"Americans Are SICK Of This!" Joe Kent v Alan Dershowitz On Iran & ‘Israel First’ + John Mearsheimer

It's a question of who is pulling the strings.

That's the oldest anti-Semitic trope in history,

that Israel's pulling, that the Jews are pulling.

Most people in America just don't care. They're hurting, the economy is on a bad footing. They voted for President Trump, they voted for MAGA, the America First agenda.

We're in danger of moving into a world that looks like the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Xi Jinping is gonna do his level best when he meets with Trump to say, hey, you need to tell me that you oppose Taiwanese independence. And Trump's own advisors will readily admit privately they don't know what Trump will say.

Well, coming up shortly, I'll be joined by a lifelong liberal who's joining the Republican Party to defend Israel and a Republican who's fighting for his party to sever ties with Israel. We'll begin with the fragile ceasefire in the Iran war.

President Trump's threat to resume the all-out assault on Iran ended instead with an indefinite olive branch. Iran maintains control of the Strait of Hormuz. The US naval blockade continues. How on earth does this all end? But joining me with his perspective is international relations scholar, Professor John Mearsheimer.

Professor Mearsheimer, welcome back to Uncensored.

Thank you, Piers, I'm glad to be here.

How does this all end?

Well, hopefully we'll get some sort of negotiated settlement. It's not clear we're going to get it, though. I mean, at this point in time, we don't even have a ceasefire. It looked for a while like we had a ceasefire, but that's broken down because the Americans decided they were going to continue to blockade the strait, which is in effect blockading Iran, and the Iranians who had opened the strait for one day reclosed it.

And now we have a situation where both sides are seizing cargo ships or oil tankers in a tit-for-tat war, and we haven't even gotten back to the negotiating table. Hopefully that will happen. But I would argue, Piers, even when we get back to the negotiating table, working out a deal is going to be extremely difficult because the two sides are so far apart.

Right. And the crux of it is that after a number of different aspirations that were espoused by the Americans at the start of the war, including regime change and so on, they seem to have centred now the Trump administration on, we have to stop Iran developing a nuclear weapon as the purpose for the war,

which means that the victory can only be achieved if that is established. And you can only establish that, it seems to me, if you can be seen to have provably destroyed or have surrendered Iran's enriched uranium. If you don't get that result, I don't see how you can claim to have stopped them developing

a nuclear weapon should they seek to do so.

I think what you say is correct. There are two issues here, as you pointed out. One is eliminating nuclear enrichment capability altogether. And number two, getting the uranium that has been enriched up to 60% out of Iran. Those are going to be two extremely difficult tasks to do. I think they may be able to cut a deal where that 60% enriched uranium is moved out of Iran, but Iran is not going to give up

its nuclear enrichment capability. And just to take this a step further, Piers, it's very important to understand that the nuclear enrichment issue is only one issue on the table. There's the whole question of sanctions, the question of reparations, the question of who's going to control the Strait of Hormuz in the future, and whether the Iranians are going to be allowed to have a toll booth in the middle of it.

There's the whole question of what is the relationship between Iran and Hezbollah, Iran and Hamas. There's the whole question of American military bases in the region. I could go on and on. There are just a lot of issues that have to be settled if you can settle the nuclear enrichment issue, which is a difficult issue by itself.

Do you think that the Americans have underestimated in a massive way the Iranian ability to control the Strait of Hormuz and their willingness to attack the Gulf state neighbours? Because it seems to me the double-pronged way they've gone about both of those things has been a very effective response to the military attack in which they clearly

faced overwhelming military superiority from the Americans and Israelis.

I think there is no question that President Trump and the Israelis, and here we're talking mainly about Prime Minister Netanyahu and the head of Mossad, David Barnea, who was a central figure in selling this strategy to both Netanyahu and Trump. As far as they're concerned, they completely misread the situation. They thought that the United States and Israel acting together could produce a quick and

decisive victory. They thought that we could launch a shock and awe campaign, decapitate the regime, and we wouldn't even have to worry about the straits being shut down. Of course, that didn't happen. But it's very important to emphasize that if you look at what Trump's advisors were saying, people like Vance, people like Rubio, people like John Ratcliffe, who's the head of the CIA,

General Kane, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who was handpicked by President Trump, all four of those players, key players of the decision making process, thought that this was not going to work. So it's really a case where President Trump and the Israelis on one side prevailed in the decision-making process and we ended up in this disastrous war.

