← Piers Morgan Uncensored
Piers Morgan Uncensored
'Send a Warrant To TRUMP!’ US REJECTS Iran Plan | With Former Israeli PM Naftali Bennett
01:05:08
Loading summary
Transcript108 lines
- [00:01]
Naftali Bennett
I can't point and tell you it'll take three months or three years, but it's such a rotten, corrupt, incompetent regime. This whole structure is going to collapse.
- [00:11]
Paul Rykoff
He lied to his base. And what the American public doesn't want is 10 years, 20 years of a prolonged war being advocated for by chicken hawks in Washington and around the world.
- [00:21]
Benjamin Raad
This was a major international war crime. This was a violation of Article 2 of the UN Charter. You can't just attack a country which is not a threat to you. The Prime Minister of Israel already has an arrest run out from the icc. Another one should go out to Donald Trump.
- [00:35]
Kubad Talibani
I strongly believe that President Trump wants a deal. I strongly believe the Iranians want a deal. You could argue that there is probably only one country in the world that doesn't want a deal. And I think you probably know better than me who that country is.
- [00:52]
Piers Morgan
Many US Presidents have discovered at great cost that it's very difficult to end a war you started. Reports this weekend indicate that President Trump is bored of the Iran excursion. Iran, meanwhile, seems bent on humiliating him. The White House waited almost a week for a response to its memorandum, which is basically a proposal to start talking about a proposal to end the war. Tehran then watered down most of US demands and added several of his own, including formal dominion of the Hormuz Strait and reparations. I've just read the response from Iran's so called representatives, trump said last night. I don't like it. Totally unacceptable. And so here we go again. The US must also grapple with the fact that Israel, its partner in this war, is in no mood to end it. Israel is fighting a separate front against Hezbollah in Lebanon. You may remember that Trump brokered a ceasefire there last month. Despite that 39 were killed in Israeli strikes yesterday. Israel is bombing Lebanon every day. Both wars are popular inside Israel, a complete reversal of the public mood just about everywhere else. And Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared on US TV yesterday to make the case for fighting on Is the war with Iran over?
- [02:00]
Naftali Bennett
And if it isn't, who will decide when it is?
- [02:04]
Benjamin Netanyahu
I think it accomplished a great deal, but it's not over because there's still nuclear material, enriched uranium that has to be taken out of Iran. There is still enrichment sites that have to be dismantled. There are still proxies that Iran supports. There are ballistic missiles that they still want to produce. Now we've degraded a lot of it, but all of that is still there and there's work to be done.
- [02:30]
Piers Morgan
How do you envision the highly Enriched uranium will be removed from Iran.
- [02:35]
Benjamin Netanyahu
You go in and you take it out with what?
- [02:38]
Piers Morgan
Special forces from Israel, Special forces from the United States working in tandem under international supervision.
- [02:43]
Benjamin Raad
How?
- [02:44]
Benjamin Netanyahu
Well, I'm not going to talk about military means, but the president, what President Trump has said to me, I want to go in there. I mean, he said that publicly. He said it, and I think he's right. He's very committed to this.
- [02:55]
Piers Morgan
It's not over, says Netanyahu, clear as day. And it's been a bumper weekend for comments by Israelis which seem designed to infuriate Americans. Jonathan Pollard is a hugely controversial figure in the US he's the Navy intelligence analyst turned spy who sold secrets to Israel. Some of Trump's top donors lobbied for his freedom, and he's now an Israeli citizen, but he's apparently no fan of the US President.
- [03:17]
Advertisement Voice
He's loved in this country.
- [03:20]
Jonathan Pollard
He's loved in this country. Well, that just shows you how stupid a lot of people in this country really are. You have a guy like Trump who doesn't really know much about anything that's going on in this region, except maybe the price of real estate. And he's dependent on people like Jared Kushner or Steve Witkoff, who I call Tweedledum and Tweedledee, that are only interested in one thing, and that's their bank account. It's as simple as that. This is not a man that you can trust.
- [03:55]
Piers Morgan
Well, trust is becoming a major barrier to ending the war. Can Trump trust the Iranians? Can the Iranians trust Trump? And can either side trust Israel to end the war, even if they do?
- [04:05]
Naftali Bennett
Well?
- [04:05]
Piers Morgan
Joining me now is the former Israeli Prime Minister and opposition coalition leader, Naftali Bennett. Naftali Bennett, welcome back to Uncensored.
- [04:11]
Naftali Bennett
Great to be here, viewers.
- [04:13]
Piers Morgan
So, last week on the show, I tweeted and then read it out that it was interesting, I said, in relation to a poly market prediction market, putting you marginally ahead of Benjamin Netanyahu to be the next prime Minister of Israel. I said, interesting. The only candidate with the balls to come on Uncensored, which you are now proving once more, because Benjamin Netanyahu has, having done three interviews with me before October 7, not come on since. So I appreciate you having the balls to come on uncensored.
- [04:45]
Naftali Bennett
That's what we do.
- [04:47]
Piers Morgan
And in relation to that poly market, it's now got Netanyahu just above you. You're on 38% chance. He's around 41%. What do you feel about that? I mean, there's a lot of People think you are going to be the next Prime Minister of Israel. What's your response?
- [05:07]
Naftali Bennett
We're going to win in October. We have elections. We're going to win. We're going to win big. And Israel will open a whole new chapter, a new page. We've gone through several years of really difficult years on the brink of a civil war, and then October 7 and then the prolonged war. Israel wants a new start. It'll be a wonderful government of people from the right, people from the left, religious, secular, bipartisan government. And it's going to be a renaissance for Israel, a renaissance for Israel inward, a renaissance for Israel in the region and with our relationship with the whole world itself.
- [05:47]
Piers Morgan
How would you be different to Netanyahu?
- [05:52]
Naftali Bennett
I would unite. I would unite Israel from within. I would respect all citizens, whether they voted for me or didn't vote for me, whether they're Jewish or Arab. And I would, you know, be open to the world. Obviously, on security matters. It's no big secret. I'm tougher than Netanyahu himself on security. But in terms of running a country, you'll see a competent leadership, clean leadership, one that focuses on just building better lives for its people and not on the rest of the politics that's going on there.
