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

Summary

Piers Morgan Uncensored: ‘This Is SURRENDER’ Trump Iran Ceasefire Threat As Israel Bombs Beirut

Date: April 8, 2026
Guests: Megyn Kelly, Joe Kent, Will Chamberlain, Professor Mohamedi, Danny Danon

---

Episode Overview

This highly charged episode sees Piers Morgan and an array of guests dissect the abrupt ceasefire in the Iran conflict, President Trump’s controversial strategy, Israel’s ongoing bombing of Lebanon, and the global fallout. The central theme: Has the United States achieved “historic victory,” or is this, as critics suggest, a humiliating surrender to Iran’s asymmetric power and Israeli machinations? The episode travels from fierce panel debate to on-the-ground perspectives from Iran and Israel, questioning the ethics, competence, and consequences of America's latest Middle East war.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Ceasefire: Victory or Surrender?

(Main panel featuring Piers Morgan, Megyn Kelly, Dan Bongino, Joe Kent, Will Chamberlain)

• Opening Analysis (00:29–03:26)
  Piers Morgan and his guests set a skeptical tone, questioning the White House narrative of victory. The cost: $30+ billion, 15 US soldiers dead, thousands of Iranian civilian casualties, a fractured Republican base.
  Morgan:

“If this is what a historic victory looks like, well, Mr. President, I wouldn't be so sure to claim that.” (03:23)

• Megyn Kelly’s Take: A Fiasco, Not a Triumph
  Kelly brands the ceasefire deal “surrender”—and welcomes it:

“The deal sounds very much like surrender on our part, which I'm in favor of...it was folly to begin with.” (03:26)
She criticizes Trump for being “bamboozled” by Netanyahu and weakening America’s allies and position in the region, calling the outcome “a much bigger and more serious betrayal” of Trump’s base.
“He's too weak to say no. He was too gullible to see through the lies.” (05:55)

• Dan Bongino’s View: Israel and Netanyahu’s Outsized Influence
  Bongino points to intelligence failures, the overestimation of US military impact, and argues,

“The Iranians proved to be tough mfers and they realized they had something far more powerful than a nuclear bomb. They had control over the Strait of Hormuz.” (05:25)

2. The War’s Political Fallout in America

• Trump’s Base and Electoral Vulnerability
  Piers and Kelly highlight a collapse in Trump’s support across demographics:

“He's lost working class, he's lost men, he's lost young people…you can't win national elections with some fraction of 15% of the electorate." (15:34)

• The "America First" Betrayal
  Debate about Trump violating his own “America First” pledges by entangling the US in a war clearly driven by Israeli interests.

“We are sick of…being dragged into conflict after conflict by bibi Netanyahu by Israel, who's supposed to be our special ally. But what they're special at is getting us to fight their wars.” (18:53 - Kelly)

3. Ceasefire Mechanics and Allies’ Diverging Goals

Joe Kent vs Will Chamberlain (23:05–52:14)

• Kent: Urges Trump to restrain Israel and admits the US and Israel now have diverging strategic goals.

“The first thing that President Trump has to do…is actually restrain the Israelis, take away key components of the military aid that we give them so that they lack the capability to go on the offensive.” (23:05)

• Chamberlain: Calls the idea “completely incoherent”, arguing Israel already has tools for war and America should use allied pressure to extract tougher terms from Iran.

“The idea that we would restrain our ally, who, by the way, just helped us achieve one of the greatest military victories of the modern era…is silly.” (24:07)

• Strait of Hormuz Debate
  Kent:

“Prior to this war, the Straits of Hormuz were transited by anybody trading oil for free. Post war, the Iranians are going to be able to extract a fee.” (28:32)
Chamberlain dismisses the impact:
“Everybody’s just overblowing the straits of Hormuz closure vis a vis the United States. We're the largest producer in the world.” (50:00)

• Regime Change—Fact or Fiction?
  Long back-and-forth about whether regime change was ever a real US military objective.
  Morgan (to Chamberlain):

“Donald Trump literally talked about regime change early on." (32:12)

• Historic Victory Charge Sheet
  Morgan’s punchy critique:

“The regime remains in place. The enriched uranium remains in Iran. The Straits of Hormuz remain under the control of the Iranians…So I'm looking at this historic victory and I'm thinking, well, where's the victory?” (37:36)

• Final Analysis
  Kent:

“Now the Iranians are in even a stronger position than they were prior to this war…they can have a strategic effect. And that's the position. That's why…President Trump is at the negotiating table right now.” (51:06)

4. Iranian Perspective: ‘Catastrophic Failure’ for US & Israel

Interview with Professor Mohamedi (Iran) (52:31–65:53)

• Military Analysis

“I don't think the United States won militarily…Since it failed to destroy any of Iran's underground missile bases…for 40 days, Iran’s missiles and drones were being fired 24 hours a day.” (53:19–53:39)

• Popular Legitimacy and Morale

“The Islamic Republic of Iran…has a high degree of popular legitimacy...Every night we've seen millions…on the streets, defending the armed forces, defending the leadership against this aggression.” (56:24)

• Enriched Uranium & Strait of Hormuz as Leverage
  Mohamedi bluntly rejects giving up uranium or Hormuz control:

“No. Iran will continue to enrich uranium…It will be willing to have a deal...but Iran is not naive.” (57:55)

• Hostile View of Israel
  Mohamedi attributes the war entirely to “Zionist pressure in the United States and the Israeli regime”.

“This is a completely, and was a completely unnecessary war where the Americans murdered many, many Iranians.” (57:55)

• On Reparations

“If there are going to be reparations, then it would have to be the UK, it would have to be other European countries and the United States that helped with the ethnic cleansing of Palestine…” (64:31)

5. Israeli Position: “Decapitation” Not Regime Change

Interview with Ambassador Danny Danon (Israel) (66:12–80:20)

• On Lebanon Bombing During Ceasefire
  Danon insists Israel is targeting Hezbollah, not Lebanon, reflecting split definitions of the ceasefire:

“We are not bombarding Lebanon, we are targeting Hezbollah…They are dismantling the presence of Hezbollah next to our border.” (66:44)

• Civilian Casualties
  Piers presses Danon on the civilian death toll; Danon contends most casualties are Hezbollah militants but cannot confirm civilian figures:

“We regret the loss of life of every civilian…But the majority, the vast majority, were Hezbollah terrorists.” (71:10)

• Netanyahu’s Pitch, Intelligence Failures, and Goals
  Morgan hammers Israel for overselling outcomes to Trump. Danon claims:

“Absolutely not…Everything is political…I choose to look at the results…we can be very proud of what we achieved so far…We decapitated that capability. And I think the Iranian regime…knows very carefully that we are not going anywhere.” (74:26)

• Has Iran Emerged Stronger or Weaker?
  Piers recognizes Iran’s military has been damaged but argues it’s proven “by controlling the Strait of Hormuz, you can control the global economy” (77:23).
  Danon retorts:

“We never promised a regime change. We always said we want to create the conditions for a regime change…It will be easier to see a regime change.” (79:12)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

On American Self-Delusion:

• “He's too weak to say no. He was too gullible to see through the lies.”
  —Megyn Kelly (05:55)

• “He's lost working class, he's lost men, he's lost young people…Every single gain with Hispanics is now gone…Blacks, he had made some inroads with…done. You name it, they’re all gone.”
  —Dan Bongino (15:34)

On the Strategic Reality:

• “We are sick of being the policeman of the world, of being dragged into conflict after conflict by Bibi Netanyahu…”
  —Megyn Kelly (18:53)

• “Prior to this war, the Straits of Hormuz were transited by anybody trading oil for free. Post war, the Iranians are going to be able to extract a fee.”
  —Joe Kent (28:32)

On Israel’s Role and American Morality:

• “If you say America is benevolent, how does that sit with the President of the United States two days ago talking about the imminent destruction of an entire civilization?”
  —Piers Morgan (43:49)

• “We should be sufficiently ruthless to get our…negotiated pieces that actually make sense, which we seem to have done here.”
  —Will Chamberlain (44:37)

Iran’s Take on the War:

• “I don't think the United States won militarily...the United States focused mostly on civilian targets. And since it failed to destroy any of Iran's underground missile bases...they were frustrated and they were constantly bombing civilian targets. In fact, yesterday they bombed a synagogue.”
  —Professor Mohamedi (53:19)

Israel’s Confidence and Denial:

• “We haven't finished it yet. You still have the negotiations…when you finish the process. Not in the middle of the process…”
  —Danny Danon (76:34)

---

Important Timestamps

• [03:26] – Megyn Kelly brands deal as “surrender”
• [15:34] – Discussion on Trump’s collapsing support
• [23:05] – Joe Kent: US must restrain Israel
• [28:32] – Strait of Hormuz as Iran’s trump card
• [37:36] – Morgan critiques “historic victory” narrative
• [53:19] – Professor Mohamedi: US failed to win militarily, focused on civilian targets
• [66:44] – Danny Danon: Israel "targeting Hezbollah," not Lebanon
• [76:34] – Danon on unfinished war and prospects for regime change

---

Conclusion

This contentious episode exposes the deep divides about the meaning and consequence of America and Israel’s intervention in Iran. Morgan and his guests push back hard against US triumphalism, highlighting a fractured political base at home, disastrous regional consequences, and Iran’s undiminished leverage. Israeli and Iranian representatives offer diametrically opposed narratives, while Piers Morgan relentlessly probes both sides’ logic and rhetoric—raising urgent questions about morality, strategy, and the future of American and Middle Eastern politics.