In terms of the economic and political issues for President Trump now, which he'll be weighing up, they talk about the economic damage that the blockade, for example, is causing the Iranians. But it's also, of course, causing the longer the Strait of Hormuz remains pretty well closed. Massive economic issues, not just for America,

but for everyone that uses that strait. But the political damage of the rising gas prices, rising energy prices generally, also the more slow burning rise in food prices because the fertilizer couldn't get through either. All this is politically very toxic for Donald Trump, isn't it? I mean, the polling already shows his approval rating hitting new lows, that the number of Americans that oppose this war is

rising.

Those two numbers will only get worse for him as this goes on.

And then he's got the midterms coming in November.

What do you feel about the political fallout from this?

I think you're absolutely right that the economy is of central importance here

and the economy, the international economy, is in deep trouble. And if things get worse, President Trump will be in even more trouble. And I think this is the principal reason that he decided to extend the ceasefire yesterday instead of going back to bombing Iran. President Trump understands full well that if he bombs Iran, Iran will retaliate by completely closing the Strait of Hormuz and shutting down the Red Sea as well.

And this will have even further devastating consequences on the international economy. In fact, lots of people are arguing that we're in danger of moving into a world that looks like the Great Depression of the 1930s. So President Trump has a vested interest in settling this war as quickly as possible. In fact, if anything, he wanted to settle it yesterday, and that's why he extended the ceasefire.

But the problem is he has no military option. He can't solve the problem with military force.

That is what's so fascinating about how this war has played out. I also think that for all the bellicose rhetoric he has about we're going to take out all the power plants in Iran and so on and so on. The truth about that, the cold hard reality is that Iran still maintains a huge number of ballistic missiles and they could easily attack, as they've already shown a propensity to do, the oil refineries of the Gulf state neighbours. And they could go further.

And if their own desalination plants get taken out in Iran, they could do the same to the Middle Eastern Gulf state neighbors. And if they did that, they could basically stop water supply in some of those states. I mean, it could be really incredibly serious, almost borderline apocalyptic for the people

in those countries.

Absolutely. There's no question about it. They can basically destroy all six of the Gulf states because they have the missile capability to do that. And again, as I said, they can shut down the Red Sea. You want to understand that a lot of Saudi oil is still getting out because the Saudis

have built a pipeline away from the Persian Gulf toward the Red Sea. So Saudi oil is coming out through the Red Sea. If they shut down the Red Sea and that Saudi oil does not come out, and they shut down the Strait of Hormuz and no oil, no fertilizer, no aluminum, no helium comes out of the Gulf, this will have devastating consequences for the international economy. And at the same time, you want to understand that if we do use military force against Iran,

not only are they going to retaliate, but they're not going to throw up their hands and surrender. The Iranians are nationalistic to the core, and furthermore, they view the United States and Israel as an existential threat. And that means they'll fight to the last person before they surrender. So we have no war winning strategy and we have a powerful imperative to just shut this

one down as quickly as possible.

Yeah, I said the same thing on Fox last night on The Five. I just think Donald Trump should get out of this as best he can, as fast as he possibly can. I see no longer term way that this doesn't get a lot worse. Professor Mirsheimer, great to have you back. Thank you very much.

My pleasure, Piers.

Well popular support for Israel is plummeting in the US, a fact borne out by poll after poll. More Americans now sympathize with the Palestinians than they do with Israelis for the first time in history and support is falling across all age groups and all political affiliations, even Republicans. Many people tend to blame Tucker Carlson for this but voters tell surveys it has much more to do with the destruction of Gaza and the war in Iran. It's a profound

shift in public opinion and whoever wants to replace Donald Trump as president will have to take a position on it. Governor Josh Shapiro and Rahm Emanuel are both Jewish politicians who want to be the next Democratic president. They both blame Netanyahu for dragging the US

into the Iran war. Emanuel says it's time to stop spending American taxes on the Israeli military altogether. All of this was too much for legal scholar and longtime Democrat Alan Dershowitz. He announced this week that he's registering as a Republican for the first time in his life, calling Democrats the most anti-Israel party in the history of the United States.