- [06:28]
Piers Morgan
Many people think that this Iran war is turning into a fiasco. That it was ill conceived at the start, that there was no proper game plan that had been established, no real mission stated with any clarity. The goalposts have repeatedly changed and that all the pressure came from Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli government on Donald Trump to join this war. And that they laid out, according to the New York Times, a plan of taking out the Ayatollah and his top people. And then the IRGC would collapse from within. The people would rise up. They'd all be too distracted to concern themselves with the Strait of Hormuz. Now only the first part of that has happened. Given where we are with this war nearly 10 weeks in, I mean, are you optimistic about the way it's going? Do you feel good about this?
- [07:23]
Naftali Bennett
Well, I think it was necessary and I want to explain why. The alternative was to not act. And Iran was in the process of creating a shield which would prevent any future attack. The shield was by moving nuclear material underground and by producing such a big amount of ballistic missiles that it would deem Iran, Iran unattackable. And once it would reach that immune zone of immunity, then it would race forward towards a nuclear weapon. We had to act before we'd lose the ability to act. And that's what we did.
- [08:00]
Iranian Expert/Analyst
Right.
- [08:01]
Piers Morgan
But as I'm looking at this, and I was saying this from day one, if the objective is to make sure that Iran can't have a nuclear weapon, then at some stage you have to get the enriched uranium. Benjamin Netanyahu in the CBS interview overnight said we've got to go in and take it out. But he hasn't explained how that's going to happen. No military expert thinks that's possible without boots on the ground. That would be a dramatic escalation of an already bogged down war which President Trump may have no appetite for politically, never mind anything else. How are you going to get the enriched uranium?
- [08:42]
Naftali Bennett
Well, I think there's a few things that need to be done. The enriched uranium is one of them and dismantling the nuclear program is another. And the third is putting a cap on the ballistic missile production. And what I would urge you and your viewers to imagine what the Middle east would look like now, we've seen what Iran can do and wants to do, but it's an Iran that doesn't have a nuclear umbrella. Imagine the same Iran with a nuclear umbrella. So my point is it's not easy. It's not easy. First and foremost for us, we're the ones who have been on the recipient end of all these ballistic missiles, not only also UAE and other friends in the Middle east, but the alternative is much worse. So we're not in a choice between great and terrible, we're in a choice between very difficult and worse. And we chose the very difficult path.
- [09:38]
Piers Morgan
Right. But some would say that this is going, if you're from, in the Iranian regime, this is going quite well for them in the sense that, yes, they've taken a pounding on their military capability that is undeniable, but that actually by controlling the Strait of Hormuz, they've now established a asymmetric war in which they have all the cards. And by also attacking their Gulf State neighbors in the way that they have, they have shown there that there is a different war they can be waging that doesn't involve direct engagement with the Americans or the Israelis. So if you're the Iranians, why would you do any kind of deal that means you surrender any control of the Strait of Hormuz? And why would you, why would you give up voluntarily your enriched uranium or nuclear program? That's the bit I can't work out how you're going to make that happen if they conclude we don't need to do it.
- [10:36]
Naftali Bennett
Well, my analysis is different. I Think Iran exposed its true colors. Now everyone knows what it wants to do, what it would do, and certainly can imagine what it would do if it had the whole nuclear umbrella and the massive amounts of ballistic missiles which it didn't have. Now it had several thousand. Imagine it had 30,000 ballistic missiles, including intercontinental ones. So now we all see Iran for what it is. And to be fair, Iran has taken a huge hit. Its economy is really gone. Infrastructure, the regime, this regime, peers, I believe, will not survive in the long haul. Now, I can't point and tell you it'll take three months or three years, but it's such a rotten, corrupt, incompetent regime, despised by its own people, old, and this whole structure is going to collapse. And what we can do, even if it doesn't happen right now, throughout the next few years, not unlike the Soviet Union of the late 80s, we can encourage that collapse. So a new, better sort of regime comes there, hopefully a free one that doesn't kill 30,000 of its own people just for demonstrating.
- [11:54]
Piers Morgan
But we had, you know, guarantees from President Trump this would be all over in two to three weeks. Then it was six weeks. Now you're talking a few years to affect any kind of regime change. The goalposts, like I say, have been.
- [12:08]
Naftali Bennett
I'm not suggesting, I didn't suggest that we continue the war for a few years. I suggested that in many dimensions, economic, diplomatic, industrial, cyber, covert, overt, many different vectors to encourage the ultimate collapse that will happen. This regime is just like the Soviet Union.
- [12:31]
Iranian Expert/Analyst
Just.
- [12:31]
Naftali Bennett
I don't know if the year right now is 1986 or 1956, but we. There's a lot that we can do to help accelerate that collapse. Not through war, not only through kinetic means. There's many other means.
- [12:44]
Piers Morgan
What if this war has had the opposite effect? What if it's hardened Iranian public opinion so that more of them now support the regime because they've seen bombing raids that have killed their loved ones, for example, which is inevitable in war. And what if the IRGC have looked at what's happened with the Strait of Hormuz and realized that any moment they choose, they can strangle the global energy market? And at any moment, they can also attack their Gulf state neighbors and cause them enormous economic damage? I mean, you talk about the economic damage for Iran, but what about the economic damage to the Gulf states around Iran? And what about the economic damage to the US Economy, which is now causing Donald Trump in the run up to the midterm elections, enormous political damage? The damage is not just being done to Iran here. And as someone I heard yesterday, I think on Freed Zakaria was saying, if you're the Iranian regime, just surviving is victory. And actually they'd be quite happy stringing this out as long as possible because they know Donald Trump's on a ticking clock here because otherwise, politically, it could be disastrous, whereas Israel is not. So could you see a situation where the Americans pull out of this war and leave you guys to it?
- [14:03]
Naftali Bennett
Well, you asked a bunch of questions there. First of all, I would say that Iran cannot sustain this forever. It's taken a huge hit. It can't pay its own salaries to its whole apparatus of terror and corruption. They also have tremendous pressure on them. Secondly, wars are bad. By no means do I want to give an impression that this is great and we love it. No, wars are bad and it's best to end wars. But there's just one thing worse is having a nuclear Iran conducting the same actions, and then we lose all leverage. So it's between alternatives over here. I can say that this war will also create new alliances in the Middle east now that everyone has seen Iran for what it is, and Israel will be a major factor here. Now, regarding American policy, that's really up for America to decide what's right for it. In many cases, we have shared interests, but in some cases it's different. For example, from Israel's perspective, Iran is an existential threat. From America's perspective, it's a strategic threat, and that's different. And we respect that. So we're going to work together with our friends in America and see what we can do to bring a good end to all of this.