Transcript

[Piers Morgan]

Taxact knows filing taxes can be confusing.

[Will Chamberlain]

So we have live experts on hand who can help answer any questions you may have. Questions like, can I claim my SUV is my home office? If I answer work emails in my car? If I adopted 12 dogs this year,

[Piers Morgan]

can I list them as dependents and

[Will Chamberlain]

am I doing this right or am I doing this very, very wrong?

[Piers Morgan]

Our experts have the answers to those

[Joe Kent]

questions and many others.

[Will Chamberlain]

Tax Act.

[Piers Morgan]

Let's get them over with. The reality is, nobody thinks this was a big victory.

[Dan Bongino]

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

[Professor Mohamedi]

Israelis have been slaughtering the people of Lebanon all morning, carpet bombing cities just out of rage.

[Joe Kent]

The first thing that President Trump has to do in order to make sure this lasts is actually restrain the Israelis. Take away key components of the military aid that we give them.

[Will Chamberlain]

We would restrain our ally, who, by the way, just helped us achieve one of the greatest military victories of the modern era. We would restrain them instead of trying to use the threat of continued belligerence from them to extract more punitive terms from the Iranians as silly.

[Piers Morgan]

The furore about President Trump's vow to end Iranian civilization was not about a fear he was about to do that or a hope that he would. It was about the foundational idea that the United States is a bulwark against exactly the kind of atrocities he foreshadowed. If the US Is capable and willing to eradicate an entire population, how does it have the moral authority to be a global arbiter of right and wrong? But Donald Trump doesn't seem interested in that. Clearly, he sees the US As a muscular superpower which can throw its weight around to get what it wants. And to be clear, many people support him about that. So, amid the shrieking noise and spin about the 11th hour ceasefire agreement, it's worth asking a simple did the US get what it wants? Well, the Strait of Hormuz is open, just as it was before the war began, but nobody is in any doubt about the fact that Iran controls it. In fact, some versions of the text refer to guaranteeing Iran's dominance. The Iranian regime is wounded and weakened, but there's no doubt that it's the same regime. Several branches have been hacked off, but the trunk and the roots remain. Many of Iran's military targets have been destroyed, but Iran still has its uranium, its ballistic missiles and its proxies across the region. The Iranian plan, which Trump now calls a workable basis for talks, includes reparations for the damage caused, the lifting of all sanctions, and the release of Iranian funds seized by the United States. It's a multibillion dollar windfall. What does he think they'll do with it? And on the question of cost, the US has now spent more than $30 billion on the war so far. Fifteen US soldiers are dead, Thousands of Iranian civilians are dead. Trump's approval ratings are a record low, and his base is at war with itself. All as the US Prepares for elections which could handicap or even end his presidency. We should all keep an open mind about what happens next. We should all be grateful for a pause in this war. But if this is what a historic victory looks like, well, Mr. President, I wouldn't be so sure to claim that. First tonight, I'm joined by Megyn Kelly, host of the Megyn Kelly Show. Megan, what's been the point of it all?

[Dan Bongino]

You gotta say, the deal sounds very much like surrender on our part, which I'm in favor of. I mean, great. We, this needed to end ugly or any other way. It needed to end. It was folly to begin with. It was folly throughout. It remains folly. I'm sure Mark Levin and Lindsey Graham were feeling really, really good until the end part where we had to end it. And now they're very, very angry. Mark Levin was practically in tears on Fox News last night because we didn't see it through. I guess with a nuclear bomb that we were gonna drop on Iran, we didn't go in commando style and seize all the uranium. We allowed, according to the Israelis, according to the Iranians, that is the war against Hezbollah to stop, which he wants seen through. He would love to see Lebanon completely bombed and to be made to look like Gaza. And there was really no point to going forward other than more death and destruction. The Iranians proved to be tough mfers and they realized that they had something far more powerful than a nuclear bomb. They had control over the Strait of Hormuz. And, and Trump was warned prior to getting involved in this conflict by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs that they were not likely to collapse easily and that they probably would maintain control of the Strait and could cause a global economic panic. And he didn't listen. What he did with the, with the Dan Kaine warnings was rush to truth social. Trump did, saying, all Dan Cain knows how to do is win, and if I tell him to invade, he's gonna win. Well, that's not really what happened. There was never any question we could decimate their navy or their Air Force. Of course, no one would ever second guess the power of the US Military. It's pristine and it's impeccable and it's truly awe striking. But these battles in the Middle east have been fought now for 20 plus years and we continue to learn the same lesson over and over. It is not their overwhelming air power or their incredible navies that keep us mired in quagmires. It's their insurgencies. It's this disparate way of fighting that we don't know how to handle. We can't tamp down with the amazing power of an aircraft carrier, which, by the way, we had trouble getting anywhere close there after they figured out how to attack it. And you know, we've already learned this. Trump watched us learn it. And so what led Trump to what, at 79 years old to sit in there in that situation room when Bibi Netanyahu was seated as an equal?

[Piers Morgan]

Yeah.

[Dan Bongino]

Trump didn't even sit at the head of the table. Trump sat at the side of the table and Bibi was across from him as an equal in the American situation room. What led him to sit there and buy what that guy was selling hook, line and sinker when every other president was able to see through the that liar, what was it? Because he was told the next day by our own top advisors, from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to the Secretary of State to the Vice President, that these are lies and that these objectives are not going to be attainable. Don't believe him. We might be able to wipe out the Ayatollah, not regime change, Ayatollah. And we might be able to decimate some portion of their missiles and their military. Okay, that's true. But the goals as stated by Trump when we actually did pull the trigger were all over the board into this moment. He's pushing the BS claim that we affected regime change. No, we didn't. It's the same regime, just different players. There isn't somebody more moderate in there at all. We have no reason to believe that. In fact, it looks like the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is in control now, which is far more radical. And the fatwa that had allegedly been issued by the Ayatollah on developing nukes is gone. Iran is more powerful economically. It controls the strait and now is demanding the lifting of all sanctions against it. And what Trump did with that 10 point plan was go from Monday saying no, not good to Tuesday saying very workable we can do it as a means of saving face, to bail off of his insane threats about annihilating an entire civilization. So I don't know how we got here, Piers. I'd like to know just as much as anybody else, but all I can think in my head, based on what I've read in the paper, is we got here thanks to BB Netanyahu, Lindsey Graham and Mark Levin, and ultimately President Trump. That's not to take agency away from the president, who was bamboozled. I don't know why. He was too weak to say no. He was too gullible to see through the lies. One way or another. He allowed himself to be pushed into this insane conflict that caused. Forget, forget, you know, the blood and treasure we spilled, as you point out, at least 15 service personnel. I believe we're being lied to about the total number of dead and wounded, but we don't know what the accurate death toll in Iran is. How many civilians in Iran died, How many died in our allies around Iran who now don't trust us? What penalty do we pay to, other than the cost and the 15 lives that we expended, which count for a lot. But we didn't take the brunt of Iran's response. Our allies did, with whom we did not consult prior to starting this war, who are very, very angry, many of them, about what was done to them. What's gonna happen to the trillions of dollars Trump was touting that they donated? They were offered to donate to the United States just to be nice guys and have great relations. You think they're gonna spend that on us now? They're going to spend it on themselves. They've got to rebuild massive portions of their own countries, thanks to the bombing campaign unleashed against them because they were within reach by Iran, who couldn't reach us. So we've upset our allies, we've pleased Israel, although now they're upset that there's a ceasefire. We've upset the American base. The Trump coalition that got him elected is completely fractured and in smithereens. And he doesn't care, Pierce, because he doesn't care about the Republican Party. He cares about himself. If Trump had to get reelected, he probably would have handled this a little differently. But he doesn't care that the Republicans are gonna lose the midterms. I think he thought that was a foregone conclusion. And I don't think he cares that J.D. vance or Marco Rubio wins the presidency next time around. I think there's a piece of Trump that would like to Say I'm the only one who could do it. The Republican Party's nothing without me and the rest of us are going to be around to pick up the pieces.

