George Bush and others, was actually reasonably measured. I mean, Trump was a guy that believed in taking out Soleimani then getting out of there. Right. Maduro is a classic Trump foreign policy move. People may not agree with it, but actually, as a military operation, in and out, snatch the leader, put a more mullient number two in place and maybe you can, you know, it's fine. There's no sort of casualty list. This one, from the moment he did it, I was like, wow, this is. You're staking everything here. And I still believe that. And I think I sense, knowing him very well, that he's now wrestling with a massive dilemma. How do I get out of this without losing face and without America losing face.
- [26:27]
Bob Stewart
Right.
- [26:27]
Scott Horton
Well, yes, first of all, as Mr. Bolton said, they've always known what the potential consequences of this could be.
- [26:36]
Piers Morgan
I thought that was interesting.
- [26:37]
Scott Horton
Yeah.
- [26:37]
Piers Morgan
Because any attempt by any of them to try and say, well, we didn't realize they might do. Bolton was saying, they had the open conversations about it.
- [26:45]
Scott Horton
I found an article that I wrote in August of 2005 for Antiwar.com saying that this is what could happen. Iran can close the whole gate. The straight of horror moves.
- [26:55]
Piers Morgan
Out of interest, why have they never done it before?
- [26:57]
Scott Horton
Because we hadn't attacked them.
- [26:58]
Piers Morgan
No. But why wouldn't they have done it as a strategic thing to cause economic war?
- [27:03]
Scott Horton
Well, that would have provoked a war that they were trying to avoid this whole time, too. And, you know, the Bush administration, everybody but W. Bush, including John Bolton, pushed him very hard to do this. And it was the military that talked him out of it. In January 2007, the Chiefs told W. Bush, we don't want to do this. We'll triple the Iraq war, but we don't want to go to Iran. And the reason why is because they can hit back in ways that we can't control. We don't want to fight anyone unless we know we control every single stage of the conflict.
- [27:31]
Piers Morgan
What do you think on the Gulf states? I've had lots of different views about this. I spent a lot of time in the Middle east in the last two years in Saudi, in Qatar, in uae. It's been a very vibrant, dynamic place to be. They've been pouring money into a new business model of opening up tourism, sport, sunshine, safety, and it's all designed to replace the dwindling oil supplies. And now you see their worst nightmare unfurling as a region. Because actually, what Iran has done from a tactical point of view pretty skillfully, is they've targeted the vulnerable spot of the whole region, which is if you can stop people going there, you're wrecking their business model going forward. That applies huge pressure.
- [28:19]
Scott Horton
Well, and they've completely called America's conventional military.
- [28:22]
Piers Morgan
Well, what do you think the Gulf states are really thinking about Trump and America in this? Are they, as some people argue, it's drawn them closer to America because of what Iran has done to them, or do you think that they're blaming America for the whole mess unfurling in the first place?
- [28:37]
Scott Horton
Well, I don't know about the blame. I mean, I could see, you know, part of the motive for them to want to get closer. But then again, our bluff has been called. They, the Iranians have just proven, due to Trump's unforced error here, that America's conventional dominance of the Gulf was always a bluff. They closed down all of our bases, they kicked us out of the region. And, you know, our aircraft carriers, our star destroyers are now parked in orbit way off hundreds of miles away in the Arabian Sea. Can't even get anywhere near it. Have to fire their missiles from standoff ranges. So it seems to me like every, especially all those smaller states, they're probably going to have to take a stance closer to Qatars where they split the difference and try to get along with Iran. Now, as Justin Logan said, what good is a military base if you can't fight a war from it? So America's entire conventional posture in the region is over Now, I think, Jonathan,
- [29:29]
Piers Morgan
you're shaking your head.
- [29:30]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
Well, I think what you said about the Gulf states is important because I
- [29:34]
Piers Morgan
think I don't Actually know the answer? Sure. I've not spoken to many.
- [29:37]
Bob Stewart
Don't think anyone knows the answer.
- [29:39]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
Well, no, I think the UAE and Saudi Arabia may be very much against capitulation, but you might find that Qatar and Oman are less averse to it. But that's one element of it. I would say that one thing we haven't discussed because it seems unlikely is, is that actually this so called deal that Trump maybe is striking actually gets a lot of what he wanted. There was an interview that he did on PBS over the phone where he was asked, there is a rumor that the nuclear material will be transferred out of Iran, maybe to the U.S. he said, not maybe to the U.S. definitely to the U.S. now, if that's part of an agreement that the Iranians will transfer it, that avoids your scenario of troops on the ground. But I will say this, that any deal made with the Iranian regime is a bad deal. Because to make a deal with the barbarians of the Islamic Republic of Iran, to make any deal with them, when their technique has always been to use negotiations, to drag things on as long as possible, to wear people out, to use time to their favor, rather than
- [30:34]
Piers Morgan
they've done that even without the knowledge now they have this tremendous leverage of what they can do with the Strait of Horus.
- [30:39]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
But that's what I mean with the Strait of Hormuz. This is what's so perplexing about what Trump is doing now, because there is no reason not to have carried on what he had just started.
- [30:47]
Bob Stewart
I absolutely agree with that.
- [30:48]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
He can strangle their economy, just clearly.
- [30:51]
Piers Morgan
Well, that's a big question and it's
- [30:52]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
worth the high cost to do so.
- [30:54]
Scott Horton
What is the evidence that they cannot bear the economic pain of having the blockade on the street?
- [31:01]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
The exchange rate is now way worse than it was when the uprising started because it was okay.
- [31:06]
Scott Horton
But America supported Saddam Hussein in a brutal war against him for eight years and they were able to withstand.