- [15:28]
Piers Morgan
But are you of the view, and are most Israelis of the view that this can only be a victory if you do remove the enriched uranium?
- [15:41]
Naftali Bennett
That's a necessary condition. It's not sufficient. Removing the enriched uranium is vital, but it's not enough. If they continue producing new uranium, it's worthless. If they go out and build 30,000 ballistic missiles and then five years from now, they're unattackable, unassailable, that's also very bad. So taking out the enriched uranium is important, but it's not the only important thing.
- [16:09]
Piers Morgan
But presumably, then you're going to have to restart military offensive against the Iranians if they won't voluntarily give up their nuclear aspirations and their enriched uranium. The only alternative, if victory is that they have no longer got them, is to recommence a military offensive. Right.
- [16:30]
Naftali Bennett
Well, there's a bunch of methods here. And when you want to achieve ultimately a diplomatic goal, the goal of dismantling Iran's nuclear program. It's not only military, it's a mix of military, diplomatic, economic. And I think by navigating this mix in the right way, we can achieve it. It's not all just about bombing.
- [16:55]
Piers Morgan
Final question. Naftali Bennett. The war against Iran and the war against Hezbollah in Lebanon are both very popular within Israel. But what's been going on in the last three years, since October 7, since the massive strike back by Israel against Hamas in Gaza and what's been going on in Lebanon and Iran? There's been a massive shift in public support for Israel, particularly in America. But it's global as well, as you know. But a recent Pew Research center survey found last month that 60% of American adults now have an unfavorable opinion of Israel, compared with 53% a year earlier and a 20 point shift since 2022. Just 37% of respondents had a favorable view of Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu told 60 Minutes last night that the deteriorated support was down to social media and several countries manipulating social media to hurt Israel. But could it be simpler? Could it just be that many people outside of Israel do not share the view inside Israel that what you've been doing is a good thing?
- [18:08]
Naftali Bennett
Absolutely. I mean, that's a reality. I'm acutely cognizant of our international standing. And yes, we've taken a huge hit. That's just a fact. I wish that were not the case took a huge hit all across the world, including and especially in America, on both sides of the aisle. I will say that I prefer to be alive and unpopular than dead and beloved. But that aside, we have to do a lot of work. And my new administration, hopefully when we win the elections, we're going to tell a new story of Israel, of what Israel ought to be. Now, it doesn't mean we're going to be soft. We're going to be tough and in some cases tougher. But tougher can also be decent. For example, inward within Israel, the way we, I at least respect the rights of all Israelis and whether they voted for me or not, whether right, left, Jewish, Arab, whatever. And I think the way that we handle ourselves will tell a whole new story, a vision of growth, of prosperity, without forgetting the fact that we have to defend ourselves. But there's ways to do it and I'm optimistic that we'll be able to repair at least some of the damage in public opinion that we've taken. But as I said at the end of the day. My kids here, that I've got four kids in Israel, their lives matter to me more than our ratings right now in some latest poll.
- [19:40]
Piers Morgan
Tony Bennett, as I said at the start, I do appreciate you having the balls to come on uncensored, and you do regularly, and I thank you for that. Thank you very much.
- [19:48]
Naftali Bennett
I'm never afraid to speak the truth. And if I may say, whenever I'm here, while you're very vehement about your positions, you ask fair questions and you actually listen to the answers. So I always like being here.
- [20:03]
Piers Morgan
I appreciate that very much. Thank you very much.
- [20:06]
Naftali Bennett
Thanks.
- [20:08]
Piers Morgan
Well, joining me on the panel now is Paul Rykoff. He's the founder of Independent Veterans of America, Colonel Richard Kemp, the former British army commander, Benjamin Raad, who's the senior fellow at the UCLA International Institute, and Matt Kennard. He's the journalist and author of Irregular Army. So welcome to all of you. Colonel Kemp, good to see you again. This war in Iran, Donald Trump said at the start, all sorts of things, actually, but it was all going to be over in two to three weeks. It was going to be a reprise, effectively, of what happened last summer, short, sharp shock. And it was going to decimate Iran, destroy the nuclear capability that we'd already assumed had been destroyed a year ago. And it was all going to be easy and done quickly. Obviously, that hasn't happened. And the goalposts have been changing a lot and they're now very, very focused on one goalpost, which is the nuclear capability encompassing the enriched uranium. We've just heard the man who may be the next prime minister of Israel, according to the polls, say that rather like Benjamin Netanyahu did last night on cbs, that they have to get the enriched uranium and they have to go in and take it. You're an army man. How are they going to do that without a large commitment of troops on the ground?
- [21:27]
Colonel Richard Kemp
Well, I think first of all, I'd say that while President Trump and his military planners may have thought that this operation would be relatively short and not going as long as it has. Of course, you can never predict how long a war is going to last when you, when you engage in military operations, the enemy obviously has a major say in what you're doing. And things do change unexpectedly. And I'm sure that the American military planners would have allowed for that and potentially even expected that as far as removal of Iran's nuclear highly enriched uranium is concerned. Yeah, I think, I mean, there's probably two options. One is by agreement with Iran to remove that highly enriched uranium, and the other is going in without Iran's agreement by military force and pulling it out. I think the second option is extremely unlikely. I don't think President Trump, nor indeed Prime Minister Netanyahu would countenance either of those two things. Certainly the military option, I think if the Iranians do agree, and it doesn't look too likely at the moment to have the to give up basically their highly enriched uranium, then of course it would require ground presence of some sort, would require experts to actually collect the material and move it safely out of the country, and it would, of course, require some form of security forces to do that. So either way, yes, it does require people going in on the ground.
- [23:00]
Piers Morgan
Benjamin Rad, welcome to Uncensored. I mean, I have to say, the longer this has dragged on, the more I'm baffled about why this was ever started. Because, yes, they've smashed up the Iranian military, there's no doubt about that. But they haven't decimated it in the way Donald Trump talks about. The IRGC is still clearly firmly in charge. The son of the Ayatollah, the new supreme Leader, appears to now be running the show again after sustaining serious injury. They've got complete control of the Strait of Hormuz. We've tried a blockade. We pulled the blockade. Every time anyone tries anything with them, they immediately attack one of the Gulf states. It seems to me that strategically, Iran has proved to be a much more effective opponent than perhaps Donald Trump suspected when he was persuaded to join Israel on this mission.