[Piers Morgan]

I mean, a fascinating assessment. I mean, I remember early on you picking up, as I did, on what Rubio had said about the reason why America went in and then the immediate backtracking the next day when they panicked and realized they'd let the cat out of the bag. This was clearly a Netanyahu driven operation. He had persuaded Trump to come with him. They then we had Antony Blinken saying, well, actually he tried to do this when Biden was president, when Obama was president, and both times those two guys said, no, we're not going to come with you. And then he didn't attack. So he clearly got third time lucky with an American president that would come with him. But I remember early on, you and I and others who suggested, dared to suggest that we take Rubio at his word that actually this was all at Israel's behest. You know, once again, we were anti Semitic. If we, if we said that this was a hatred of Israel, that was driving our warped, crazed minds. And then you read this deep dive in the New York Times. Fascinating. I mean, what's most fascinating to me, they've got somebody on the inside telling them exactly what happened in that situation, which is fascinating. But when you see it all laid out, it's crystal clear that's exactly what happened. That Netanyahu got in that situation room at the White House, like you say, unprecedented. The way he had the guy from Mossad on the big screen. He had him there with his, it was like two equal partners and he persuaded Trump in that room to go in. And I think Trump will regret this. Well, you're right, he may not care. He may want to just say, moving on, it's a big victory, blah, blah, blah. But the reality is nobody thinks this was a big victory for the United States. Nobody can see anything. But actually a bit of a humiliation, not militarily, because America can beat anyone when it comes to a military punch up. But what Iran has now discovered is that as long as it can control Australia, Hormuz, it can control the global economy. And therefore it can, if it has enough patience, play out the long game with President of the United States who will have to cave because ultimately it's going to cause him so much economic and political damage, he has no choice. That's what's happened here. Trump hasn't brought this to an end out of great, some great Desire for peace. He's brought it to an end because he could see that the economic and political damage was getting worse by the

[Dan Bongino]

day because the Iranians wouldn't fold. They realized what the pressure point was and that it was working. And they watched Trump's poll numbers spiral downward in every piece of the coalition that elected him. And they realized that their ability to just withstand the beating was working, was getting them to where they needed to get. Because look, there was never majority support behind this war. There wasn't some groundswell of support behind this war. Right. There was a Republican base support for the war, but the Democrats didn't support it, the independents didn't support it. And very soon into the war, the Republicans stopped supporting it too. MAGA supported it. As MAGA dwindled, by the way, was already only about 15% of the population. It's getting smaller by the day. President Trump three weeks ago declared that to be maga, you have to support Mark Levin, where upon which multiple formerly die hard MAGA people who are dedicated to it said, I'm out, I'm out. If those are the stakes, I'm out. Why would I support that warmonger who's frothing at the mouth over the idea of lives being caused in Iran, civilian or otherwise? He's a disgusting fool who's well past his prime. We should not be listening to him. But President Trump is obsessed. On Sunday, he tweeted out that we should be. The Supreme Court should be listening to Mark Levine.

[Piers Morgan]

I know, I just don't.

[Dan Bongino]

Crime justices.

[Piers Morgan]

I don't get it.

[Dan Bongino]

Which would double his viewership.

[Piers Morgan]

Yeah, I don't get it. Because you've been loudly calling out the folly of this war from day one. I have. Tucker has, Candace Owens has, Joe Rogan has, Theo Vonn has. I mean, there is a massive cross section of people in our world, which is what I call the unfiltered world, where you're not controlled perhaps by other forces that own networks and so on that sort of send out a directive about what you should and shouldn't be saying. So in the free spirit world, where you can say what you really think, pretty much everyone has been agreed this looked like madness. There's a very interesting piece, I think, with Stephen Cheung pops up in the New York Times piece, who emerges as one of the smarter characters, actually, that Trump has around him, who said, well, how does all this sit with we're not going to go and wage war in the Middle east, which is what we campaigned on. How does this sit with America first, this will have an obvious effect on prices, on inflation, on gas pump and costs, and so on. How does any of this work? And there's no real answer, according to New York Times in the room to that he just raises this specter of this is the elephant in the room.

[Joe Kent]

This is, this is the story of the 1. As a maintenance tech at a university, he knows ordering from multiple suppliers takes time away from keeping their arena up and running. That's why he counts on Granger to get everything he needs, from lighting and H vac parts to to plumbing supplies

[Professor Mohamedi]

all in one place.

[Joe Kent]

And with fast, dependable delivery, he's stocked and ready for the next tip off. Call 1-800-granger click grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get

[Piers Morgan]

it done, exactly the opposite to what we campaigned on. So I think politically it's been disastrous for Donald Trump. And I just don't understand, other than he got bamboozled by Netanyahu, why he took such a gigantic risk.

[Dan Bongino]

I don't either. And it wasn't just Steve Chung who is a master messenger and saw the storm coming. It was J.D. vance who, according to the New York Times, was in there specifically saying it's going to fracture the coalition. And boy, is that an understatement. Trump is now underwater, and he wasn't before with men. Don't forget the gender divide that happened in 2024. Women went overwhelmingly for Kamala Harris and men went for Trump. Now he's underwater with men, including with young men and young people. The young person coalition that Charlie Kirk delivered to the president is gone. They've abandoned Donald Trump, the working class. Pierce, the latest poll that just came out showed he's two points underwater with the working class. That's been Trump's base from the beginning. They were the unshakable foundation that got him elected over and over. And they're gone. They're very angry. They care about what's happening in Iowa, not Iran. They don't want days and days and more weeks of debates over the Strait of Hormuz. No one cares. They care about their own lives. They care about the fact that they can't pay for health care. They can't buy a home. Young people cannot get a home, even though two people are working nonstop round the clock with no vacations in this country. President Trump promised he would do something about that. Now we see the leaked sound bites saying, can't really worry about anything at the federal government level other than military. Everything else has to be done at the state. Then they pulled that down off the Internet because they didn't mean to share it. He said it at an Easter breakfast that was supposed to be private. Well, it's gonna be the campaign ad for every Democrat in these midterms. So he's lost working class, he's lost men, he's lost young people. He lost Hispanics by some 50 points. Every single gain with Hispanics is now gone. It's eradicated blacks. He had made some inroads with black voters. Done. You name it, they're all gone. The question is now not who has he lost. The question is who remains? And sure, it's the die hard maga. Trump can do no wrong. He's some savant. Whatever he says is right, that's great. He'll always have those people. You can't win national elections with some fraction of, of 15% of the electorate. The vast majority of Republicans would call themselves America first, but not necessarily maga. Certainly not the way Trump is now defining that term. And he misunderstood his own base twice critically in the past year, and both times are really undermining him right now. One was Epstein, thinking he could just say Epstein, who still cares about that? No one's talking about Epstein. He misread the base, which very much cared about Epstein. Not so much because they care about Jeffrey Epstein, but they care about elites being able to get away with murder and protect each other when the common man cannot. And the unwillingness to turn over stones that the base had been demanding be turned over so we could figure out, is there some sort of child predator sex ring? Is there an elite cabal working to hurt people that gets protected because they have money and we don't? And Trump could not get rid of that with a shrug of a shoulder. And ultimately it resulted in legislation he had to pretend he favored that was crammed down his throat. And he had to sign, though it had enough loopholes in it to drive a Mack truck through. But in any event, it was a step forward on Epstein that he didn't wanna make and was forced to. And this is the second one. And this is a much, much bigger and more serious betrayal of what he ran on and of what was important to his base, which does include the America Firsters and not just maga. Or as Marjorie Taylor Greene has been saying, at this point, she's not America first, she's America only. And I think a lot of us are getting to that point. We are sick of being the policeman of the world, of being dragged into conflict after conflict by bibi Netanyahu by Israel, who's supposed to be our special ally. But what they're special at is getting us to fight their wars and get involved in their conflicts that they can't fight by themselves. That's what Dean Dan Cain said to President Trump the day after Netanyahu came for the seventh time and was sitting in that Situation Room like an equal. He said that they're great on intelligence. That's supposed to be the area in which they're so special to us. They share their intelligence. They're great on it. But that intelligence doesn't always seem to pan out like the regime will fall easily. The Iranian people will revolt in the streets and take over with how they don't have guns. Bombs would be raining down. Wasn't this thought through? There isn't regime change. The Iranian people are arguably worse off than they were before. And it's all based on Bibi Netanyahu's special intelligence, which caused at least 15American lives, the fracturing of the Trump coalition, probably at least the next two elections for Republicans, not to mention the amount of lives and blood and treasure that was spilled in the Middle East. So great job,

[Piers Morgan]

Meghan. Gotta leave it there. Wish I could talk to you for another hour because it's blistering stuff. But you're so right. You said at the start one word folly. What a folly it's been. And I think the repercussions are going to be enormous. Thank you very much indeed for joining me.

[Dan Bongino]

Good to see you.

[Piers Morgan]

Just about everybody on all sides of the Iran war debate is taking a victory lap today. Everybody was right, it seems, and everybody has won. The notable exception is Israel, as we speak, is continuing to pound Lebanon. Israeli officials say the ceasefire doesn't include Lebanon and the war must go on. A direct contradiction of the Pakistani and US Position. Today, the leader of Israel's opposition said that if this cease fire is as good as it gets, it will amount to, quote, one of the most severe strategic failures in Israeli history. None of this bodes well for a permanent end to the war, unless, that is, President Trump is about to break with Bibi Netanyahu somewhat lost in excitement to Trump's vow to end Iranian civilization. Yesterday, New York Times released an extraordinary report on how Netanyahu made the case for war in the White House. The Israeli premier, it says, planned a simple mission with swift regime change, but it had to be now. General Kaine, the top US Military official, reportedly told the president, services, in my experience, standard operating procedure for the Israelis. They oversell and their plans are not always well developed. They know they need us, and that's why they're hard selling. All of this appears to echo the position of Vice President J.D. vance and the former Secretary of State, Antony Blinken. For several weeks now, we've been told it's an anti Semitic conspiracy theory to say that Israel dragged the US into this war. Perhaps the only people who can plausibly declare victory today are those who said the evidence suggested otherwise. To debate all of this, I'm joined by Joe Kent, the former director of the US National Counterterrorism center, and Will Chamberlain, the senior counsel at the Article 3 project. Well, welcome to both of you. I mean, Joe Kent, a lot of what you said when you resigned appears to have been pretty much confirmed by that New York Times report, which is extremely detailed and paints a picture of Netanyahu in the White House in the Situation Room with the head of Mossad appearing on a screen next to him in which he laid out a four point plan for why this would work, decapitating the regime. The people would rise up, they would be too powerless to shut the Strait of Hormuz and so on, most of which has not happened. What do you feel about the fact there's now this ceasefire, albeit it seems quite perilous one? Is it a recognition, do you think, by President Trump that he's got to get out of this?