He may find that the Republicans are asking themselves many of the same questions. Joe Kent, a gold star husband and retired Green Beret, resigned as director of the National Counterterrorism Center over Israel's influence on the Iran war. And both Alan Dershowitz and Joe Kent join me now. Welcome to both of you. Alan, I never thought I'd have the potential to introduce you as a Republican, but here

we are. Why do you feel so strongly about this, that you have renounced your democratic faith and gone to the other side?

Well the polls show that the vast majority of Democrats of every age oppose Israel. They have elected a congresswoman from New Jersey who is very anti-Israel. They may be nominating a Senate candidate from Michigan who campaigns with a neo-Nazi who basically is a Hitler supporter. And as you say even Rahm Emanuel has now said that the Democrats should stop and the United States government should reorganize its relationship with Israel and treat it like any other ally. And in light of what's going on in university campuses, the uptick of anti-Semitism around

the world, I just can't be associated with a political party that has become part of the anti-Israel, anti-Jewish trend around the world and in the United States. So although I support many of the Democratic domestic policies, I will vote and work hard to make sure that the Republicans maintain control over the House, the Senate, and the presidency to avoid the United States from moving the way most many European countries have moved away from Israel, away from support for Western values, and in support for a radical left-wing values. Look, if I could

have registered as a Republican with a little asterisk saying I'm basically a foreign policy Republican, I'm still a domestic Democrat, I would do that, but that choice is not available to me. And so, consistent with my values, I want to quote Ronald Reagan. I haven't left the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has left me and I believe is quickly leaving America. And that's why I am going to work against the Democratic Party, particularly at a time

when anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism is increasing around the world. You mentioned, by the way, that so many Americans are pro-Palestinian. Let's be very clear. Very few people really are pro-Palestinian. They're anti-Israel. If they were pro-Palestinian, they would also be supporting the Kurds, the Uyghurs.

They would be supporting the Sudanese. They would be supporting the Ukrainians. You don't have demonstrations on university campuses in favour of these other oppressed groups only for the Palestinians, not because of who they are, but because of who allegedly oppresses them, namely the nation state of the Jewish people. So it's another manifestation of the increasing worldwide anti-Semitism and I'm going to fight against that.

But what many people say to me, I've spoken to many Jews and Israelis in the last few weeks. And the common theme is that they think the current Israeli government has moved from any form of mainstream government into an extremist government, driven

by the agendas of people like Ben-Gavir and Smodrich, that Netanyahu has followed their lead now. And it's for that reason that there is so much rising sentiment against Israel as a country. And it's why Jewish people worldwide feel increasingly unsafe.

A lot of them actually blame the Netanyahu government for this with their actions. What do you say to that?

Well, I had dinner with Bill Clinton when he was president, and he once said something very interesting to me. He said, the real problem with Israel is that it's a democracy, damn it. He said, they actually get to vote and decide who their leaders are, and they get to decide what their policies are. When I want Jordan to do something, Clinton said, I just snap my fingers and they do it.

I want Egypt to do it, they do it. If I want Saudi Arabia to do it, they do it. But if I want Israel to do it, well, we'll have to poll this. We have to get the small cabinet, the big cabinet. We'll have elections. Israel has had more elections in the last 10 years than any other democracy. It's a vibrant democracy.

And tragically, people like Ben-Gavir and Smatresk, who I despise and wish weren't in the government, are required by Netanyahu to form a government. I hope you're right. I wish you're right that the anti-Israelism and the anti-Semitism that's developing around the world is simply a function of Netanyahu being the leader. I don't believe that. I think that's

become the latest excuse and cover for anti-Semitism. Anti-Zionism has become a cover. And remember, much of the opposition is anti-Zionist. They're anti-the concept of the existence of a nation-state, an independent nation-state for the Jewish people and as long as there is an independent nation-state we will see increasing anti-zionism and I'm gonna fight that regardless of who the Israeli electorate vote to be their Prime

Minister. Okay Joe Kean welcome back to Uncensored. What's your response to Alan Dershowitz?