- [23:58]
Iranian Expert/Analyst
Thank you for having me. Thank you for having me on. I'm glad to be here. It's. As a refugee from the 79 revolution and someone who studied it in depth, what's fascinating is that that revolution took two years to unfold. For the first six, seven, eight months for the first year, everyone thought that the Shah was in complete control, that the military, that the country was completely unified under his command, that the people were behind him. There was a gross misreading of intelligence of the domestic situation. All of this to say two things can be true at once. Number one, that the American objectives strategic have been vague and at best and that's being generous and have not been met. And two, we don't know exactly what is going on within the Iranian hierarchy. The supreme Leader, I would maintain is know incapacitated again, we haven't seen him, we haven't heard from him. Is he alive? Is he barely alive? I mean, we assume he is based on intelligence reports. Is he in charge? I don't think So I think it's more of a military junta led by three or four of the top IRGC commanders who are speaking on behalf of the supreme leader, very much sort of in line with Shia belief about the hidden Mahdi, the hidden Imam. And basically it's the clerics who speak on his behalf. And it's very sort of similar to that setup. And then secondly, Iran has a domestic problem. It had one before this war started. It had one going back years. It is incredibly unpopular. And that unpopularity and the pressure, domestic pressure will only increase as the conditions in the country worsen, as hyperinflation increases, and as the ability of the people to lead their lives in the way they want becomes more and more challenged. The question is, can Iran hide that from the world, which they have tried to do by shutting off the Internet? So, yes, you can have a critical assessment of the US Operation. That does not mean that internally and domestically, the country is where its leadership wants it to be.
- [25:48]
Piers Morgan
Spring has sprung, but one thing that doesn't change with the seasons is the importance of being comfortable. Support for uncensored comes from cozy earth purveyors of the most comfortable loungewear and bedding on the planet. You'll want to check out the brushed bamboo jogger set for tapered, breathable luxury. My personal tip, the lakehouse clogs. Cozy enough to forget they're on a home, but supportive enough to wear on the streets. As you grab your coffee this spring, give yourself the kind of comfort that lives with you all day, not just the moment you get home. Head to cozyearth.com and use my Code Piers P I E R S for an exclusive 20% off. That's code PIERS@cozyearth.com for 20% off. And remember to tell them that I sent you Paul Rykoff. I mean, it seems to me that what is most interesting to observe is the failure so far of any kind of uprising by the Iranian people, which suggests that the IRGC still maintain a tight control, and there's a fear of that. And obviously they also don't want to be hit by flying bombs and so on going over the cities. But there has been no uprising at the moment. So the idea of a regime change seems a long way away, if not impossible. But the Strait of Hormuz issue has become a global emergency. I was reading today one of the Saudi executives, I think from one of the oil companies, saying that every week that goes by now is ever more catastrophic for the flow of global oil, gas and general energy and fertilizer, and so on. And although some ships are getting let through, that's only with Iran's control and agreement. So where do you think we are with this?
- [27:36]
Paul Rykoff
We are in what I would call a sucking chest wound for America's military and economy that is now overflowing and impacting the rest of the world. And I think your question of the Iranian people is the right one to focus on, because they're a very important barometer here. No matter what Donald Trump says, they will tell us when the regime, if the regime is gone, we will know. And right now, they're smartly keeping their heads down because they can't trust the regime, who is pent on killing them. And frankly, they can't trust Donald Trump, who's killed a lot of them as well. So they're in a very, very difficult position. But back home, I think, is where you're seeing more and more people calling for a regime change, because Donald Trump has entered us into a war that is overwhelmingly unpopular. He's done something very, very special. He's actually united all Americans against him in this war. You've got the far maga, right, you've got the far liberal left, and you've got the middle that two thirds of Americans think this war was a mistake and don't support it. So Donald Trump got way ahead of his skis here, committing the military first and not committing the American public. And so far, he's been all gas, no brakes. There have been no guardrails in Congress. I think they failed. So he's got another unauthorized, unpopular war. And now he's coming back to the table with Pete Hegseth to ask for more money. He spent already $25 billion. He wants a new defense budget. That's $1.5 trillion, which is an additional $500 billion for Iran. And America doesn't want it. What they see is the Strait of Hormuz not open. They see the uranium unsecured. They see the regime still in place. They see them still having military capacity. And maybe most importantly, back here in America, they see gas prices at $4.30 a gallon. And you've got 13Americans dead, hundreds wounded. So most Americans don't think this was worth it. And American wars don't get more popular over time, they get less. And that's the trajectory of the popularity of this war. And Donald Trump's got a real political problem, but the rest of the world, as you smartly noted, has a serious and growing economic problem.
- [29:26]
Piers Morgan
Yeah, and I think this has been my concern from the start. Of this, it wasn't out of any great love for the Iranian regime, which I think has been a disgusting and oppressive regime from the day it took over in 79. Matt Kennard let's look at the. There's a kind of asymmetric war going on involving the Strait of Hormuz, and we've discussed that earlier. There's also an asymmetric war going on in terms of the aspirations and interests of America and Israel. It seems to me where all the mood music coming out of Netanyahu, and we saw a bit of it with Naftali Bennett earlier, is that they believe this is nowhere near finished, this mission, that there cannot be any kind of victory until Iran's nuclear capability is destroyed and the enriched uranium has been removed. Now, I don't see that they're anywhere near doing either of those things, and nor is there any incentive right now for Iran to surrender those things voluntarily. So where are we? Because the pressure, as Paul Rykoff rightly observed just then, is piling on. Donald Trump, I'm sure from the softening of his own rhetoric in the last few days, he's desperate to get out of this thing, but he doesn't quite know how to. And he's got the Israelis saying, we cannot just walk away. This job is only half finished.