- [31:12]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
There is a fair amount of evidence which is that they can't really afford to do anything. They are now having to subsidize things in the lives of their nation who they don't really care about their citizens that much. There is a lot of evidence that if you carry on strangling them, their hopeful pivot towards China has not really worked out the way they'd hoped economically either. There is an enormous amount of pressure on the Islamic Republic regime. Certainly they can withstand a lot of that pressure because they are ruthless, horrible people who will let their own population suffer. But eventually what Trump was doing was A nonviolent method of continuing this war. He had moved out of the kinetic stage of airstrikes and all that we saw there into this stage of playing them at their own game with the Strait of Hormuz and trying to open it up to release the pressure on the rest of the world. Not doing too well on that yet, but starting and also managing to choke them off, to suffocate them, to gradually, economically, the problem here. That's what you should carry on the mission.
- [32:05]
Piers Morgan
Well, hang on, Hang on one sec. You're a very pro Israeli commentator. You'd accept that?
- [32:10]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
I think I'm a fair commentator.
- [32:12]
Piers Morgan
Okay. I mean, in all your columns you've written for this data, how many have been critical of Israel?
- [32:17]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
I often have criticisms of Israel.
- [32:18]
Piers Morgan
Oh, it's a headline on the column.
- [32:19]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
I don't write the headlines.
- [32:20]
Piers Morgan
Have you ever had a critical headline on one of your columns about Israel from the subs?
- [32:23]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
I'd have to go back and check.
- [32:24]
Piers Morgan
I can tell you I checked.
- [32:25]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
Okay.
- [32:26]
Piers Morgan
I haven't.
- [32:26]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
Okay.
- [32:27]
Piers Morgan
So you've never written a column?
- [32:28]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
I think I did once, actually. I think I wrote one about something. It's pre October 7th.
- [32:32]
Piers Morgan
About. Okay.
- [32:34]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
Forest issue in the west bank or something.
- [32:36]
Piers Morgan
I only checked since October 7th. You would accept that you're a partisan commentator.
- [32:40]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
I don't think I'm part of that, no.
- [32:41]
Piers Morgan
But you've never written a column that's been critical of Israel.
- [32:44]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
Plenty of my columns have criticisms of Israeli policy in them.
- [32:46]
Piers Morgan
But not in the last three years?
- [32:48]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
No, no, within the last three years. Go and read them.
- [32:50]
Piers Morgan
What?
- [32:51]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
Was ChatGPT read them or did your researchers read them?
- [32:54]
Piers Morgan
I went and checked every one.
- [32:55]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
You read them all?
- [32:56]
Piers Morgan
I checked every headline of every column.
- [32:58]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
None of the headlines? I didn't write the headlines.
- [33:01]
Piers Morgan
I don't know why you're complaining about being perceived as a pro Israeli government. No, no.
- [33:05]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
Many of the things I say do defend positions of Israel because I think Israel.
- [33:08]
Piers Morgan
There's a reason I'm asking.
- [33:09]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
This war has been. No, I get there's a reason.
- [33:11]
Piers Morgan
The reason I'm asking.
- [33:12]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
You didn't ask me if I. If I have sympathy for Israel's actions during the last two years of this war. You asked me if I consider myself a partisan or somehow I think your words in your Spectator column about me slavishly pro Israel.
- [33:24]
Piers Morgan
Yes.
- [33:24]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
I'm not slavishly anything. I look at the facts and I look at what I see is going on in the region, and I try to analyze it from perspective, which does very often come down in this scenario in favor of the Israeli action. It doesn't mean I or no, I resent that. And I think, you know, afterwards, let's talk about it. I'll find you the criticisms. I've put in some.
- [33:42]
Piers Morgan
You know what the great thing is in the digital era, people can tap in your Spectator website, they can check every column and they can see if any of them have a headline critical Israel.
- [33:50]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
I don't like the headlines, Piers.
- [33:52]
Piers Morgan
Maybe that's the theme of the column.
- [33:54]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
Well, sometimes I don't like the headlines.
- [33:56]
Piers Morgan
They give me both. Here's why I'm asking the question. There's a point disputing this much longer, but I'm not trying to play gotchas. The reason I'm asking is that there is a belief that Israel's operating on a different side to this whole thing, that they don't care if there's total chaos in Iran. They've got a much wider, bigger picture that they're going after here and that actually if Trump does look like he's reining back too much here and that the Iranian regime may stay intact and may have the enriched Iranian and so on, that Netanyahu just won't accept it and that Israel could actually unilaterally go and attack again. Do you think that's likely?
- [34:34]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
Well, I do think you're absolutely right and that Israel and America don't have entirely the same aims in this war, and they never did. But they had a huge amount of overlap. And I think that's why it came together, that this happened as a joint action. So from Israel's perspective, which, you know, I do write a lot about Israel and I am very sympathetic to many of the actions Israel takes and has taken, especially during this war period. From Israel's perspective, it's interesting to consider what this will mean if Trump capitulates now. Will it be good for them or will it be bad for them? In some respects, if you think about October 7th and pre October 7th and the end of the war, if we drew a line here, they are net up on that. If they were below zero on some kind of numerical scale on October 7th, when that horror happened, on the 28th of October, when that war started in Gaza, they increased massively in that scale. Then with Lebanon and Hezbollah, with the 12 day war in Iran, they will have increased more. If he capitulates now, it will come down slightly. So they might have gone up to a 70 and now they'll come down to a 60 or 50. They're still up 50 from zero when they were below zero. But I do think that what it has done in some respects, whilst not conclusively it has demolished a lot of the capability of the Shia axis that Iran leads in the region. The problem is it hasn't got rid of it, but it has stopped Syria being a corridor for Iran to funnel things towards Hezbollah. They are currently trying to deal with Hezbollah, but that's on pause because of this ceasefire that the Americans have let me bring in.
- [36:01]
Piers Morgan
Colonel. Colonel.
- [36:02]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
It swings and roundabouts, that's what I say.
- [36:04]
Piers Morgan
Colonel Bob I mean, I saw one report which said that in Gaza, for example, because of the destruction of 70, 80% of Gaza, because of the killing of 70, 80,000 people there, some of whom obviously were Hamas, we don't know the exact split of terrorists to civilians. But because of that, I read one report from American intelligence that for every Hamas terrorist who'd been killed, five more were now lining up with the same ideology because they were so enraged by what Israel had done.