I think just in general, Americans, especially the Americans who voted for Donald Trump, who represent the majority of Republicans, are sick and tired of having these discussions about foreign countries, whether it's Israel or anyone else. But Israel right now has an outsized influence on our foreign policy in the Middle East, which has catapulted us into this current conflict with Iran, which helped drive us into the tragic Iraq War. So look, I think Americans want our government to focus on our problems here

in America. Drive around any American city, you're gonna see poverty, despair. Those are the issues that people want to focus on. They don't want to focus on, you know, who's running the Israeli cabinet or what the foreign policy preferences are of the Israeli government to drive us into the next series of conflicts. So I think that's why you're seeing so many people

who came out and voted for President Trump when he campaigned on putting American interests first. I don't think we need to get rid of any kind of relationship that we have with Israel. I don't think this is an Israeli versus Palestinian issue. I think what happens between the Israelis and the Palestinians is quite frankly their

business. I think most Americans would agree. I think we just need to have normal relations with Israel like we would with any other country. But right now, our relationship with Israel is so off balanced that you are seeing a lot of people putting this issue front and center because the war in Iran and the wars in the Middle East for the last two decades plus have consumed so much blood, so much treasure, and just so much attention

from our leaders that many people, especially on the Republican side, are saying, this is out of whack. We need our leaders to prioritize us. And I think that's what you're going to see in the next election cycle, not just the midterms, but especially as we have an open primary in 2028 for the presidency.

I don't disagree with that. Let me make one correction. Let me make one correction, please, just, and that is Israel was opposed to the United States getting into the Iraq war. I know that. I was in the office of Prime Minister Sharon when he personally told me that he had spoken

to President Bush and had urged him not to send American troops into Iraq. Israel was opposed to the Iraq war. It is in favor of trying to get regime change in Iran because Iran is existentially threatening the existence of Israel. But when it comes to Iraq, that's very, very different.

And you know, Israel has been a great ally of the United States, and over the years it's been one of the few people that the United States can count on for everything. And the major function that the United States has had recently is to stop Israel. It stopped Israel when it bombed the nuclear reactors. It told Israel it has to stop. Israel wanted to continue. When it had its ceasefire recently, it urged, it demanded that Israel stop its war in Lebanon. So the United States has been a

break on Israel. And so Israel hasn't really influenced the United States. The United States has much more influenced the activities, even the self-defense activities of Israel.

But I, but Alan, I would say, Alan, I just don't think that's right when it comes to the Iran war, because we know from the big New York Times deep dive last week that Benjamin Netanyahu on his seventh or eighth trip to the White House in a matter of months,

sat in the situation trip to the White House in a matter of months, sat in the Situation Room at the White House with the head of Mossad joining on the big screen and sold Donald Trump the idea that there was a chance to decapitate the leadership in Iran and that as a result the IRGC would collapse from within, the people would rise up and they'd all be too distracted to even think about the Strait of Hormuz. Well, the first bit happened and there's no doubt the Americans, I think, joined in at

the behest of Netanyahu because we heard it come out of Marco Rubio's mouth. He said the reason American forces preemptively struck in Iran.

But then he changed, then he withdrew that.

Well, yeah, but I tend to believe what the Secretary of State in America says publicly when he's first asked, rather than when he's told what he should be saying.

I do too.

I do too.

But it's a more nuanced story than that. But, Alan, Alan, Marko Rubio. The Prime Minister of Israel doesn't tell us what to do.

Hang on, hang on, hang on. is not a stupid man. He's probably the most competent person in that entire cabinet. He's brilliant. I think he's terrific. Right, right. So we're all agreed he's brilliant. So a brilliant man does not say the opposite of what he actually believes. And he said to us clearly on camera that America preemptively struck in Iran because Israel had told them that they were going to attack Iran and they knew that if that happened, Iran would American interests so they got in first. That's a question of timing.