- [30:47]
Benjamin Raad
Yeah, I agree. And look, the whole enriched uranium nuclear program is a smokescreen. The reality of it is Israel has wanted the regime change In Iran since 79, so has parts of the US government as well. And they're using the nuclear program as a way of trying to basically distract from the real purpose. And that's why they went in last year and there was a 12 day war and that was called a success by the Israelis and the Americans. And we're back to where we were. And the other massive point is, look, we're talking about the strategy and who might win and who might lose. This was a major international war crime. This was a violation of Article 2 of the UN Charter. You can't just attack a country which is not a threat to you and it's not a threat to them, and they should be indicted for it. We've already got the Prime Minister of Israel already has a restaurant out from the icc. Another one should go out to Donald Trump. And I actually think it's a bit disgusting to talk about the war in these kind, in these terms of how can we open the straightforward moose, blah, blah, blah. We're talking about a major international crime where the Americans and the Israelis killed nearly 200 schoolgirls. As one of the first acts of the war. And they claim that it was a mistake, but it might not have even been a mistake. We've seen how the Israelis act, we've seen how the Americans act, and we've seen what they've done in Gaza, what they've done in Lebanon. They target civilians, they target kids. They want to send the impression that they will tolerate no resistance. So we're dealing with outlaw rogue states that need to be held in check, and the legal institutions can't do it. The ICC restaurants have done nothing. In fact, European partners of Israel have not enforced it at all, even members of the icc. So where do we go from there? We live in the law of the jungle now. And I think that you're going to. The reason that this will carry on, the reason there's this breach, is because they don't even know what to do now, because they obviously believed, going in hard, as you said, that Netanyahu gave this PowerPoint presentation to Trump and said, look, the IRGC will collapse if we kill the Ayatollah. It didn't happen. So where do they go now? The uprising, which they've been trying to ferment, by the way, for years. And there was a good article in the Israeli press which came out in recent days about how Mossad has been fermenting unrest in Iran and was even involved in the December protests. It's not working. And as you said, this criminal attack has actually had the opposite impact. It's got people behind the government in Iran, people who previously weren't, because they see that they're being attacked by hostile, violent powers that want to take control of their country. Because why is Iran a threat? Iran's a threat because it's not under the control of the United States and Israel. The Gulf dictatorships, many of them are worse than the political situation in Iran. Look at Saudi Arabia. You get put to death for a tweet there. Who's the biggest supporters of Saudi Arabia, UK and us. So the whole human rights stuff is rubbish. The uranium nuclear program is rubbish. And look, Piers, I'll end with this. You led the charge against the war in Iraq, which was based around, or supposedly based around WMDs. That was completely false. So the nuclear deal is the same. It's part of the same dynamic. And look, Tulsi Gabbard, who is the director of national intelligence for Trump, she made testimony in Congress in March 2025 where she said, the intelligence community has come to the conclusion that Iran has no nuclear program. Nuclear weapons program. That's Tulsi Gabbard saying that. And then Trump obviously rubbished it a couple of months later. But we live swimming in propaganda. And so much of this war is propaganda. The real reason they are bombing Iran is they want to get rid of a government that does not do what they're told.
- [34:37]
Piers Morgan
Okay, Colonel Kemp. I mean, there's a lot of people that share a lot of those views about this. You know, my view is slightly more nuanced in that I can understand now. For example, when the Iranian nuclear capability was attacked from the air last summer in that 12 day war, it seemed a very clean, surgical, effective military action with a specific purpose that we were told had been incredibly successful. Part of the failure of trust now is that we were told after that 12 day war, their nuclear capabilities being destroyed. And yet here we were back within just eight, nine months, launching a full war against Iran to get rid of their nuclear capability, which they were about to imminently deploy. And this reminded me of what happened with the Iraq war in 2003, which, as editor of the Daily Mirror newspaper in the UK I very loudly opposed, even though I had my own brother fighting in it when it, when it started. But the reason was I wasn't convinced by the evidence that said that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was about to use them and could hit London in 45 minutes, none of which turned out to be true. So those with long memories, you know, are very cynical about this. What would you say to try and reassure people who are cynical that Iran did have the nuclear capability, was about to use it, and how do you explain if that is the case, that what happened last summer clearly wasn't a success after all?
- [36:12]
Colonel Richard Kemp
Well, I'm not. I don't suggest that Iran was about to use a nuclear weapon. I don't think Iran had a nuclear weapon. But it was clearly. And I think, you know, even there are plenty of conspiracy theorists around who say that there is no such thing as an Iranian nuclear program. Well, I think the International Atomic Energy Agency would disagree with that and has disagreed that in its reports. I don't, to my mind, all the studying I've done, I have no doubt that Iran was working on a nuclear program. And it's not just me who thinks that. It's not just the west who thinks that, but it's many countries in the Middle east who saw that program in progress and were themselves taking steps to arm themselves against it. For example, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the uae, all of them have been looking at the potential for their own nuclear weapons program in light of what Iran's got and those people who say, oh, yeah, well, Israel's also got nuclear weapons. Well, it says it, it doesn't accept that it has, but I think most people agree it has. But none of these countries ever started, embarked on their own nuclear weapons program in defense against an Israeli nuclear system. So it's Iran that's the threat. And that's understood, I think, by, it's certainly understood by the United States administration. It's understood by most of the Gulf states, and it's understood, of course, by Israel. So I think that the reality is that there was a nuclear program, was potentially going to become a nuclear weapon that's capable of being delivered certainly around the region and potentially even further afield. And it had to be put a stop to. As far as the, as far as the damage done in the 12 Day War, I don't think anybody, not no one that I read or heard in positions of authority around the US or elsewhere, said that the 12 day war had completely destroyed Iran's nuclear.
- [38:11]
Piers Morgan
Donald Trump did.
- [38:13]
Colonel Richard Kemp
Maybe he did. I didn't see that.
- [38:16]
Piers Morgan
He said he had been set back decades. He's the President of the United States. He was the one who basically ordered the strike. So the very most powerful and important person imaginable was the one who publicly declared, we have set back Iran's nuclear capability decades. It turns out we hadn't even set it back. Here's my point, though, Colonel Kemp. We hadn't, it turned out, even set it back eight months. And in fact, the threat seems to have worsened, according to those who support this war, to the degree there had to be an immediate massive strike and a war launched. And I find those two positions extremely inconsistent. How can we go from. It's been set back decades with this triumphant series of airstrikes last summer, and now suddenly it sows so perilous and imminent that we have to launch a massive war right now.