- [36:36]
Bob Stewart
That's normal, Pierce.
- [36:37]
Piers Morgan
Right, it's normal.
- [36:38]
Bob Stewart
If you.
- [36:39]
Piers Morgan
But my point being, though, how big a problem is Israel potentially creating for itself by the what many perceive to be, and I would be one of them now, that the disproportionate response to what happened on October 7, just in terms of what they did to Gaza, that actually, if you look at, I mean, for example, I never thought I'd see a time when the majority of Americans had an anti Israeli perspective in the polling. I didn't think that day would come. So clearly there's been a movement in public sentiment globally about what the Israeli government's been doing. And I look, to be clear, crystal clear, this is not aimed at Israeli people, my criticism, or Jewish people, certainly it is aimed specifically at this Israeli government that I think is very hard line, right? Driven by, in cases of Smodrich and Ben GVIR in particular, absolute maniacs. I mean, when Ben Gvir's wife, on his 50th birthday last week, gives him a birthday cake of a golden noose, you're dealing with psychopathic mentality. I'm sorry, Jonathan, you can respond to that in a moment, but I just feel like this has been part of the pony.
- [37:46]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
I'm a spokesman for Itamar Bengvir.
- [37:47]
Piers Morgan
I have to pull that out.
- [37:49]
Bob Stewart
Israel has two objectives. One, get rid of the nuclear threat. Two, bring down the regime, make the place safe, make the Middle east safe. That's understandable. The United States had one objective to start with, definitely take out the nuclear facilities, and a more fuzzy one, when they did that as they attacked, perhaps the regime would fall. We're now going to get to the situation where Trump may well maintain he's neutralized the nuclear situation and he can't change the regime. And he's actually going to draw stumps and say, actually, we've won this war when he hasn't, because all he will have done is delay.
- [38:40]
Piers Morgan
Just for my American viewers, draw stumps is a cricket phrase, which means you basically end the game.
- [38:46]
Bob Stewart
Exactly, yes.
- [38:48]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
May I jump in quickly?
- [38:50]
Piers Morgan
Yeah.
- [38:51]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
I think that Israel actually has undeniably come out of this war, though it may not have gone how they wanted or how the US Wanted or to plan. There is no denying that its reputation has altered, but it's altered in both directions. So some of the Gulf states and many of the states in the Middle east now see Israel's deterrence as massively renewed after the day in which its deterrence was seen as massively compromised October 7th. And now, if it's got this renewed deterrence, if it has managed to do so much in that two years from the low point of October 7th, if it also managed to do it in such tight collaboration and operational partnership with the US Albeit under this particular president, it has shown itself to be an extremely strong ally. It even gave an Iron Dome battery to one of its Arab neighbors to use during the Iranian attacks on them. And those countries have seen as well that Iran will not hold back from attacking them and their people. And that is something that has taught them a lesson about who their real allies are in the region. So I think Israel's reputation may be bad among some campuses in the west and even some Western and European parliaments. But if you look at the region that it exists in, many of the people in the region have understood that country as renewed in strength, renewed in alliance, a valuable partner to have. And I think that Europe, as it's getting weaker and weaker. You know, Mertz said that this has humiliated Trump. Mertz would like Trump to capitulate, though he won't say so, because it will prove that Europe was right not to get involved. Because if America can't do this, what could a depleted Europe have done? But the point is, Europe is depleted, sadly. And that means that Israel is far more concerned with how its neighbors see it, far more concerned with how the US and the US Administration see it than how Merz and Europe sees it. And this is a problem for Israel, but also it is in a stronger position than it was on October 7th
- [40:33]
Piers Morgan
without any doubt, Scott, could it be that Israel is more unpopular in the way that Jonathan articulated in those areas, but that actually is stronger as a result of all its actions, even if people don't agree with what they did?
- [40:46]
Scott Horton
Yeah, there's a document from back in the 80s where they say, you know, all our support for Iran and the Iran Iraq war, it could backfire and Iran could conquer Baghdad, which they didn't want that. They just wanted the war to continue. Then they said, you know what, if that happens, that's okay though because that'll just help drive all the Sunni kings closer to us because of their fear of the Shiites. So the fact that, and I'm sure you saw the Wynet story the other day about how the military and intelligence officials in Israel consider this war to be an absolute and complete unmitigated disaster. They didn't get the regime change. They did not destroy the nuclear material. They did not end Iran's alliance with Hezbollah, the Iraqi PMUs or the Ansar Allah in Yemen or any other thing. They've accomplished absolutely none of their goals. And instead they prove that America's conventional footprint in the military east is in the Middle east is completely obsolete. So and then as, so yes, I'm sure all the people in the region are upset, although the kings and sultans and emirs and potentates and monarchs and el presidentes of the GCC may have been driven closer to Israel in a way. But I want to talk about American public opinion that you cited there. We are propagandized so heavily in the United States of America that the only reason anyone would ever, ever criticize Israel, it's just because they hate Jews and want to kill them all or something. And for people to have gone from believing that to where they are now is due solely to two things. Israel's slaughter in the Gaza Strip, unremitting cruelty, which we all can see them deliberately killing children, et cetera, and then dragging us into another no win war in the Middle East. Just like with W. Bush, Netanyahu and his men promised it'll be easy. We'll just tell them that they're making nuclear weapons. We'll go in there, we'll get a regime change and everything will be fine. And you know, last time in Iraq War two, they put Iran's best friends in power from Dawa and the Supreme Islamic Council. They still rule Iraq to this day. They tried to support the Bin Ladenites against Assad in Syria, which ended up driving Assad closer to Iran for 15 years. Although they did finally get their victory when Al Qaeda seized Damascus at the end of 2024. And so Israel is definitely stronger there for having, you know, helped Al Qaeda. And Netanyahu bragged about it, by the way, that he helped Al Qaeda. So did Joe Biden helped Al Qaeda seize Damascus. So that weakens Iran's ability to arm Hezbollah. But then again, they thought that Hezbollah had been severely weakened by the killing of their leader, by the Pajr attack and the airstrikes. And then when the current war broke out and Hezbollah jumped in, all the Israeli intelligence officials said, oh, my God, they're much more powerful than we thought. They had survived in a much stronger capacity than we thought before. So now we're, now we're right where John Bolton left off, which none of this is going to work, Pierce, unless we drop an H bomb on Tehran or we send in the entire, you know, conscript 10 million men and invade Persia. Well, that's a great take over the place.