That's a question of timing. Yeah but it's also a question of timing. It's a question of who's pulling the strings. That's the oldest anti-semitic trope in history that Israel's pulling the strings. Oh, come on, fade out. Nobody tells Trump what to do.

Trump decides what to do. What Israel said, and what the United States together said, is we have intelligence that all these people are meeting in the same place, so this is the time to do it. But the United States and Donald Trump did not start a war based on Israel's interest. They started a war based on American interests. Jews comprise 2% of the American population, half of whom don't even support Israel. Muslims and Arabs are 1.3%.

Trump complains, and to me he complains, why don't Jews vote for me? I'm so good. Why don't they vote for me? Trump doesn't go to war in order to satisfy Israel's legitimate interests rather than the legitimate interests of the United States. Of course it's part of Netanyahu's job

to persuade President Trump that it's in Israel's interest and the United States' interest to try to decapitate and to destroy Iran they are an existential threat to America's interest and to America's allies there was miscalculation They are stronger and more determined than anybody thought and the the Gulf of Hormuz by the way The answer to the Gulf of Hormuz is that it has to be there have to be ways of circumvent to the Gulf of Hormuz is that it has to be, there have to be ways

of circumventing the Gulf of Hormuz and of having an oil supply. We cannot end this war allowing Iran to maintain control over what is now an important waterway. It should cease to be an important waterway, which is why I have urged right from the beginning that the United States must control the straits and say to Iran look either everybody goes through or no one goes through that was the message I sent in my app it that's what I told people in the White House that Iran can't be in control and the end of this

war may be that the Gulf of Hormuz will be closed to everybody and we'll have to figure out other ways of getting the oil to Asia.

That will be a good thing.

Well, that will be a total disaster for everybody. But I'd also make a wider point, Alan.

No, I don't think so.

One of the reasons I think that Israel's been getting increasingly unpopular is because anyone that dares to criticize the Israeli government, and I stand by my suggestion that Benjamin Netanyahu has been pulling some strings with Trump because he managed to persuade the fourth American president. Well let me finish my point and I think I should be allowed to use that phrase I should be allowed to use that phrase without you calling me anti-semitic. I don't think so. I think you know I'm not anti-semitic.

By the way I would never call you anti-Semitic. You're a friend of the Jews. You're a friend of Israel. What I'm telling you is something historical. That the phrase pulling the strings is a trope and it shouldn't be used. And I wish you would use other terms. Put pressure, that's that should not be permitted And I look I like you very much, and I support you all the time, but I criticize you for using that term

Please don't use that term It's historic Much it depends if what other people

Say Alan Alan it actually depends if people are actually pulling strings, and I do think that and Yahoo's been doing that Let me bring in Joe Kent. I mean, Joe Kent, this is one of the more unsavory...

Well, use another term.

Well, I'll use a term I feel is appropriate. Joe Kent, I mean, this idea...

Fine, and I'll criticize you for it. ...that you can't use certain phrases, terms... That's what the open marketplace of ideas is all about.

A hundred percent. We are, especially on a show like Uncensored, you're entitled to your opinion.

We agree to disagree.

About the use of a phrase, I'm entitled to it too. Yeah. Joe Kent. You know, I do believe that there's been enormous, enormous pressure, Joe Kent from Benjamin Netanyahu to literally try and dictate what America would do. And I think he tried to do it with Obama. He tried to do it with Joe Biden, and he failed.

We know that from Antony Blinken, who told us that he tried, and both times the American president said, I'm not coming with you if you attack Iran. And Israel did not attack Iran in either eventuality. So we know that here he found a precedent

that would go along with it. And it's turned into, I think, a bit of a disaster here. What is your reading of that?