- [39:06]
Colonel Richard Kemp
Well, setting it back decades is not the same as destroying it. And the reality is that whatever President Trump may have said, until you actually remove the capability of creating a nuclear program, you can't end it. And that what that means in reality, Iran, Iran. You know, even if you do remove all Iran's nuclear, sorry, enriched uranium, that doesn't end their program. The only thing that, in my view, will end an offensive nuclear program by Iran is the removal of this regime. And that, of course, is what most people desire, most people who are fighting this war anyway desire. That's what Middle Eastern countries Desire. It's what Israel desires.
- [39:46]
Piers Morgan
Right. But that has ceased to be. That ceased to be one of the aims of the war because they all know it's not happening. So they have very quickly moved away from talking about regime change. You don't hear any of them talking about regime change, certainly not on the American side, because President Trump knows from his own intelligence people there is no chance of this happening unless there's a massive commitment of troops on the ground, which is politically impossible for him. So I do think maybe bring Benjamin Rad in here.
- [40:18]
Colonel Richard Kemp
I mean, to say, yeah, I don't think the regime change was a specified objective of the war. It was desired, but it was being
- [40:27]
Piers Morgan
talked about on day one again by President Trump.
- [40:30]
Colonel Richard Kemp
And I don't say there's no chance of a regime change happening. I don't believe it's going to happen as a result, as a direct result of military action. But I do believe that within the Iranian regime now, both within the political echelon and within the irgc, there is severe fracturing now that in turn. And Naftali Bennett said he can't predict how long it's going to take for the regime.
- [40:52]
Piers Morgan
He said years.
- [40:54]
Colonel Richard Kemp
Well, it could take years. But certainly I think this action will help facilitate potential regime change by weakening the regime and causing internal division in the regime.
- [41:05]
Piers Morgan
The trouble is, okay, let me bring in Benjamin Rad. I mean, the problem is, I just don't see the hard evidence this regime has been weakened. I can see they've lost their supreme leader, a lot of their top people, but they seem to have been replaced very quickly. The new lot appear to be pretty intransigent, unwilling to do any kind of easy deal that Donald Trump would like them to do. And the Strait of Hormuz, which is the only really discernible thing we can look at as to whether they have control or not. They are controlling the Strait of Hormuz in a way that is causing enormous economic damage the longer it goes on. And that is unsustainable for the Gulf states, for the United States, for everybody apart from probably Israel, who don't care that much about the Strait of Hormuz. But. But they can afford not to. But everybody else who does care is seeing just massive economic hardship.
- [42:01]
Iranian Expert/Analyst
Yeah. Let me, let me touch on several points that have come up. Number one, on the nuclear program, Iran was through last summer, a nuclear threshold state, a breakout state. If we separate the nuclear program into the weapon side and the enrichment side, you want to prevent Iran from enriching uranium beyond the 20, 19% threshold, which is basically beyond that. You're now passing civilian use, medical grade use, energy use. Right. You're going into weapons grade territory. 90% being nuclear bomb level. Iran had, it's been proven, it's been shown, both by IAEA and intelligence sources had exceeded that 20% threshold in violation of, of the JCPOA or excuse me, in violation of the NPT going back to the 1970s when it was first drafted. So then what the United States would target would be Iran's ability to construct a warhead because it's not enough to actually ENRICH Uranium to 90%. You need to then make it small enough and workable so that you can fit it onto a warhead. It's possible the United States set back its warhead production facility capabilities that we don't know. We haven't received a lot of clarity on that. We need to separate that from its enrichment capability. It can still enrich if it has centrifuges, centrifuges buried under mountains. That is the concern. If your concern is that this is a country that should not go beyond that 20% threshold, no country under the NPT should, then that is a legitimate cause for concern. Is it enough to go to war? I'm not saying it is, but I want to separate the two elements here. Number two, because, yeah, the second part of this becomes again, revolutions, which is what we're talking about here. When we say regime change, we're talking about a revolution.
- [43:35]
Piers Morgan
Yeah.
- [43:35]
Iranian Expert/Analyst
They happen slowly until they happen quick. Quickly. You cannot predict the timetable. Nobody can. There's a whole host of factors. Number one, there is an imbalance of arms. You have the Iranian people are not armed. It wasn't until the Shah's army started defecting, we started seeing weapons pouring into the hands of civilians. We started to see a hesitation on the part of the Shah's army and the police to shoot the protesters in 1979 that the tide began to turn. We haven't seen that yet. We might not see it, but to say sort of, okay, why hasn't this population risen up? Why haven't they done this? They are genuinely afraid of being mowed down like they were January 7th and 8th earlier of this year. So there's all of those concerns at play now. The Strait of Hormuz, that is a card that this regime gets to only play one time. By that, I mean it will be a matter of time before the Gulf States, regional allies, the international community, trade, all of this figures out a way to circumnavigate or bypass the chokehold that Iran has on the strait. And it is a chokehold that goes both ways, by the way, because if there is a blockade, if there is a hesitation of maritime traffic and trade to come through, it impacts Iran as much as it impacts the international community. So if we're looking at a war of attrition based on who will capitulate first, I don't think anyone can confidently predict how that will turn out, except that I think the international community will develop their means, methods and resources to, to eventually figure out a way out of the strait, whether it's bypassing through land routes, other routes. And then what does Iran have left? That's why I said it's a card it can play one time and one time only. Then what will it do going forward? So, and then your question about the status of the regime, again, there is a lot that we do not know.
- [45:15]
Piers Morgan
Right.
- [45:15]
Iranian Expert/Analyst
We know that there's internal division. We know that the president, for example, has been bypassed in the power structure completely. We know that, you know, Kalibov, who is a prominent figure, the speaker of Parliament, has now been marginalized as well. Where is power currently residing? There is disarray. There is, I think, a degree of dysfunction that we simply don't hear about. But if you read the Persian press or Persian social media, you catch glimpses of this, you see the infighting, the inconsistent messaging that comes out that, to me, signals there's more beneath the surface than we can see.