- [43:50]
Piers Morgan
You actually, you just touched on what I was going to ask. Jonathan. One of the interesting aspects of all this is that I've asked repeatedly Israeli guests, pro Israeli guests, why is it that as we talk about Iran not being allowed to have a nuclear weapon, why is it that Israel is consistently allowed and given a pass to never say whether it has a nuclear weapon or not? You know, I interviewed an American commentator on a show yesterday, and he said that Israel obviously has 170 nuclear weapons. Everybody knows that. I see. But they've never admitted it.
- [44:29]
Scott Horton
I know the answer to that question. It's illegal for America to give aid to Israel if they're a nuclear weapons state that has not signed the non proliferation treaty. So they lie and they give this strategic ambiguity, pretend they don't know that Israel is a nuclear weapons state. That way, conspiracy nothing. It's the Glenn Symington law. It says it's illegal to give them aid if they're a non. If they're a nuclear weapons state that does not sign the npt.
- [44:56]
Piers Morgan
Is that right, Jonathan?
- [44:57]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
So my answer to the question would be that Israel's policy of nuclear ambiguity is what it's usually referred to. And you're quite right that most of the world assumes Slash knows about Israel's nuclear bombs has been, I think it was Shimon Peres who introduced the phrase Israel will never introduce nuclear weapons into the region. It was this weird phrase that's meant to say, well, we're not going to say we've got them. That will be to introduce them. The reason for it you're right, because it's one of those sticky things that you might wonder, why should Israel have them and not Iran? But basically the answer is kind of obvious. It's what it sounds like because Israel got the nuclear weapons to protect itself from basically a region which in every direction wanted to annihilate it since it was born or reborn in 1948 and has never used those weapons to threaten the annihilation of another country, as Iran frequently does. For example, the Islamic Republic of Iran does to Israel. They have a countdown in Shabbat.
- [45:50]
Scott Horton
They even threaten Western countries.
- [45:52]
Piers Morgan
Why should Iran. Why should Iran be. Why should Iran have to be.
- [45:55]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
Why shouldn't have nuclear weapons?
- [45:56]
Piers Morgan
But just to be clear, why should Iran have to be completely transparent about its own nuclear aspirations?
- [46:02]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
Because it is regime which wishes to kill us.
- [46:05]
Piers Morgan
Well, okay, that's your opinion.
- [46:06]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
It's their opinion. No, no, but there are other countries. The great Satan, the little Satan.
- [46:11]
Piers Morgan
But there are other countries. If you go to Russia or China or North Korea, vast swathes of the world don't agree with it. Right. So the point being these.
- [46:20]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
What do you mean they don't agree that those are facts? That Iran says death to Israel and death to America?
- [46:24]
Piers Morgan
No, I didn't say that.
- [46:25]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
Has launched.
- [46:25]
Piers Morgan
I mean, they are supportive of the regime that you detest. Right. So my point being that there are global.
- [46:31]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
Okay, but there are different.
- [46:32]
Piers Morgan
Hang on, hang on. This is your opinion. Okay, that's fine. That's fine.
- [46:36]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
I'm saying they're uncensored.
- [46:37]
Piers Morgan
Of course. Of course. No, no, of course. Well, my point being a lot of the world has a different opinion about Iran.
- [46:43]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
Sure they do.
- [46:43]
Piers Morgan
Right.
- [46:43]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
But I mean,
- [46:46]
Piers Morgan
the point of my question. No, the point of my question. Why should we be compelling Iran to be transparent about what it has?
- [46:53]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
Because if they have a nuclear weapon.
- [46:55]
Piers Morgan
But why is Israel not compelled to be as transparent?
- [46:57]
Scott Horton
Because Iran signed the NPT and Israel didn't. That's why Iran is actually obligated.
- [47:03]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
Iran is. That's correct. Iran is obligated. And Israel.
- [47:06]
Piers Morgan
Would it not be. Would it not be a.
- [47:07]
Scott Horton
That's right.
- [47:08]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
That's the first.
- [47:08]
Piers Morgan
Would it not be a powerful thing for. For Israel to say in full transparency?
- [47:13]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
I don't know.
- [47:13]
Piers Morgan
We have 170 nukes.
- [47:15]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't.
- [47:17]
Piers Morgan
How do you claim to be a transparent democracy?
- [47:19]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
Well, I'm saying this remotely transparent. I personally have not seen the nuclear weapons of Israel and I personally. It's not something that I have personal proof of.
- [47:28]
Piers Morgan
Okay, but do you think they have them.
- [47:29]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
Well, yes, that seems to be the received opinion. However, if it were some giant bluff, then, you know, it would be a magnificent one they've pulled off. That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm telling you that the difference between the two states. Why should Iran be transparent or stopped when they're not being transparent is because they are a threat to the West. They are a threat to civilization.
- [47:49]
Scott Horton
They have threatened to nuke London and Paris and Berlin and Rome. It's called the Samson Option. They said if the Western democracy.
- [47:58]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
You say you're not a crackpot conspiracist.
- [47:59]
Scott Horton
There's a book by Seymour Hersch called the Samson Option to nuke the West. I didn't say they want to. I said they have threatened that if the Western states abandon Israel to be overrun, that they'll nuke us too. And I'm not saying that's always been the permanent doctrine, but it's called the Samson Option and it was their doctrine, at least in the 1970s. There's a book about it by Seymour Hersh. You can pretend like you've never heard of such a thing, but everyone else watching this can just Google up the Samson Option and read it for themselves.
- [48:28]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
There is no serious.
- [48:29]
Scott Horton
That's the second time you've tried to say conspiracy to me, as though that debunks anything that I've said.