[Joe Kent]

Well, I think it's a good thing that President Trump took the opportunity to enact a ceasefire and to get both sides to the negotiating table. I think what's key, though, is that President Trump has to realize in order to accomplish our strategic goal, which is ending this conflict, reopening the Straits of Hormuz and maintaining the alliances that we have in the Gulf, he has got to restrain the Israelis. The Israelis have a different strategic goal than we do. They want to take down the entire regime. They don't care how long it takes. They don't care how much we have to commit in terms of, of blood and treasure. So the Israelis and us have parted ways in terms of strategic objectives. We have to be honest with ourselves. It sounds like, considering the fact that someone shared that, shared the origins of this war with the New York Times, that that is recognized now by this administration. So the first thing that President Trump has to do in order to make sure this lasts is actually restrain the Israelis, take away key components of the military aid that we give them so that they lack the capability to go on the offense and to spoil this ceasefire.

[Piers Morgan]

Will Chamberline, your response to That, I

[Will Chamberlain]

mean, I think that's a completely incoherent idea. Not merely wrong, but just incoherent. First off, it presupposes we have the ability to take away their offensive capabilities. Newsflash, they already have them. We can't just seize them. Are we going to invade Israel and take their planes? We can't. They have the F35. They have these capabilities. Remember, they launched the 12 day war on their own. So, I mean,

[Piers Morgan]

on that point, the Americans could withdraw their funding. Billions of dollars, the billions of dollars that go to the Israelis, which they use to. To fund their own military, that could just be withdrawn. So the America isn't powerless. It can. It can exercise that power.

[Will Chamberlain]

Right. But the offensive capabilities they would need to strike Iran, they already have. They're the second biggest air force in the world today. Even if we said, we're not going to give you $4 billion a year going forward, that wouldn't stop anything. And then the second point is that this is an unbelievably silly approach to foreign policy because we haven't hammered out final terms with the Iranians yet. We're still in the middle of negotiations. The idea that we would restrain our ally, who, by the way, just helped us achieve one of the greatest military victories of the modern era, we would restrain them instead of trying to use the threat of continued belligerence from them to extract more punitive terms from the Iranians, is silly. It's just completely antithetical to how things should work. And the idea that we need to be worried about our Gulf neighbors who would be upset if we didn't restrain the Israelis, is also absurd because our Gulf neighbors are on our side. And this war has not only solidified our position militarily, it solidified it diplomatically, because all those countries are furious with the Iranians and are on our side and want to strengthen cooperation with both US and Israel.

[Piers Morgan]

But what is clear from that New York Times report, it seems to be incredibly well sourced. So somebody's been talking. It was in that room. What is clear from that is that the Israelis, you know, maybe this was an honest mistake on their part, a misreading of the situation, but they certainly appeared to be of the belief if you took out the Ayatollah and some of the top people with him, that this would then lead to an uprising by the people and that amid all this chaos, there would be no ability to close the Strait of Hormuz. Well, none of that has really happened. Yes, they got rid of Ayatollah but he's just been replaced by other similarly minded people. And then there's been no uprising by the Iranian people whatsoever. And, of course, Australia, Hormuz has been held in a kind of stranglehold by the Iranians in a very powerful way, it has to be conceded, which has caused enormous damage to the global economy. They've basically controlled that strait now for four or five weeks, and it's caused hell. And none of that appears to have been predicted by the Israelis in their sales pitch to Trump to join them on this war.

[Will Chamberlain]

Well, so I think you're overstating a number of things there. First off, I mean, you know, the Iranian navy is gone, right? They're controlling the strait by threatening to shoot at people, but they don't have any naval forces meaningfully in the area. And the idea, remember, they were thinking that card, which is their only trump card, that's the maximum.

[Piers Morgan]

But it's a very powerful card, and it's one that the Israelis, the Israelis did not think they had the power,

[Will Chamberlain]

according to the new Israelis, might have made a slight misjudgment on that effect. It's war. I think the Iranians made a much bigger misjudgment overall when you talk about the complete destruction of their military capability. Right.

[Piers Morgan]

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

[Will Chamberlain]

I don't think so at all. I think that's actually been wielded quite poorly. Let me finish my point, Joe, and then you can speak. Two weeks ago, the Iranians were saying, we're not going to give up the Strait of Hormuz unless we get a permanent peace deal. A permanent commitment to none, aggression and reparations. What are they trading it for? As of yesterday, two weeks. Cease fire, no promises. They can't even extract a commitment from the Israelis to stop fighting Hezbollah. That's how badly they're beaten.

[Piers Morgan]

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

[Joe Kent]

Prior to this war, the Straits of Hormuz were transited by anybody trading oil for free. Post war, the Iranians are going to be able to extract a fee. That's one of their negotiating chips they have. Now, prior to the war, the Ayatollah. The Ayatollah that we killed was actually at the negotiating table with us. The reason why none of this was taken into account is because the Israelis didn't really care about what would happen to the Straits of Hormuz. They didn't care what would happen to our Gulf allies. Our Gulf allies right now, still technically are with us. But the fact that we were unable to provide them with security guarantees lowers our status in the region, potentially could threaten the petrodollar in the region. And so right now, we're in a weaker position because we listened to a foreign government that had a different strategic goal in mind than we did. So it's great that we got the ceasefire. We need to maintain that ceasefire. And we have to actually withhold things from the Israelis, which we can do. The Israelis do have a modern air force, but they rely on us for a lot of the logistics, the refueling, in order to be able to reach into Iran. So we very much are in the driver's seat of what we.

[Will Chamberlain]

Well, that's not true, Joe. That's just obviously we didn't help them with.

[Joe Kent]

No, it's 100% true. They reach into. They cannot reach into Israel. I was actually. I've actually been in the military, man. I've been part of these operations.

[Will Chamberlain]

Then explain how they did the 12 day war without refueling. We weren't participating.

[Joe Kent]

We helped them out a good.

[Will Chamberlain]

Struck the hell out of here.

[Joe Kent]

We helped them out a good deal with logistics. They can't sustain operations without us. They wouldn't be able to continue to sustain operations all the way into Iran with conventional military forces in any meaningful way without our support. We have to pull that back. We also have to pull back their ability to go on the offense outside of their borders because it's going to interfere with the peace that we're trying to achieve right now. We're paying for their defense, we're paying for the offense. And also in terms of our status in the region and our ability to keep commerce and oil flow going out of the Straits of Hormuz and the Middle east, all of that is being negatively affected by us listening to a foreign government. So we have to put Israel back in the junior partner role if we're going to accomplish our strategic plan.

[Will Chamberlain]

Why couldn't you persuade Pete Hegseth of any of this?

[Joe Kent]

Well, I tried. So therefore, he didn't agree with you,

[Will Chamberlain]

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

[Joe Kent]

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

[Piers Morgan]

Well, if you say. If you say it wasn't well sourced. Well, which part are you contesting?

[Will Chamberlain]

Oh, no, it was well sourced. You guys are just mischaracterizing how much influence Israel had based on what was written in that article, which was Israel gave a presidency reading. Yeah, I read it completely. And then after the Israelis were offline, Right Then you had the meeting between the US Principals in which John Ratcliffe and others were talking about, yeah, the Israelis are overselling their ability to achieve regime change. That's probably not going to happen. But they said, you know, and what we've thought for a while is when it comes to missiles and when it comes to their ballistic shield, when it comes to their navy, we have the capability to do that and we should do that. And so the idea that, you know, we didn't get suckered into a regime change war from the outset. American goals did not include regime change from the. From Trump's very first.

[Piers Morgan]

Donald Trump literally talked about regime change early on. Literally. Donald Trump literally said regime change was

[Will Chamberlain]

an objective of the war. Fact check me on that. After he never did.

[Piers Morgan]

You don't think Donald Trump ever mentioned regime change?

[Will Chamberlain]

Incorrect? I didn't say that. I said it wasn't a military objective of the war.

[Piers Morgan]

He said it would be nice claiming today, but it's not that he is affected by. He's claiming today he's affected regime change. What are you talking about?

[Will Chamberlain]

He's affected it. That's because he's basically saying we killed all the senior leadership, which we did, by the way, in an unprecedented fashion.

[Piers Morgan]

So who's running the country?

[Will Chamberlain]

That doesn't mean it was an original military who is running Iran.

[Piers Morgan]

Right.

[Will Chamberlain]

Check me on this man. Go look at his original statement, who

[Piers Morgan]

I said it was.

[Will Chamberlain]

It would be nice to have. But it's not an objective changed his

[Piers Morgan]

goalposts every 10 seconds. That's been part of the, this has

[Will Chamberlain]

been remarkably consistent from Hegseth Rubio on down. Go look at their public statements. What did they say? An official objective of Operation Regime Change.

[Piers Morgan]

Why did America launch a preemptive strike against Iran?

[Will Chamberlain]

Well, oh, to essentially prevent them from building up a further ballistic missile capability as a shield behind which they would

[Piers Morgan]

need to develop their nuclear weapons. The reason given that was not the reason given by the Secretary of State. Marco Rubio.