- [45:47]
Benjamin Raad
Okay, can I just add one thing on the enrichment. So there was a. The Joint Coordinated Plan of Action was signed in two, 2015, by the Obama administration and P5 plus one, which is a security council, and Germany. Now, the IAEA said that Iran was abiding by that, which said enrichment couldn't go ahead up to over 3.67%. And they were even taking out the enriched uranium and being made into fuel rods in France and taking it back, which is actually one of the demands that Trump's now making. What happened in 2018? Trump pulled out and then two years later, assassinated the most senior general in the Iranian military, Qassem Soleimani, who had lured to Iraq with a drone. So if you're Iran, you're looking at this thinking, we're not dealing with good faith actors here. We're dealing with people that will assassinate now our leader, assassinate our top generals. There's been a war on Iran since 1979. It's taken different guises, but effectively it's involved assassinations, murders.
- [46:50]
Piers Morgan
Yeah, no, I, I think That's. I think that's a perfectly valid point.
- [46:53]
Benjamin Raad
But that's important, though, is that.
- [46:54]
Piers Morgan
No, I agree. I don't disagree.
- [46:55]
Iranian Expert/Analyst
It goes both ways.
- [46:56]
Piers Morgan
I don't disagree. Yeah, I don't just go both ways.
- [46:59]
Benjamin Raad
What right does Israel have to say that Iran can't have nuclear weapons? Iran's got nuclear weapons and didn't sign up for the npt, which was referenced in.
- [47:06]
Piers Morgan
From Israel, you mean.
- [47:08]
Benjamin Raad
So Iran's going around. Sorry, Israel. Sorry, Israel. Yeah, Israel didn't sign up.
- [47:11]
Piers Morgan
Okay, let me bring in. I want to bring in.
- [47:13]
Colonel Richard Kemp
Yeah, this.
- [47:14]
Piers Morgan
I've been asking that very question. I don't understand why Israel gets a pass to not be transparent about its nuclear weaponry. It should have to like everybody else does. Paul Rykoff. Okay, there's a lot of interesting views have been expressed here. Do you see an off ramp for Trump that could work? I mean, do you see anything right now looking at the whole state of play, where you could point to something the Iranians may give on which Trump could claim as victory and get out of this?
- [47:45]
Paul Rykoff
That's what Trump's scrambling to find right now. And I think here's the larger problem for the world. The Iranian regime is a threat to huge parts of the world and can't be trusted. Donald Trump is a threat to huge parts of the world and can't be trusted. And most of us are somewhere in between. And neither one of those groups really speak on behalf of their people in Iran or in America. The biggest story in the world, in my view, is that Donald Trump can do anything he wants with the most powerful military the world has ever seen, and nothing is stopping him. The American Congress has failed to stop him. His own party has failed to stop him. The American people have failed to stop him. Everyone from NATO to the UN to eu, they've all failed to stop him. And this is bigger than Iran, because Donald Trump, I've said, is all gas, no brakes. And this is the, I think, ninth country he's conducted military operations in since he's become president. And he's already talking about Cuba as the next stop. He's always threatening Greenland. He's talked about hitting Mexico. So the real question is, for the American public and especially for the Congress, will you stop Donald Trump from doing anything? They've been totally feckless. They failed to exercise their constitutional authority, and maybe now we have a circuit breaker on the funding. This might be the place where Donald Trump can be slowed down by a member of his own party and by the opposition party when they ask for an additional $1.5 trillion for more war. Most Americans don't want it. So he's trying to find that off ramp because he knows the midterms are coming if there are free and fair elections in the United States. He knows Republicans are hemorrhaging, especially his base is hemorrhaging, because there's another important part of this. He lied to his base. He told his base, no new wars, no regime change wars, no forever ending wars. And that's what we've got now, is a new forever war. I fought in Iraq, and I've seen this play before. We've all seen this play before. And what the American public doesn't want is 10 years, 20 years of a prolonged war being advocated for by chicken hawks in Washington and around the world who want to send American boys and girls to die in a land where we waste billions and trillions of dollars and get nothing outcome in return, both economically and strategically. So my biggest concern as an American is that this makes America meeker. This makes us more vulnerable. He's going to try to negotiate with China this week, who's standing there just licking their chops because 41% of our Navy is in the Gulf right now. So Iran has become a sucking chest wound for our military and for our economy, and it has our enemies celebrating. Iran is actually in a better position in my view, strategically, long term, China is in the best position of all because they can just sit there and watch us punch ourselves out. So to answer your question, Piers, yes, he's looking for an off ramp, but it doesn't look like there is one because the Iranians refused to accept his terms. And now he's got us over a barrel. And what could be a quagmire that could go on for years? And I think, most importantly, I think this will be the number one issue in the 2028 election. I mean, this is. This will become the seminal issue here in America. And it's either the Democrats or Republicans within his own party who are going to have to run against the Iran war and creating that off ramp because it doesn't look like Donald Trump can find it.
- [50:31]
Piers Morgan
Yeah. And you're not hearing a lot from JD Vance or Marco Rubio right now about this war. And I suspect that's not a coincidence. Thank you to my panel. Very interesting debate. I appreciate it.
- [50:44]
Advertisement Voice
If you work in university maintenance, Grainger considers you an MVP because your playbook ensures your arena is always ready for tip off. And Grainger is your trusted partner offering the products you need. All in one place, from H vac and plumbing supplies to lighting and more. And all delivered with plenty of time left on the clock. So your team always gets the win. Call 1-800-GRAINGER visit grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.
- [51:14]
Piers Morgan
Well, two weeks ago, President Trump accused Kurdish groups of stealing U.S. weapons sent to support Iranian dissidents. The Kurds have also poured cold water on repeated suggestions they could be used as a proxy ground force in the Iran war. U.S. kurdish relations, though, appear convivial. Last night, the president shared to millions of his followers an interview praising him as a master dealmaker. Well, Kubad Talibani, deputy prime minister of the Kurdistan region, was the man with the warm words, and he joins me now. Welcome to Uncensored.
- [51:43]
Kubad Talibani
Thank you, Piers. What should I say, Mr. Morgan?
- [51:47]
Piers Morgan
Piers is fine. What did you feel about President Trump reposting your interview last night? Were you flattered or slightly appalled?
- [51:55]
Kubad Talibani
Obviously, I was flattered. I was surprised. I was getting a lot of messages from a lot of people saying that the President of the United States has reposted your article. So I must say I was a bit taken aback by the fact that he tweeted it, but not disappointed that he did.
- [52:14]
Piers Morgan
The thrust of your interview was that you declared that Trump is master of the deal and can land a major deal to end the Iran war. But as my panel have just been deliberating, we can't work out how he does a deal that allows him to get out of this anytime soon with any kind of legitimate claim to victory, can you?