Yeah, I would more accurately describe it as a echo chamber that was created around President Trump. So what the Israelis do a very effective job of is, is they do punch way above their weight class. The Israelis, and this is on us, this is on the U.S. government's, this is our fault, we give them more access than they should have, than any foreign country should have. So what I witnessed over the

last year was official engagements from members of Benjamin Netanyahu's government, the Israeli government, come and have official engagements with members of our government and say things like, Iran can't have any enrichment. The policy has to be zero enrichment. When in fact, President Trump had just said the policy was no nuclear weapon. And you'll see President Trump echo that in his talking points now. And the former Supreme Leader, before we killed him, agreed with that. And that got both President Trump and the Supreme Leader to the negotiating table. And so, for almost a year, we saw constructive negotiations between us and the Iranian government.

This was a direct threat to the Israelis. The Israelis told us this much. The Mossad director, David Bernays, specifically said that their goal was regime change in Iran. They weren't very shy about that whatsoever. And so they used their access through official channels to circumvent the intelligence community.

Because anytime that the Israelis said the Iranians are two weeks away from a nuclear weapon, they're making a nuclear weapon, the US intelligence community, we would go and we would do our due diligence. We would check that and we would find that the Iranian internal prohibition on developing a nuclear weapon was still holding. As a matter of fact, the Iranians were also withholding their proxies from attacking us

as well. That's what the US intelligence community agreed on. DNI Gabbard testified to that publicly twice in front of Congress. The Israelis though used their influence to circumvent the intelligence channels. And then they also had their surrogates within the media come and echo to President Trump via Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the Foundation for Defense Democracies and say,

hey, the red line is zero enrichment. And they said it enough, they made it repetitive enough through multiple avenues that President Trump was led to believe that his red line has to be zero enrichment. To take the issue off the table, we conducted midnight hammer. We totally obliterated their ability to enhance and enrich uranium. But then the Israelis came right back and said, hey, no, there's still more uranium

there. You have to go in and physically get it. You have to control it because the goal for the Israelis at that point was still regime change. And so they used their outsized influence on our government to drive this war. And when they thought they weren't going to get the war,

they then said, we're gonna go in, we're going to conduct attacks against the Iranians, we're going to target their supreme leader, which we knew from studying the intelligence and Iranian doctrine over the last several decades, would result in the Iranians then attacking our bases in the region. So Marco Rubio was 100% accurate when he said there was no imminent attack against us being planned by the Iranians. The only thing that was imminent was the Israelis conducting that attack. That drove us into this conflict, and that should make every American take pause and think what is our relationship

With this country of Israel. Why are we letting them drive us into yet another war in the Middle East? How vital is it that we have control over the Straits of the Hormuz?

Before you respond I want to play I think hang on one second. Sure. Hang on. Before you respond, I want to play, I think it's a good time to play the Rahm Emanuel comments on the Bill Maher show on Friday, which were very interesting about why he believes America should no longer subsidize Israel militarily. Let's take a look at this.

We don't subsidize Great Britain buying weapons. We don't supply or financial assistance to Japan. Israel's a very wealthy nation. There should be no more taxpayer support for what they want to do. And they get the same deal that any one of our allies do. They have to abide by the laws of the United States if they're going to buy X weapons.

And that's how it should be constructed. Jake's point, and I agree with this, is the Prime Minister went to this president like he's gone to four other presidents and every one of the other presidents said not a chance are we doing that because the equities are not worth it this president bought it he has responsibilities of commander-in-chief

and I think he made a big mistake for it do you disagree with Rahm Emanuel not

greatly not not greatly yeah the the United States told Menachem Begin not to attack the Iraq nuclear reactor they toldachem Begin not to attack the Iraq nuclear reactor. They told Ehud Olmert not to attack the Syrian nuclear reactor. In both cases, Israel decided what was best for its own interest. As Olmert told Bush, I am the Prime Minister of Israel, you're the President of the United States, you do what's best for your country, I do what's best for my country. In both cases, they destroyed nuclear reactors.

If Iran, if Iraq had had nuclear weapons at the time of the Iraq war, it would have been devastating. So, you know, Israel has acted very independently. As far as Israel getting aid, remember, it's a two-way street. Israel gets military aid, which it must spend on American companies, helping them to develop both American and Israeli weapons.