[Will Chamberlain]

Go look it up. He said it over and over and

[Piers Morgan]

over again on camera. He said when he was first asked the reason the United States launched a preemptive strike against Iran was because another country brackets Israel had indicated they were going to attack Iran and therefore the Americans knew there would be attacks against some of their interests in the Middle East. So they got in first.

[Will Chamberlain]

Marco Rubio, that was the reason for timing, not the reason for the strike, the strategic reason for the strike, which Rubio explained in that very same press conference. I remember the exact one you're talking about. It's like a gaggle. I think he's in Congress after, you know, having a meeting with people. This is very early in the war. He says the reason for the strike is to prevent them from developing their ballistic missile shield. Further, the reason for the timing, like why today, why February 28, was the fact that they had this intelligence about the meeting of Ayat Khamenei and everybody else and that Israel was going to go ahead with that under any circumstances. So we should start, we should do it now. But I mean, go again, go back and look at that. I know exactly what press conference you're talking about. And I don't think your memory, you're, you are remembering one piece of it, but you're not remembering pretty significant piece.

[Piers Morgan]

When the Secretary of State of the United States on record says that the reason for the preemptive strike by the United States for the timing was because Israel was attacking Iran. And then we hear from Antony Blinken, one of his predecessors, that Netanyahu had tried to sell this to both Biden and Obama. And when they both rejected the opportunity to join him in attacking Iran, guess what? Israel didn't attack. So it looks like he got third time lucky with Trump who went along with it. But had Trump said no, I don't think Israel would have attacked.

[Will Chamberlain]

Well, but then why did they strike in the 12 Day War? They did that without Mary.

[Piers Morgan]

Well, let's talk about the 12 Day War. Let me bring, let me bring Joe Back in this, the 12 Day War is fascinating because I distinctly remember, and I'm sure Will will remember it differently to me, but I remember Donald Trump at the end of a 12 day war saying that this had put back any aspirations by the Iranians to build a nuclear weapon. Decades that we had obliterated their nuclear capabilities. It was done, done, gone. And here we are nine months later, having to launch a full fledged war in Iran because the threat remains apparently not just the same, but so imminent that America had to act immediately. Now try and make sense of that for me, Joe.

[Joe Kent]

Well, this is what the Israelis do. They've always wanted this regime change war. And so they continually use their influence through official channels and then also through their echo chamber in the media to move the red line. They did this with the enrichment issue. President Trump initially said, our policy is no nuclear weapons for Iran. The Iranian Supreme Leader agreed there was a lot of space there for negotiations. There was negotiations that were taking place for several months. Then the pro Israel lobby basically came in and convinced President Trump that the new red line was zero enrichment. 12 day war happens. Operation Midnight Hammer happens. We take away the ability for them to enrich the Iranians, withhold their proxies. They don't retaliate in any meaningful way. They get right back to the negotiating table. And then we're hearing basically what Will just said, oh, now we have to go in and attack Iran because of this ballistic missile capability. So the red line moves again every time Israel needs a new justification for the war and they get the outcome that they want by using their pressure network and their media echo chamber and their official engagements with, with the US Government. They were still worried that we were going to get a deal with the Iranians. And so therefore they went ahead and said, hey, we're going to preemptively go into Iran and attack knowing that this attack would be against the regime. Iran's reaction to an attack directly against the regime would be to enact their contingency plan, which would be targeting our bases in the region. So the only actual imminent threat that Iran posed that was posed was the attack threat by the Israelis against Iran. There was no imminent Iranian threat, attack against us.

[Piers Morgan]

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

[Will Chamberlain]

It's just the faces of minus the hundred senior Leaders who are all dead.

[Piers Morgan]

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

[Will Chamberlain]

I mean, that's what happened in Venezuela, right? Like, I mean, we're prison in Venezuela now. We have.

[Piers Morgan]

The regime hasn't changed in Venezuela. All this changes. The president got, got picked up in the middle of the night and put in a New York prison cell, but the regime's continued. His own number two is running it. So the regime is still there. So I think we should be clear about what regime change means, right, with my quaint old head on. Regime change means you change the regime, not that you just have a few people at the top of it and they get replaced by other people from the same regime. Secondly, the enriched uranium remains in Iran. None of that has been secured by either the Americans or Israelis as we speak. Thirdly, the Straits of Hormuz remain under the control of the Iranians, which they weren't. It wasn't in control of it before this war started. And it is, despite what you say, they are now charging money. Apparently they want to charge a dollar a barrel was the last thing I read. And Trump's all for it because it's going to make everyone rich. So they've got the control of that. They've continued to fire rockets, it seems, at some of their Gulf State neighbors. So I'm looking at this historic victory and I'm thinking, well, where's the victory? What is the victory? Because I don't see it, and forgive me if I, if I take with a pinch of salt this idea.

[Will Chamberlain]

Let's try this by historical analogy.

[Piers Morgan]

Let me finish my point. You can respond. Apparently, we're now supposed to believe that rather like eight, nine months ago, Iran's capability of building a nuclear weapon has been destroyed like it was nine months ago. Well, why can't they just pop up again in nine months? They've still got all the enriched uranium. What's going to stop them? So, look, I put it to you that the charge sheet against the claim of historic victory is pretty big.

[Will Chamberlain]

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

[Piers Morgan]

I didn't say America's lost the war.

[Will Chamberlain]

I'm disputing the claim that you didn't think it's a big victory.

[Piers Morgan]

I'm disputing the claim to historic victory, given the checklist I just presented.

[Will Chamberlain]

Well, let's imagine, if you will, it's January 1942, a month after Hitler declared war on the United States in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor. And the current military state of affairs is the entire German navy is at the bottom of the sea. The Luftwaffe is destroyed with complete Allied air superiority over Germany. Hitler, Goering, Bormann, and Himmler are all dead in a massive military strike. And yet the German press is claiming the Germans have managed to shut down trade via some rockets in the Danish Straits. Who's winning? Is that like, not. I mean, people have lost context about what it means to win.

[Piers Morgan]

I've lost the plot with that analogy. I'm sorry.

[Will Chamberlain]

In five weeks, we have just decimated Iranian military capability. We struck 13,000 targets, and they managed to hit a single plane, and they couldn't even capture the soldiers that fell out of that plane. It's one of the most lost. And the fact that you have a temporary, like, restraining trade and increasing gas by a dollar a gallon for a month does not change that in the slightest.

[Piers Morgan]

Really?

[Will Chamberlain]

Yes, 100%. So you were looking at military victory.

[Piers Morgan]

Okay, Joe, this is a great victory, and I've lost the plot.

[Joe Kent]

The great victory is the fact that we have a ceasefire, and this could have been much, much worse. However, as opposed to making some, like, obscure World War II reference, because everything always has to be about World War II, let's just compare the situation between now and just a month ago, before the war. The Straits of Hormuz, before this last iteration of war kicked off. The Straits of Hormuz were open for commerce. People could trans people and companies could transit that for free. Iran didn't have a stranglehold on that. Our GCC alliance was completely intact. There was still a guarantee of American security that hadn't been fractured. We had a regime inside of Iran, although they. They were not the best. It's not exactly what we wanted. They had a prohibition on building a nuclear weapon, and they were involved in active negotiations or with us. They were closely adhering to a strict escalation ladder. Their proxies are not attacking us. No, that's exactly what happened. They were not.

[Will Chamberlain]

What do you think they were using that? Medical purposes?

[Joe Kent]

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

[Will Chamberlain]

And they were in.

[Joe Kent]

They were in negotiations with us.

[Will Chamberlain]

And we give up our enrichment rights. And we won't give you up anything military, diplomatically, but we are at the

[Joe Kent]

negotiating table with them. There's a potential for a deal. Fast forward to where we're at right now. Look at the gcc.

[Piers Morgan]

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

[Will Chamberlain]

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

[Piers Morgan]

But why don't we, why don't we know for a fact?

[Will Chamberlain]

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

[Piers Morgan]

Why do they get a pass about that?

[Will Chamberlain]

Well, because they're our ally and Iran's our enemy. Ah, see, it's because we're the good guys.

[Piers Morgan]

Okay, a very interesting omission. So our friends don't need to be transparent about their nuclear capability, but our

[Will Chamberlain]

enemy is going to be America's friend.

[Piers Morgan]

But our enemies do.

[Will Chamberlain]

Yes, that's exactly how it works. Well, it's just because we have the

[Piers Morgan]

B2 bomber hypocrisy, isn't it?

[Will Chamberlain]

No, it's only hypocrisy if you don't have a normative view of whether the United States is good and Iran is bad. I don't think you have a normative view of the.

[Piers Morgan]

There is no single. There is no single good reason why Israel should be allowed to refuse to admit whether it has nuclear weapons. There's no reason there should be.

[Will Chamberlain]

We call the international wapolis.

[Piers Morgan]

They should.

[Will Chamberlain]

I mean, again, we. The United States, they're a core ally of the United States and the United States is the most powerful country in the world. This, this whole multipolarity talk is just silly. There's a unipolar hegemon in the world. It's the United States. And we're also very benevolent. And so Israel, our friend, does it, you know, gets. When you say America, that's the way the world.

[Piers Morgan]

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

[Will Chamberlain]

Oh, you mean like death to America, death to Israel. Right? Like.

[Piers Morgan]

No, no.

[Will Chamberlain]

Donald Trump throws one post out and everybody in the middle of a negotiation and signs a ceasefire within eight hours.

[Piers Morgan]

Donald Trump threatening to annihilate 90 million people.