- [48:34]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
The state of Israel to the west of it having nuclear weapons, that's been proven by the fact that it has never used them. It's never threatened to use them. It's not threatening the annihilation of any other country. At most, what it does is uses its military strength, shielded by a nuclear umbrella, to fight back. People who try to eradicate Israel, who try to eradicate the Jewish people, who have a genocidal intent, who have united Shia militias in the entire region, who have attacked Americans for over 40 years, who have attacked Europeans, who bombed during this war, a British base, who tried to bomb Diego Garcia. This is a regime which cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. And there is no such similar.
- [49:14]
Scott Horton
Israel started this.
- [49:16]
Piers Morgan
Let me ask.
- [49:17]
Scott Horton
Point of information.
- [49:18]
Piers Morgan
Let me bring in Colonel Bob. The constant refrain we hear from the IDF or people talking about the IDF is they are the most moral army in the world. You were a colonel in the British army, as my brother was. Is the idf, from everything we've seen in the last few years, the most moral army in the world?
- [49:38]
Bob Stewart
No, I don't suppose any army is the most moral. There are always people that do things wrong. It tries to be like all armies do. It tries to be. But sometimes because human beings are involved, they get it wrong.
- [49:53]
Scott Horton
That's not true. They deliberately target women and children.
- [49:56]
Bob Stewart
Sorry, I'm going to believe that. I've got a number of friends in the IDF who actually are appalled if that was the case.
- [50:05]
John Bolton
I don't think.
- [50:06]
Bob Stewart
I don't agree with you.
- [50:07]
Scott Horton
A lot of them keep blowing their brains out because of the orders that they were made to follow.
- [50:11]
Piers Morgan
Could it be that actually the reality is that they have used. And they've done the same with Hezbollah in Lebanon? I think that is the Israeli government has used the fact that undoubtedly Hamas and Hezbollah embed themselves in civilian areas. Yeah. And that they have used that as the excuse to go and just obliterate these areas, knowing full knowing that in the process a lot of civilians get killed, women, children, who have nothing to do with this and that it's a kind of umbrella excuse. In other words, they could say we don't deliberately target the women and children, but they know for a fact that if they blow up, that whole. I mean, some of the scenes I've seen from Lebanon recently are very reminiscent of Gaza, where just obliteration has been the order of the day. They know this most moral army in the world that when they attack in that way, a lot of civilians are going to get killed. So they can say we're not deliberately targeting the civilians, but they also know a lot of civilians are going to die. Now, the argument back at that, Bob, is World War II, Dresden, you know,
- [51:21]
Scott Horton
the nuclear bomb, the Geneva Conventions were all written after all that.
- [51:25]
Piers Morgan
I know all that, and that's the argument I've put forward, which is that's why we set up Geneva Convention. But as an army man, what do you feel about. About that?
- [51:33]
Bob Stewart
Well, when I was in parliament, and that was nearly two years ago, I stopped being a member of parliament. I used. I would make speeches and my view was that after October 7th, actually Israel should not invade Gaza, but should use its special forces and lightning pinpoint raids with a target that can be identified to avoid civilian casualties by putting mass troops into Gaza, inevitably things like you've just portrayed will happen and innocents will die more than necessary. It's always, you can't actually unleash the sword, as it were, and expect everyone.
- [52:16]
Piers Morgan
Is it morally defensible to target civilian areas where you know or you believe or you suspect terrorists are living and operating? Is that morally deposible?
- [52:28]
Bob Stewart
No, because the Geneva Conventions say to soldiers like myself, you should not Unleash weapons if there is a chance that civilians.
- [52:37]
Piers Morgan
So, Jonathan, why does the IDF just ride roughshod over that?
- [52:40]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
Well, my understanding of how the idf, from the people I speak to there, how it's operated, for example, in Lebanon, for an awfully long time, they didn't go into Lebanon in a grand operation or do the damage they've just done now. But after Hezbollah joined in on October 7th or 8th, whenever it was, and Israel evacuated like huge swathes of the north of Israel to create a buffer so that its population would be protected. Indeed, that population has been under threat for some time with the UNIFIL forces, the UN peacekeeping forces not keeping peace in the south of Lebanon below the Litany River. So though Israel did tolerate that for an extraordinary amount of time while its people were under fire for many years, which was very underreported in the west, they did then eventually, after October 7th, I believe, make a different calculation, which is to say with warnings to evacuate civilians and an attempt to. To do those sorts of things, which you're right, don't always work and you end up often with civilian death counts which will, you know, be hideous for people to see. But I think they made the evaluation. That's tiny country. Same, same with the Gaza Strip, which they now hold 50% of in this weird stalemate. And going back to a point, and I think just to finish that, just to say I think they've decided the buffer zone should no longer be inside Israel. It should be inside the enemies that are threatening Israel. And so I do think they made. You're right. And it's up, up to anyone to decide whether they agree with it or not. I think most moral army in the world is a useless phrase that we should all say.
- [54:04]
Piers Morgan
My big problem.
- [54:05]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
My big problem is that they believe the buffer should be within Lebanon or within.
- [54:08]
Piers Morgan
My big problem actually, with the claims made about, for example, what the IDF has done in Gaza is that to this day, despite there being a supposed ceasefire, which seems to be constantly broken in some way, but despite that, the international media are still not allowed in to operate freely.
- [54:26]
Scott Horton
And they killed hundreds of reporters who were from there.
- [54:28]
Piers Morgan
Over 200. Yeah, but. And they sort of framed all of them as they were all linked to Hamas, which is fine if there are no international journalists on the ground to verify. Either way, you can make any claim you like and it can't be challenged. And I've had people like Jonathan Comricus and others say he totally agrees with me, that he's completely wrong. I mean, do you As a journalist.
- [54:48]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
Look, I tried, I asked many, many times to go and to the Gaza Strip. Eventually they let me in on an embed. But you're right, that's. It's very limited what you can see. Again, I understand why they made that decision. It's less easy to understand it now. There's the so called.
- [55:01]
Piers Morgan
I think there's only a reason. There's only one reason they're doing it.