- [52:37]
Kubad Talibani
I think if he's left to his own devices and if this is really a negotiation between the United States and. And Iran, I think there is a deal to be had. And I think if the deal is broader than just looking at the nuclear file or looking at the ballistics file, but you're looking at a whole package that includes the economy, that includes investment, that includes opening Iran up to the global economy. I think there is definitely a deal to be had because this is something that Iran wants. I think they're tired of this isolation. They have suffered, obviously, as a result of the war, but as a result of sanctions over many, many years. So they have fallen behind in terms of global development, but at the same time, the opportunity for growth, for economic growth, for Iran, for the region, for U.S. investment, for European investment, for other investment in Iran is huge. So, yes, I think if there is a deal, if there is a negotiation that is between the US And Iran, and America is allowed to execute this deal by being allowed to, meaning other countries do not interfere and try to guide this in a different direction, then I think, yes, we can see a deal and there could be a win win here.
- [53:56]
Piers Morgan
But to do a deal, you've got to know who you're dealing with and got to know that they are actually in a position to call the shots. You're in a good position to answer this question, but do we know who is currently running the Iranian regime?
- [54:10]
Kubad Talibani
Absolutely. Absolutely. I think there's too much talk of there being divisions between the diplomats and the IRGC and the religious establishment. Iran is more unified today than it has ever been. So this notion of there's these guys we can work with and those guys we can't work with, I think this has been overplayed, possibly by those that thought that this war is going to end in 48 hours. The reality is Iran is a unified nation right now and people in Iran have rallied behind their government, whether they've liked them or not, whether they were happy with their performance or not. This war has done a lot to unify Iran. So the people who are negotiating on behalf of Iran are representing Iran and I think that makes it easier for the US to deal with.
- [55:03]
Piers Morgan
Do we believe that the new Supreme Leader is even conscious? Do we know anything about his current condition?
- [55:10]
Kubad Talibani
I have no information on that, but I think that is beside the point. The reality is Iran is standing on its feet. It has withstood a battering from two of the world's most potent militaries. And you know, again, go back to President Trump's initial statement at the outset of the war, you could argue that he's achieved his military objectives. So, okay, fine, move on. Let's talk about what are the non military objectives. Now, I say again, if you look at this through the tiny window of the nuclear portfolio and the ballistics missiles portfolio, I don't expect a deal. But if you broaden this out to include a whole host of economic packages and reintegration of Iran into the global community, coupled with more incentives, loans, investments, World bank engagements, IMF engagements, I think there is a great deal to be had, one that would suit Iran, one that does not look like one country is twisting the arm of the other. Again, for a deal to stick, it's gotta be good for both sides. And I think there's enough room to maneuver within both countries direct objectives for there to be a deal and for there to be a positive outcome out of all of this tragedy.
- [56:33]
Piers Morgan
Fascinating take. I want to just talk about something that Scott Horton raised on my show last week, he claimed it's a hoax that the Iranian regime killed 40,000 protesters in January. Let's take a look at what he said.
- [56:47]
Scott Horton
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 Israel armed those Kurdish groups. Those weren't peaceful protesters. There were peaceful protests, but the fighting was not the massacre 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. We're to believe that the Ayatollah pulled that off, Something like that. Maybe 10,000 more than that in January without carpet bombing his own city, without committing some kind of Dresden, without leaving tens of thousands of body bags everywhere. And what did we see in the propaganda? 12 body bags. And then they go, oh, how can you deny the massacre?
- [57:51]
Piers Morgan
What do you know about that reality of what happened in January?
- [57:58]
Kubad Talibani
We can just speculate, Piers. I really cannot argue to the number of whether it was one person killed or 40,000 killed. There were demonstrations, demonstrations were put down. The impact of those demonstrations and the violence in terms of putting those demonstrations down can be speculated and has been speculated from small numbers to large numbers. The reality that we deal with today is during this war and in the aftermath of this war, we have not seen uprisings, we have not seen people taking to the streets. We have not seen what the so called experts that said there's going to be people taking matters into their own hands. They haven't taken matters into their own hands. That's not to say they won't in the future, but they haven't done so now and they're not doing so now. There is a regime in place, in power which unlike what we saw in Syria, unlike what we saw in Iraq in 2003, is not tied to one person. Iran is a country that has institutions, political institutions, government institutions, religious institutions, and yes, military and paramilitary institutions. Those institutions have been able to withstand a battering for almost two months now. We're dealing with a dynamic in a post war ceasefire environment where the world needs the Straits of Hormuz to open up so the global economy can improve. I strongly believe that President Trump wants a deal. I strongly believe the Iranians want the deal. So I think the climate is conducive. You could argue that there is probably only one country in the world that doesn't want the deal. And I think you probably know better than me who that country is.
- [59:47]
Piers Morgan
Yeah, I mean, Israel's made it pretty clear that they think the job is only finished if they physically take the enriched uranium and have a guarantee that there is no ongoing nuclear capability left in Iran, which implies to me that they are planning more military action.
- [60:05]
Kubad Talibani
How can they guarantee that, Piers? Let's say they take away the enriched uranium now, the technology is there, the knowledge is there, the intent is there. All that will be missing is the financing. So maybe it'll just start up again the next year. So it's wrong to look at this solely through the eyes of the nuclear portfolio. Iran has much more to offer the world than the threat of a nuclear Iran. And I think we're missing the point here. The world is missing the point here. World powers, European countries are missing the point here. Iran is a massive country, geographically massive. It is a massive country in terms of a very civilized population, and it's a country that has a very sophisticated governing institutions and governing structures who may not be liked by the west, may not be liked by the US but they've proven to be very resilient and very strategic. And again, I keep going back to this. The US wants a deal and they're looking for a deal. And I think if they're left to their own devices, they'll get a good deal out of this.
- [61:17]
Piers Morgan
Kubai Talibani, I appreciate you coming on. Thank you very much.
- [61:20]
Kubad Talibani
Thank you.
- [61:23]
Piers Morgan
Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent. The only boss around here is me. If you enjoy our show, we ask for only one simple thing. Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Piers Morgan Uncensored on Spotify and Apple podcasts. And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate and entertain, and we'll do it all for free. Independent, uncensored media has never been more critical and we couldn't do it without you.