[Will Chamberlain]

McFarland had it right yesterday in his

[Piers Morgan]

own words on his post. Do you not care about that?

[Will Chamberlain]

I just see it as negotiating bluster. Trump's been doing this stuff for 40 years, threatened genocide. I mean, that's exactly what the Iranians have been doing to us. They had a clock in the middle of their downfall.

[Piers Morgan]

So America should be astro.

[Will Chamberlain]

The entire country of Israel, America, should

[Piers Morgan]

be amoral, if not as immoral as its enemies, Is that what you're saying?

[Will Chamberlain]

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

[Piers Morgan]

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

[Will Chamberlain]

I think that would be frivolous. Again, send the international law of police to the White House if you want.

[Piers Morgan]

Joe Kent. What's remarkable is there's a kind of arrogance to the way Will is talking, like none of this matters. I think it does matter. I've known Trump a long time, I consider him a friend. But on this I think he's lost the plot. And I think the idea that from the White House you issue a statement in your own words threatening the annihilation of an entire civilization, an entire country of 90 million Iranians, I thought was disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful, and could well be a crime.

[Joe Kent]

I'm glad that President Trump's tactic worked out and we have a ceasefire. I think what's critical is that we make sure that we keep the Straits of Hormuz open, get the negotiating table. We have to hold back Israel to make that happen. If our goal was to make sure that Iran didn't get a nuclear weapon or that other states that we're adversarial with get a nuclear weapon, we just set a horrible example here because Iran showed that they were going to play ball with us, that they were in the negotiation process, that they just wanted some enrichment, and yet we came in and we killed the leader that put that prohibition on. The lesson that the other people who are coming up in the ranks in the Iranian regime have learned is that they better get a nuclear weapon, otherwise this is going to happen to them, too. Actually, one of the most vindicated countries in this whole exchange has been North Korea, who obtained a nuclear weapon for this very reason. So if we want to make sure that countries that we're adversarial with or rogue countries don't try to develop a nuclear weapon, the second one of them gets to the negotiating table, the last thing that we should do is go and do it, launch a regime change war, a decapitation strike against that leadership. So I think the lesson learned here is that now this galvanized, harder generation of IRGC officers and ayatollahs are going to take over Iran. They better get a nuclear weapon. And that's going to be a major problem for us going forward. So that's why we need to take this round of negotiations very seriously. I hope President Trump used that talk, that bolster that bluster to get them to the negotiating table. But there's only so many different times that you can use that. So the next time, if these negotiations don't go well and President Trump says, like, I'm going to annihilate you, that might not have the exact same effect,

[Piers Morgan]

but it won't happen.

[Will Chamberlain]

I think we have to be very

[Joe Kent]

careful with our language.

[Piers Morgan]

That's the point. Will, you know, I made the point yesterday. You become the boy that cried wolf, the emperor with no clothes. If you say we're going to wipe out an entire civilization and then nothing happens, well, you know, you become a bit of a lame duck in terms of your threats. I mean, I would put to you this.

[Will Chamberlain]

Did you want him to follow through?

[Piers Morgan]

No, of course not. Okay, good.

[Will Chamberlain]

Just checking.

[Piers Morgan]

Of course not. But here's what's interesting. Trump, Trump welcomed the 10 point plan as if it was somehow brand new, which it wasn't. But the ten point plan, which he says is very workable in terms of the negotiations. Let's just go through this and I'll ask you, how many of these do you think are acceptable? Number one, the Iranians want commitment to non aggression. Number two, Iran's control over the.

[Will Chamberlain]

This is just totally misconceived. Like from the outset, he said that the 10 points, he just truthed about this. The 10 points that the reporters are saying, the ones you're quoting from are not the basis on which he said,

[Piers Morgan]

well, these are the 10 points according to the Iranian media.

[Will Chamberlain]

Yeah, it's not what Trump has agreed to. And that's been. He's repeatedly said this is not the thing he's workable. And he put out a slew of truths today, saying he's going to continue to insist full dismantlement of the Iranian nuclear program, return of the highly enriched uranium, which again, this whole idea that there was a peaceful fatwa, remember, they had 60% enriched uranium, 11 kilograms or 450 kilograms worth of it, enough for 11 bombs, like so when Trump says

[Piers Morgan]

he welcomes the 10 point plan, in

[Will Chamberlain]

fact, he doesn't at all what he he's looking for. I think the basis for the negotiations is something that's much more favorable to the United States and future posterity.

[Piers Morgan]

So why would he say then he welcomes the ten point plan?

[Will Chamberlain]

Well, I think he was thinking of a different plan. In his mind, that's the simple answer. But future post, clarify that's not what he was thinking.

[Piers Morgan]

The worst thing, I don't know why

[Will Chamberlain]

on earth he would agree to that. And it doesn't.

[Piers Morgan]

The torturous knots that people have pulled with their own.

[Will Chamberlain]

You can literally just read his truth feed. He's like, and White House rapid response on this. They've been like, ironically, obviously it's not true, because if Iran was making, getting these kind of concessions out of the United States, they'd have also been able to save Hezbollah. But they can't even do that.

[Piers Morgan]

Okay, well, actually it turns out that right now Iran has closed the Strait of Hormuz again and says it will not reopen as long as Israel's attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon. So who is it?

[Will Chamberlain]

Sounds like they put a new condition on the deal. Perhaps they'll get struck again. That's probably very unwise of the Iranians.

[Piers Morgan]

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

[Will Chamberlain]

That didn't stop the United states from striking 13,000 targets over a period of five weeks, completely decimating the American military.

[Danny Danon]

None of that involved.

[Piers Morgan]

None of that involved.

[Will Chamberlain]

It was that powerful. It should have been able to stop that from happening and force an earlier ceasefire. It wasn't.

[Piers Morgan]

Okay, but the straight of Hormuz remains close. So how successful is it?

[Will Chamberlain]

I mean, honestly, you guys, everybody's just overblowing the straits of Hormuz closure vis a vis the United States. We're the largest producer in the world. For US Oil prices go up.

[Piers Morgan]

Just to be clear, will the closure the straight of Hormuz by most experts analysis, has been the single greatest shock in a negative way to the global economy ever.

[Will Chamberlain]

Well, that can't be true because oil prices were higher in the Ukraine, Russia, at the beginning of the Ukraine, Russia.

[Piers Morgan]

So that just can't be true. This has had a greater negative impact on the global economy, specific to energy, of anything we've seen ever. And it's going to get worse again.

[Will Chamberlain]

Then why did, why did the price spike even More at the beginning of the Ukraine war.

[Piers Morgan]

I know you're a fax guy. Go and check the facts.

[Will Chamberlain]

Okay. I mean, I'm sure somebody said that. I'm just saying if you can't explain that.

[Piers Morgan]

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

[Will Chamberlain]

A trivial detail, the complete destruction of the Iranian military.

[Piers Morgan]

All right, I've got to leave it there.

[Joe Kent]

Joe, last word to you, if you're a stronger position.

[Piers Morgan]

Joe, last word to you.

[Joe Kent]

I'm just saying. Yeah. Now the Iranians are in even a stronger position than they were prior to this war. The last 20 plus years of Gwad has shown us that we can basically take out targets. We can strike targets all day, and our enemies will endure simply by not losing. And they will use the leverage of the geography that they have have at their disposal to have an effect that we can't sustain. And that's the position. That's why. Exactly. I hope President Trump.

[Will Chamberlain]

They've lost their military capability. They can be as mad as they want. If they're throwing rocks, it doesn't matter.

[Piers Morgan]

Yeah. But if they actually, all they have

[Joe Kent]

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

[Piers Morgan]

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

[Will Chamberlain]

Thank you. Thank you.

[Piers Morgan]

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

[Professor Mohamedi]

Thank you very much for inviting me.

[Piers Morgan]

So the United States claiming overwhelming victory, but with a slight caveat on the battlefield. My take on this is that I think the United States and Israel have had overwhelming military success. Success on the battlefield. But there's been an asymmetric war going on which has involved the Straits of Hormuz and also the neighboring Gulf countries, Gulf states, where Iran could legitimately lay claim to have been very successful in responding to the military threat by effectively paralyzing the globe economically. In terms of the energy coming through that strait, what is your take on this?

[Professor Mohamedi]

My take is somewhat different. I don't think the United States won militarily. And of course, the Israeli regime has a much smaller military. The United States focused mostly on civilian targets. And since it failed to destroy any of Iran's underground missile bases and it failed to destroy its under underground drone bases or the factories that produce them. And that's why for 40 days, Iran's missiles and drones were being fired 24 hours a day. Because of that, they were frustrated and they were constantly bombing civilian targets. In fact, yesterday they bombed a synagogue. And I think that that has not been reported anywhere in the Western media, but they completely demolished the synagogue in Tehran. And that's just one of thousands of places that have been targeted. Very near my home, they destroyed a building with a bank or just apartment buildings above a branch of a bank. And they've been doing that across the city and across the country. So I think it's a military failure, I think it's political failure. And of course they, they force Iran to shut down the Strait of Hormuz because those Arab family dictatorships in the Persian Gulf, they were complicit in this war. They provided the United States with bases. They allowed them to use their airspace. They allowed them to use areas outside the bases to attack Iran. So Iran obviously would not allow their ships to go through the Strait of Hormuz. And when Iranian oil and gas and critical infrastructure was struck, they'd be hitting in response. And of course, Iran was striking the Israeli regime 24 hours a day, as we all know. So I think that the United States and Israelis, the Israeli regime failed catastrophically. It was they who changed their position. Trump said initially that he wanted unconditional surrender. Then after evolving his position, he gave a 15 point plan. Iran rejected it. And then he ultimately last night, accepted that framework, the ten point plan that Iran gave as a framework for negotiations. That doesn't mean we'll have a deal. Iran is not naive. And Trump already attacked this twice as we were negotiating. So Iran is prepared for renewed war. But it is a major achievement.