- [55:04]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
That's where you and I.
- [55:05]
Piers Morgan
They don't want people.
- [55:05]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
That's where you and I do.
- [55:07]
Scott Horton
That may be part of it.
- [55:08]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
I would agree. But I'm not sure that's the only reason. But I think that is part of the reason. I think also the other part of the reason is that they believe that the war is still ongoing in a different state of. And it sort of is because both sides. Well, no, they shouldn't. But you're the one that said it. Both sides are constantly.
- [55:23]
Scott Horton
I know a lot of guys who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan who are absolutely outraged every time they hear the Israelis pretend that they follow the same battlefield procedures as our army guys do. And I don't know all the exact numbers, but it's like the most civilians that you can kill to get a medium value target or a high value target is 10 or 20.
- [55:44]
Piers Morgan
Something like Obama's the last example.
- [55:47]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
That's my point.
- [55:47]
Scott Horton
The Israelis, many, many people.
- [55:49]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
Israelis have drone strikes under Obama. It's not true that there's a such a massive distinction in the. Each army evaluates.
- [55:56]
Scott Horton
The drone strikes are 50 pound Hellfire missiles.
- [55:58]
Piers Morgan
Okay.
- [55:59]
Scott Horton
Is what Obama was doing with the drone strikes. He killed a lot of people in double tap strikes. It's Nothing like the 300 to 1 type ratio that the Israelis adopted. I know you covered it. When they bombed the tents, they claim they're going after one guy and they bombed the tent city. They killed 300 people claiming they're going after one guy when they're not even going after one guy. And then crucially there's the Israeli journalistic outlet 972Mag who did the groundbreaking reports on the use of artificial intelligence. Lavender and Daddy's Home. And what the program Daddy's Home is. It follows alleged Hamas fighters home and then kills them in front of their families and or with their families. And lavender they talked all about in the program Lavender. They say we've identified all the Hamas targets we can find. We killed them all already. So now what do we do? So what do they do? They turn the dial on the AI to now figuratively to now include far more people. Now it's just all fighting age males now. They're all Hamas. And you don't even have idf, you know, humans supervising this. You just trust the computer program to pick targets and go out there and kill people. And I do think.
- [57:12]
Piers Morgan
I do think one of the reasons that the reputation of Israel globally has taken such a hit is because people can see the scenes on the ground in Israel.
- [57:23]
Scott Horton
It's the cruelty. That's right.
- [57:24]
Piers Morgan
And they can see the scenes in Lebanon and they just think it's massively disproportionate. It doesn't mean. In my case, for example, I spent many months being pilloried by the pro Palestinian side for defending Israel's right to defend itself. I fundamentally believe they had a right to defend themselves. And aggressively.
- [57:41]
Scott Horton
Can we go back to what the colonel said about how easy it would be for the idf, Shin Bet, Mossad?
- [57:46]
Piers Morgan
Well, I thought it was very interesting
- [57:47]
Scott Horton
to go in there and pinprick and get these.
- [57:49]
Piers Morgan
I do. Well, I.
- [57:50]
Bob Stewart
It's worse because by not doing that, you've massively invaded, you killed a hell of a lot of people. And going back to some point, a point you made earlier by doing that kill your brother turns you into a terrorist. I mean, the British army learned that in Northern Ireland, you know, in the early 70s.
- [58:12]
Piers Morgan
And there are weird things, I've got to say. We've got to wrap this up a bit, but there are weird things here, which I think we'll find out more about over time. But how the Mossad, which is reputed to be the most brilliant intelligence agency in the world, so intelligent that he can blow up 3,000 Hezbollah terrorists in one moment with pages that they've infiltrated. So intelligent that he can track the movements of the Ayatollah of Iran with his people through traffic lights, reportedly, and so on and so on and so on. How that agency appeared to have no idea that the billions of people of dollars being funneled into. Into Gaza were being misused by Hamas to build this extraordinary.
- [58:56]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
Supported an operation before October 7th because they did know. If they knew, would you have supported them in a military.
- [59:01]
Piers Morgan
Well, no, no, I'm just saying. I'm just saying that's. How. How did the Mossad not have any comprehension that anything on October 7th of that scale there was.
- [59:10]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
Israeli intelligence had a lot of knowledge of what was going on in Gaza, but they thought. The misconception, as I understand it, is that they believed that the world would not support them preemptively striking in the Gaza Strip. So what happened on October 7 was the pretext. But, B, they also had this massive preconception that nonviolent means would be better. So a technological fence that would never be possible to break through.
- [59:30]
Piers Morgan
But the question I was going to
- [59:31]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
ask Jonathan, that didn't work out.
- [59:32]
Piers Morgan
How did they not. How did they not know that 3,000 Hamas terrorists were about to pour over the border?
- [59:39]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
Right, but what, so you think they. They were part of it?
- [59:42]
Piers Morgan
No, not at all. I don't buy into that conspiracy theory. I'm just saying there was a massive ball dropping here.
- [59:48]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
Huge fate.
- [59:48]
Piers Morgan
And I don't. I still can't get my head right. This is on their. On their doorstep.
- [59:53]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
It's easy.
- [59:54]
Scott Horton
It's easy.
- [59:54]
Bob Stewart
Okay.
- [59:55]
Scott Horton
Netanyahu repeated this over and over again. If you wish to thwart the creation of a Palestinian state, you must support Hamas in the Gaza.
- [60:06]
Piers Morgan
Well, I believe in him.
- [60:06]
Scott Horton
That's why he.
- [60:07]
Piers Morgan
I believe he was waging divided he
- [60:09]
Scott Horton
control outside of the flame. And he denied saying that when he had three sources said he sent it to a Likud meeting. But now we have him on tape saying it to the meeting.
- [60:17]
Piers Morgan
I don't think there's any doubt.
- [60:18]
Scott Horton
There's no doubt.
- [60:19]
Piers Morgan
There's no doubt. But wait, wait, Tayy, he was trying to play divide and rule with the Palestinian Authority in Hamas.
- [60:24]
John Bolton
That's right.
- [60:24]
Scott Horton
That's right. We prevent a Palestinian state by keeping them divided and conquered. But then he said we control the height of the flame, which means that, yeah, they're dangerous. They're just dangerous enough that we can tell the U.S. congress, well, you don't expect us to negotiate with these terrorists, do you? But don't worry, they won't break out of their pen and do anything. But then that means that everyone down the chain of command knew that that was Netanyahu's policy. And so if anyone is reporting up the chain of command, I see suspicious movements at the fence. I see, you know, whatever dangerous things, those warnings don't go all the way up to the Prime Minister's office because Lieutenant Colonel and Colonel and Captain and whoever, they know that the boss doesn't want to hear that.
- [61:06]
Piers Morgan
Right?
- [61:06]
Scott Horton
And so they don't pass.
- [61:08]
Piers Morgan
None of it. None of it really makes much sense. And I hope we get to the bottom of it. Maybe we let journalists into Gaza. We'll get some way to finding out the prediction markets. Polymarket is asking US and Iran permanent peace deal by $75 million. Currently this market, May 15, 16% May 31 29%. 6-31-51%. December 31 73%. Bob, let me just very quickly. I mean, peace is a very movable feast, obviously, but when do you think we may see the end of this war officially, in terms of a declaration of it being over?
- [61:46]
Bob Stewart
The answer is no one knows.
- [61:47]
Piers Morgan
Yeah.
- [61:48]
Bob Stewart
However, I hope within the next four weeks.
- [61:52]
Piers Morgan
Okay.
- [61:52]
Bob Stewart
I really hope within the next four weeks there's some sort of deal.
- [61:56]
Piers Morgan
Yeah.
- [61:56]
Bob Stewart
Trump will have to accept that he has not achieved everything, but he will declare it as a victory. Iran will actually say they've won, and that's it.
- [62:08]
Piers Morgan
And you know what? I'm comfortable with that if it stops it. Jonathan, when do you think?
- [62:12]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
I couldn't tell you when it will, but if you put those back or have a look when I should put my money on and see what I can do. Hopefully people in the Trump administration aren't putting money on it right now. Knowing looks increasingly.
- [62:23]
Piers Morgan
It seems to be happening quite often.
- [62:24]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
Yeah. So maybe we should watch what they've done and that will give us a guide to.
- [62:27]
Piers Morgan
So she's probably not a bad idea.
- [62:29]
Bob Stewart
The truth, what history should ask is what solution will end up with the least number of people dead.
- [62:39]
Piers Morgan
Yeah.
- [62:40]
Bob Stewart
That is actually what we've got to aim for. And it's very difficult to say.
- [62:45]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
Well, I think factor in that calculation, though, in the numbers barbarian. People who want to kill everyone around them and people who want peace. I would say that there is, unfortunately, a number of bad actors that terrorists.
- [63:04]
Piers Morgan
I would love to carry on. I'd love to carry on a more extended debate. We haven't got time. Scott, quickly, when do you think we may see a deal?
- [63:11]
Scott Horton
I really wish I could say Trump has got himself in such a tough position here where, as you're indicating, he can't quit without essentially admitting he lost or at least just lying and calling it a victory in the most absurd way. But I do encourage that. And quite frankly, I think the best case scenario really would be for America to just abandon our world empire and our Middle Eastern empire altogether. Tell the captain, fly home, Admiral, sail home and completely disengage, then that shifts the entire burden onto Iran to deal with the rest of Eurasia, which is, quite frankly, none of the greatest business.
- [63:46]
Piers Morgan
Which leads me to a chance to promote your new book. Enough already. Time to End the War on Terrorism by Scott Horton. Whether you love what Scott says, hate what he says, there is no denying you are a brilliant writer. And you immersed yourself in incredible amounts of detail and research for these books, and I always find them riveting. To read even if I don't agree with all of it. I don't think you would expect everyone to agree with all of it.
- [64:10]
Scott Horton
Of course not.
- [64:10]
Piers Morgan
You sparked great debate and it's great to have you in the studio and to meet you for the first time. So thank you very much. Jonathan, continue to whack me in your columns. I think. I think it actually is quite brand enhancing when you do it and it gives me a chance to whack you back.
- [64:23]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
That's the point.
- [64:25]
Piers Morgan
But it's good to see you, too. The point about Uncensored is I like having people in that don't agree with me.
- [64:30]
Jonathan Sacchadoti
I agree with everything you say.
- [64:31]
Piers Morgan
I totally agree. And Bob, great to see you again. You seem to be the Benjamin Button of military commentators. Well, I'm younger every time I see you.
- [64:39]
Bob Stewart
Really?
- [64:40]
Piers Morgan
Yeah.
- [64:40]
Bob Stewart
How kind.
- [64:41]
Piers Morgan
Coming here again, great to see you all. Thank you very much. Well, House Democrats this week wrote to the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio urging the White House to come clean about Israel's nuclear capability. They argue that it's untenable for the US to fight a war alongside a military with nuclear armed power whose nukes are never acknowledged in public. Joining me now to discuss this is Bianca Nobila, host of History Uncensored, who's been exploring why that is. Bianca, congrats on your channel. It's going great. Guns subscribers pouring in, views pouring in. This is a really interesting quandary because I keep asking people, including this panel we've just had, why is it that Israel gets this weird pass about being transparent about their nukes? And before you give me your more expert opinion, I just want to play a clip. This is from Naftali Bennett is the guy leading the polls at the moment to replace Netanyahu as prime minister. When I asked him this question, why, if everyone else should be transparent about nuclear capability and is transparent about it, why does Israel get a pass? Why can't he just say, yeah, we have nuclear weapons and here's how many we've got?
- [65:53]
Scott Horton
As I said, we're not going to be the first ones to introduce. But I will say that no other.
- [65:59]
Piers Morgan
So does that mean you don't have any?
- [66:00]
Scott Horton
Is so I believe, Piers, you're a very intelligent guy and you can ask it in 20 different ways. And all I can say is there's no other country on earth that is so threatened by others.