[Piers Morgan]

I mean, the major achievement is that the, the regime that rules in Iran remains intact. And the issue I would certainly have With Pete Hegseth and the others, including President Trump, when they say that it's a different regime because it's different people at the top, I would imagine it's crystal clear that it's irgc. They remain the regime. It is just a question of different people, but they're all part of the same regime. Would you, would you agree with that?

[Professor Mohamedi]

No. I think the Islamic Republic of Iran is quite clearly a. It has a constitution. The leader is the person in charge. In fact, he was the person who made changes to Iran's proposal and ultimately turned out to be the ten Point Plan. We have a president, we have a chair for the Supreme National Security Council. All of these institutions are very important. And I think the most important thing, though, Pierce, which will bear, which will ruffle your feathers, is that the Islamic Republic of Iran, whether you like it or not, has a high degree of popular legitimacy. And during the first week of the war, after Ayatollah Khamenei was martyred, it was basically the people who were on the streets who kept everything running. It took a week for us to elect a new leader. Of course, during that week, the Constitution provided us with a three man leadership, but it was the people who were holding things together. There are no skews or lines at the gas station. No. No one went and rushed into. None of the people rushed into supermarkets. Everything was as normal. And every night we've seen millions of people on the streets throughout the country on the streets, defending the armed forces, defending the leadership against this aggression.

[Piers Morgan]

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

[Professor Mohamedi]

No. Iran will continue to enrich uranium within the framework of international law. It will be willing to have a deal. We already had a deal to have extra supervision if anyone is truly worried. But remember Joe Kent when he resigned, he wrote in his letter, and he wasn't a Trump appointee, a senior intelligence official. He said that Iran was no threat to the United States. He said that Iran was not developing a nuclear weapon. And he said this war is about Zionist pressure in the United States and the Israeli regime putting pressure on the United States. This is a completely, and was a completely unnecessary war where the Americans murdered many, many Iranians.

[Piers Morgan]

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

[Professor Mohamedi]

Well, the Trump regime has said many things in the past and we have been a victim of two wars due to the Trump regime and the Netanyahu regime. And we have come out on top on both occasions and the world sees that. And we are prepared to defend ourselves in future again. And Trump, by carrying out this war at the behest of the Zionists and Israeli regime, they have badly damaged the global economy, which is going and it's going to get a lot worse. And as we speak, in fact, Pierce, although Lebanon is a part of the agreement, and that is something that the Pakistani prime minister has said openly and in a tweet, Israelis have been slaughtering the people of Lebanon all morning, carpet bombing cities just out of rage. And yet Trump then goes out and says Lebanon was not a part of the deal, where in fact it was. And the Pakistani prime minister said so. So we're dealing with ruthless people. We're dealing with people who are utterly immoral, who are have constantly said they will destroy Iran, obliterate Iran, send Iran back to the Stone Ages, and of course delete or erase an entire civilization. This is what we're up against. But ultimately, the Trump regime recognized that this war is going nowhere and it is devastating the global economy and it's going to devastate the US Economy if this continues.

[Piers Morgan]

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

[Professor Mohamedi]

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

[Piers Morgan]

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

[Professor Mohamedi]

I've lived in the uk. I've been there. Maybe I'll go one day. I'll come one day, but you should come for the first time. But my advice to you and to analysts in the UK and the United States is to read a book called Going to Tehran written by two Americans who worked in the White House. One was the head of the Middle east under Condoleezza Rice, of all people, and the other was the head of the Persian Gulf at that time, Flint and Hillary Leverett, they wrote a book called Going to Tehran. If US Analysts had read books like this and dealt with Iran realistically, instead of listening to Zionists and Netanyahu, the world would be in a much better place and probably Iran and the United States would have had normal ties and there would be no war, obviously.

[Piers Morgan]

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

[Professor Mohamedi]

Well, they should not have allowed their territory to be used to slaughter thousands of Iranians. They wanted to have their cake and eat it, too. They wanted to be friends with the United States and allow their territory to be used to slaughter Iranians. And they probably thought that Iran would capitulate within a day or two. You something that I told you would never happen. In fact, once upon a time, you told me that all the things that I was saying was bluster. But we saw during the past 40 days what happened. These family dictatorships in the Persian Gulf misread the situation, misinterpreted Iran's capabilities, and they made a major and catastrophic mistake. They will have to pay reparations for what happened to Iranians. And from now on, the Strait of Hormones will be used to ensure that happens and also to ensure that the Persian Gulf will never be again used as a platform for aggression, whether it's against Iraq or Iran or Yemen or Syria. These regimes have to behave like normal countries. Across Africa, we see countries that neighbor one another. They don't have foreign bases there to be used to bomb their neighbors. These regimes have made this mistake and they have to pay for it. We want good relations with them, but they helped wage a war against us. Without their territory, this war could not have happened.

[Piers Morgan]

And when it comes to paying reparations, what about reparations, then, to countries like Israel, for example, who have been peppered with missile attacks from Hezbollah, from the Houthis, a barbaric terror attack from Hamas, all funded by Iran? Is there any accountability and responsibility at your end and your regime for the mayhem that's been wrought against Israel by those three terror proxies?

[Professor Mohamedi]

I think if we look historically, Pierce, and I think you've had very good guests who can explain this better than I. But if we look historically, if there are going to be reparations, then it would have to be the UK it would have to be other European countries and the United States that helped with the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, with the colonization of Palestine, with the slaughter of the Palestinians, by pushing them into the slums of Gaza, the concentration camp of Gaza, by gradually taking more and more territory from the west bank where the refugees from Palestine have gone to, along with Gaza and all those millions of Palestinians that are in refugee camps around the region, I think those countries are the ones who have to pay reparations to the Palestinian people. And as long as we have ethnosupremicism peers and as long as people other than Zionists are considered to be amalek and inferior, this problem is not going to be solved. The Israeli regime yesterday, as I said earlier, bombed a synagogue in Tehran. Why did they bomb these Jews? Because they are non Zionist Jews.

[Piers Morgan]

Professor Morandi, I'm going to have to leave it there, but thank you for joining me again on uncensored.

[Professor Mohamedi]

Thank you for having me.

[Piers Morgan]

Well, as we've been discussing, Israel's assault on Lebanon continues to spot a ceasefire deal supposed to cover every conflict in the region. The Iranians are warning that if Israel continues the US Backed ceasefires in jeopardy. I'm joined now by Danny Danone, his Israeli ambassador to the United Nations. Danny, welcome back to uncensored.

[Danny Danon]

Thank you for having me again.

[Piers Morgan]

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

[Danny Danon]

Well, first I beg to differ with you about the narrative. We are not bombarding Lebanon, we are targeting Hezbollah. That actually started this cycle of violence against Israel after Iran started to attack Israel. So it's not that we are bombering Lebanon actually on the opposite, you know, the Lebanese government, they are saying it in the last few weeks that they want to get rid of Hezbollah, but they're not capable of doing it. And we are actually doing it now. We are dismantling the presence of Hezbollah next to our border and we are making sure that they will not pose a threat to Israel anymore. And you know, it's interesting to see that the Iranians, they look at Lebanon like they own Lebanon, but that's not the case. Lebanon is a sovereign state. So Iran is not in a position to actually dictate what will happen. And we should look at the UN Resolution that called for the Lebanese to take responsibility and to make sure that Hezbollah is not next to the border of Israel.

[Piers Morgan]

Okay.

[Danny Danon]

Numerous resolutions passed on that.

[Piers Morgan]

Okay. But if, you know, if you. If you believe that this is not an attack on Lebanon, why is Lebanon's prime minister condemning what you're doing, doing, saying it disregards all peace efforts and humanitarian laws in the Middle East? Nawaf Salaam said on Israel continues to expand its aggressions that have targeted densely populated residential neighborhoods. These strikes were, quote, heedless of all regional and international efforts to stop the war and showed a, quote, utter disregard for the principles of international law and international humanitarian law. That's the prime minister of Israel directly accusing Lebanon the prime minister of Lebanon directly accusing Israel of flagrantly breaching all international laws.

[Danny Danon]

Well, we can agree on one issue, Pierce, today, that the Lebanese government is a weak government. You know, in the morning, they would call Hezbollah to get out of southern Lebanon, and in the afternoon, they would call Israel to cease fire. It doesn't work that way. Who is actually going to dismantle Hezbollah? Who is going to do that? You know, the UN Presidents uniforms, they're not capable of doing much over there. The Lebanese government, you know, despite the fact they have a military of 70,000 soldiers that are not deploying them to the south. And this military is a very weak one. So basically, you know, all the responsibility is on our shoulders. We have to send our boys and girls to fight again and again in Lebanon in order to push the threat from our border. And I want to remind you that, you know, thousands of rockets were fired from southern Lebanon into Israeli cities. We didn't attack southern Lebanon just because we wanted to. We had no choice. And now we are dismantling the presence of Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, and we hope that there will be quiet for the people of Israel and for the people of Lebanon.

[Piers Morgan]

The death toll in Lebanon has reportedly now exceeded 1500. That's more than the number of Israelis killed on October 7th. A million people.

[Danny Danon]

I don't know why you got this number, but maybe you can let me know how many of those people are Hezbollah terrorists, because we actually.

[Piers Morgan]

Well, you tell me.

[Danny Danon]

I think most of them. I tell you why, because we have.

[Piers Morgan]

Do you know how many?

[Danny Danon]

I will tell you that Most of them. And I tell you why. Because we asked the population to move out north of the Ritani river, and they did. It wasn't easy for them. But the population moved to the North. So actually, the one who stayed in southern Lebanon are Hezbollah terrorists. So I would estimate that most of the number you just quoted are Hezbollah terrorists.

[Piers Morgan]

Well, Lebanese Authorities estimate that 250 are women and children. Would you dispute that?

[Danny Danon]

I have no knowledge of that number, but I can tell that the fact that people move to the north, it saved their lives. And we encourage them to stay up north until.

[Piers Morgan]

Out of interest, why is it that Israel always knows exactly how many enemy combatants you've killed? You never know how many civilians you've killed?

[Danny Danon]

No, I. I don't know. To answer both questions, you know, it's hard for us to know.

[Piers Morgan]

But you told me most of the dead are Hezbollah. Lebanese authorities say 250 are women and children. You're now saying you don't know, but at the same time you're telling me most of them are Hezbollah. Well, how can those two.

[Danny Danon]

Actually, the number you just presented, prove my case? If it's 250 civilians, and we regret the loss of life of civilians, 250

[Piers Morgan]

women and children, to be specific.

[Danny Danon]

Let's make it clear. We regret the loss of life of every civilian. And out of 1500 that you mentioned earlier, so the majority, the vast majority, were Hezbollah terrorists.

[Piers Morgan]

How do you know that if you say you don't actually know?

[Danny Danon]

You said it. You just said that. 250.

[Piers Morgan]

No, the Lebanese authorities said 250 were believed to be women and children. That doesn't mean they're the only civilians killed, obviously. But you seem emphatic that the majority were Hezbollah. But at the same time, you admit you've no idea how many have been killed.

[Danny Danon]

So, you know, we have the discussion like that in the past many times about Gaza. Yes, we regret the loss of life of any civilian. You know, Israeli civilians are suffering, and Lebanese.

[Piers Morgan]

I know, but the running theme in Gaza is always the same, which was always. Israelis would come on the show representing the government in some capacity, and they would know exactly how many Hamas they said they killed. When I said, well, how many civilians have been killed? No idea. So I'm just wondering, well, who does. Who does the counting? And why is it now? Why is it only the deaths of terrorists get counted, apparently, but not civilians? Seems weird, actually.

[Danny Danon]

We don't have the exact number, not for the terrorists and not for the civilians. But we know one thing, that the overwhelming majority of civilians left southern Lebanon. It's not easy for them now. Most of them are in Beirut and are waiting for us to finish the job so they can go back to their communities and I would say one more point. You have Christian villages in southern Lebanon, and they stayed there. They didn't stay there because you don't have Hezbollah presence in those villages, the Shiite villages. Those are the ones that evacuated and they know. Very good. If you stay in those villages, they're in danger.

[Piers Morgan]

Let us turn to Iran because we've got this cease fire and yet there's this dispute. Obviously, the Pakistanis, who seem to have facilitated this, and the US Both say that their understanding was that the ceasefire included Lebanon. Clearly, Israel has taken a different view. At the same time, we have this big piece in the New York Times has come out, clearly very well sourced inside the Situation Room at the White House where your Prime Minister Netanyahu has been there with the head of Mossad at joining from remotely on the big screen. And they've laid out a four point plan for what they believed would happen in this war, most of which has clearly not happened. It included regime change. Well, there hasn't been regime change. There's been a decapitation of the ayatollah and some of the leaders of the country, but they've been replaced very quickly. Secondly, they believed the Israelis, according to this report, that if that was done, then there would be an uprising from the people, which has also not happened. Thirdly, that because of the double pronged effect of these two things, that would mean it would be highly unlikely that the Strait of Hormuz would be closed. That has obviously not happened either. So it seems from the reporting on this, from inside that Situation Room, as your prime minister sold this war to Donald Trump, a lot of the intelligence, presumably from Mossad that was presented about the likely chain of events has simply not materialized. So did you guys just massively miscalculate?

[Danny Danon]

Absolutely not. You know, everything is political. You know, I hear those voices here in the US And I hear some of those voices in Israel, you know, people who want to criticize the Israeli government or Trump's administration. I choose to look at the results and the achievements of this operation. And I think we can be very proud of what we achieved so far. And the main point is that we send a lesson and a clear message to the Iranian regime that we will not allow them to achieve nuclear capability. You know, for years we spoke about it, we threatened and we spoke about it, but people say, yeah, you know, it's only a declaration. And we decided to be serious about it. And we learned the lesson from North Korea. When North Korea was playing the same game with the international community, you know, they were Signing agreements. Inspectors came in and out. One morning, we all woke up peers, and we saw that they actually achieved the nuclear capabilities. So we decided that it's not going to happen with Iran. And that's what happened in the last month. We decapitated that capability. And I think the Iranian regime, they know very carefully that we are not going anywhere. If we have to go back, we'll go back against them. And we have the capability of watching

[Piers Morgan]

what's happening in Iran. Okay, but look, from where I'm sitting, the regime remains intact, albeit with different people at the head. But they're all same ideology, same regime. The enriched uranium remains under the ground. None of that has been secured. The Strait of Hormuz is closed again, specifically because you guys are bombing Hezbollah in Lebanon. So I'm at a loss to understand where this claim of historic victory, which America is trying to claim this all is, is coming from. Yair Lapid, who's the leader of the opposition in Israel, said, there's never been such a political disaster in all of our history. The military carried out everything that was asked of it. The public demonstrated amazing resilience. But Netanyahu failed politically, failed strategically, and didn't meet a single one of the goals he himself set. It will take his years to repair the political and strategic damage that Netanyahu wrought due to arrogance, negligence, and a lack of strategic planning. What do you say to that?

[Danny Danon]

Well, as I told you earlier, you know, you have a lot of politics in this game, but I would agree on one point. We haven't finished it yet. We haven't finished it yet. You still have the negotiations. You have to evaluate it. When you finish the process. Not in the middle of the process, but let me ask you one question. Do you think Iran is stronger today if you compare it to the point they were actually negotiating with?

[Piers Morgan]

I think it's a very interesting question. I'll be.

[Danny Danon]

Let me finish the question. They were negotiating with the U.S. they were very arrogant when they came to Vienna and met with especially envoy Witkoff and Mr. Kushner. I think when they will come to the negotiation room in Islamabad on Friday, they will not be arrogant. They know the facts. It's a weakened Iran. They don't have the same capabilities. And they understand that if they will continue to lie and play games.

[Piers Morgan]

Well, let me answer you.

[Danny Danon]

Continue to hammer them.

[Piers Morgan]

Okay, well, let me answer you. I would dispute your characterization of it on this ground specifically. I think militarily, clearly they have been weakened. I think that's beyond any doubt. The American And Israeli forces have been pulverized Iran, for four or five weeks and caused a lot of damage to their military hardware. I think that's indisputable. However, there's been a serious miscalculation, I think, driven by Israel in its negotiations with Trump to join this war, in which they have miscalculated the impact of decapitating the head of the regime and then thinking that the people would rise up, which they haven't, and then not understanding, which the Iranians have clearly understood, that the closure of Australia, Hormuz, could be so disastrous to the global economy and to energy prices. And the fact that Iran's been able to indiscriminately attack its neighboring Gulf states in a way that's paralyzed the economies in those countries for the duration of this war, driven many people to leave, caused enormous damage to the future business model of getting tourists to go there, people to go and live there. Safe, sunny, you know, tourism, sport, and so on. Enormous damage to that. So if you're the Iranian regime, yeah, you've had your military hardware significantly weakened. That is beyond doubt. But you've now got a very powerful belief, because you've proven it over five weeks, that by controlling the Strait of Hormuz, you can control the global economy. And by attacking your neighboring Gulf states, whether it's oil refineries or it's tourism areas, you can actually paralyze their economic business model, too. And that can end up making you stronger, not weaker.

[Danny Danon]

I have to make two points. First, you know, when you imply that we actually dragged the US into this war, with all due respect, we both know President Trump, no one can drag him anywhere. He knows exactly what he's doing. He made it very clear when he pulled out from the JCPOA more than a decade ago that he will not allow becoming a nuclear power. And I give him credit for standing behind this important position. And the second point about regime change, you know, we never promised a regime change. We always said we want to create the conditions for a regime change. And my personal opinion, I think it will happen. You know, maybe you want it to happen tomorrow, in a week time, and you want me to tell you when it will happen. But I think today, when the regime is weakened, it will be easier to see a regime change. But when you look back in history, in different cases of revolutions, no one can actually anticipate the exact moment that you will have the revolution. It doesn't work that way. It erupts. And I hope it will be sooner than later. We will see the Iranian people rising up.

[Piers Morgan]

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

[Danny Danon]

Thank you very much, Pierre.

[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.