- [66:17]
Piers Morgan
So, Bianca, apparently that's the reason. So we have this weird situation where Israel's gone to war with the United States against Iran because they don't believe them when they make statements about their own nuclear capabilities or intentions. And Iran is apparently obligated to be fully transparent about this. But Israel, who many people believe have up to several hundred nuclear weapons, have never publicly admitted this. You are history uncensored. Explain this to me.
- [66:52]
Bianca Nobila
I'd call it Schrodinger's Bomb and the reason that it's been able to continue since approximately 1968. So that's when CIA officials said that President Lyndon Johnson was informed by the CIA director that Israel had nuclear capability. And where did that come from? Israel worked with France in the aftermath of the Suez crisis. France needed Israel's support against Egypt. It was kind of a quid pro quo, I'm oversimplifying. But France helped Israel build the nuclear program. It was masked in various ways, like they were building a textile plan plant, a manganese plant, doing other things. But essentially the consensus is they had them from then. So the reason this is allowed to continue is obviously if the US admitted that Israel had a bomb and their intelligence suggested that, that would break a decades old taboo, which would be really problematic because as you're pointing out, that would hinder the US's argument to say that they are essentially fighting in aid of non proliferation, that the US doesn't want more countries with nuclear weapons. They've said that since the end of the Cold War along with Russia. So if you admit Israel has that, then you're kind of screwed, argument wise. And also there's this very valid strategic concern which not just the US has, but also Russia, China, other nuclear states that if Israel admits to having the bomb, then you have this regional cascade, then Iran obviously wants one, so does Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and that's problematic for all of the nuclear powers for different reasons.
- [68:21]
Piers Morgan
So it's weird. I mean there are nine countries who officially have nuclear weapons. The United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel. I mean we all know they have. How does it work? I mean if you, if you want to have a nuclear weapon, what is the process?
- [68:43]
Bianca Nobila
You don't have an option now. So prior to 1967 you needed to test one. So that's the rule. The world is governed allegedly by the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, which was inked in 1967, became official in 1968. So the countries that officially have the nuclear bomb, they're nuclear weapons states, and that's just China, France, the uk, the US and Russia. So they're official after that. You're not allowed to have a nuclear Weapon, no country is, according to this treaty. However, if you sign the treaty, and therein lies a big issue, you are entitled to have all access to civilian nuclear power. Now, this has been a problem from the very beginning, and the elephant in the room because it's dual use, essentially. So you could say, I won't build a nuclear bomb in Iran's case, but I do want civilian nuclear access. But the problem is the resources, the infrastructure, the intelligence, the expertise. These can obviously be transferred to make a weapon. But in answer to your question, how do you go about it? You're not allowed. Which is why when countries try to create their nuclear weapons like North Korea, the world will try and stop you until you build one. And then the world has no options because of fear of catastrophic retaliation. So if you're in Iran's case, and let's say hypothetically, you did want to build a nuclear bomb, you want to do that as quickly as possible, strategically, because then the world has no option other than to let you have it and sullenly accept it.
- [70:12]
Piers Morgan
There are 12,000 nuclear weapons apparently on planet Earth. How many of those are active, effective, usable? Because there is a theory that a lot of the Russian ones, for example, are not. But they still wave their kind of nuclear weaponry as a sort of saber rattling thing to scare people off, when in fact it may be a lot of their nukes are not really usable.
- [70:38]
Bianca Nobila
That is almost certainly true. However, in the last couple of years, China, Russia and the US have all poured more money into their nuclear weapons programs in terms of expanding their arsenals or modernization than they have done in previous decades. So most experts that watch this space closely say that we are moving towards a slow but steady renewed nuclear arms race. So while it might be true that a lot of these weapons would be redundant or not usable, there is an effort underway across all of the nuclear powers to make sure that that won't be the case imminently.
- [71:12]
Piers Morgan
Underpinning all this is, ironically, the word mad, which is Mutually Assured Destruction. That the point of having a number of countries that have nuclear arsenals is that nobody would start a nuclear war because everyone gets vaporized is the reason why people are so particularly agitated about Iran. Because they believe that it's in the mentality of this regime that they would take their own lives quite willingly for the greater good, the greater cause, and therefore present a different threat to countries with a different mindset.
- [71:52]
Bianca Nobila
There are a couple of issues with Mutually Assured Destruction, or mad. The first one is it relies on everyone being a rational actor to work which I think is what you're getting at. It's the notion that I'm not going to strike this country because they won't want to be struck and they'll strike me back. So mutual annihilation, of course, that's the worry. And for people who would criticize Iran and say it is an irrational theocracy that could act in a certain way, backed into a corner. I mean, we don't know that North Korea has had nuclear weapons since their first test, I think in 2006. But that's one of the issues. However, there are plenty of people in this field that would say you can't actually say that. The reason that the world has been more stable up until this point over the last decades is the fact that there are so many nuclear weapons pointing at one another. It could be economic, it could be the rules based order, which is obviously incomplete and hypocritical, but it still does exist. So nobody can really say for sure that this works, which seems like a massive amount of jeopardy given what what could happen.
- [72:52]
Piers Morgan
Bianca Nomolo Fascinating. You are the great explainer of these complex things. History Uncensored is up and running as a brilliant new YouTube channel for the Uncensored family, presented by Bianca, who will explain the inexplicable to the masses. I can't think of a more valuable public service, so please check it out, subscribe and join the growing army of Bianca fans. Bianca, lovely to talk to you.
- [73:19]
Bianca Nobila
You too, Piers. Thanks.
- [73:22]
Piers Morgan
Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent. The only boss around here is me who enjoy our show. We ask for only one simple thing. Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Piers Morgan Uncensored on Spotify and Apple podcasts. And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate and entertain. And we'll do it all for free. Independent Uncensored media has never been more critical and we couldn't do it without you.
- [73:53]
John Bolton
Want to get more work done with less effort? On TikTok, creators are sharing AI automation tips that save time and deliver better results. Tap to discover try TikTok now.