Let's remember, some of the most important weapons used both in Israel in the Middle East and used by Ukraine were developed jointly between Israel and the United States. The relationship, the military and intelligence relationship between Israel and the United States is a two-way street. Yes, Israel is a small country, the United States is a large country, and Israel punches above its weight, to quote your guests, when it comes to providing intelligence, when it comes to providing military aid, helping to develop Iron Dome and other kinds of information. So it's an incredibly mutually productive alliance that should continue. Now, should Israel get special treatment?

Every country is treated differently. Israel gets military aid, but it must spend that aid in the United States on American companies, which it then uses to help to develop materials that are beneficial to both countries. So it's complicated and it's nuanced, and it shouldn't go back to the notion of somehow

Israel is pulling all the strings, Israel is making all the decisions. The United States makes decisions that are essential to its survival. That was true of President Reagan. That was true of President Bush. That was true of President Reagan. That was true of President Bush.

That's true of President Trump. It was true of President Clinton. And no Israeli ever tells America what to do. America does tell Israel what to do. Oftentimes Israel would like to go further, and America says it can't. Sometimes Israel disobeys, as it did with Syria Syria and Iraq to the benefit of the United States but most often it complies

with American demands as it has in Lebanon and as it did in Iran.

I mean what was clear from the New York Times piece whichever phraseology you want to use the reality is that the Israelis in that meeting in the White House situation room presented a series of events to Trump, which many of Trump's own people highly disputed. In fact, some of them found it ridiculous. But they presented a sequence of events

which simply hasn't materialized. So however we want to categorize it or describe what happened, Alan, the truth is that Trump went all in on the Israeli playbook for what would happen if they attacked the leadership in Iran and what would then follow. And what has followed has been nothing like what they said.

And in fact, what has happened is Iran could come out of this.

It could.

Well, sure. But Iran could come out of this more radicalized, more battle-hardened, more emboldened because they now know they can control the Strait of Hormuz in a way that paralyzes the global economy, and they can put all the Gulf states on notice, that they can destroy their business model in a heartbeat if they want to. These are things that were not there as a reality before this.

But this was not an issue before this war started. Of course they were there as a reality. They were always there as a reality. They just hadn't happened yet. They were there as a reality. I think of 1935, Nazi Germany, if Churchill had done what Trump did to Iran, if he had destroyed their rocket capacities, destroyed much of their military, the Second World War might have been avoided, even if Germany wasn't completely destroyed. Setting back Iran the way the United States and Israel did may have prevented catastrophic

responses. As was said by Mao Tse-Tung once about the French Revolution, it's too early to tell. I'm not suggesting it takes 200 years. I am suggesting it's going to take some months and some years before we see the benefits to the world of what the United States and Israel did in destroying the facilities to send rockets, Israel's destruction of Hezbollah, Israel's destruction of Hamas. This will I think tend toward a greater peace in the Middle East and in the

world. No, it didn't get regime change. That's too bad because as Mr. Mearsheimer and others have said and shown, Iran will never give up. The only answer, the ultimate answer to what's going on in the Middle East and in the world is regime change. There must be a democratic regime installed in Iran over time. It will take time, but it's a goal that should never be given up. We should not ever give up on changing what is the most dangerous regime in the world since the end of World War II.

Okay, Joe Kehn, just finally on democracy, the Polly Market prediction market says about the Republican presidential nominee for 2028. So this is life after Trump. They've got $75 million dollars in this market. JD Vance remains the frontrunner on 39% but his lead is dropping. Marco Rubio just behind him on 20%. Tucker Carlson is on the list at 5%, third on there. Then Ron DeSantis and Don Trump Jr. It's been quite interesting to watch JD Vance and Rubio kind of trying to sit out this war in terms of any too much public pronouncements about it.

Almost like they know this could become a real sword of Damocles for the Republican candidate in 2028. Is that your sense about what's going on here?

Yeah, this is going to be a major issue. I mean, with voters, I think under the age of 50, and the polling showing that that margin's moving even more. Look, people don't want to hear these fiery debates anymore about why it's, you know, the eve of World War Two, and we need to go spread democracy and do regime change in yet another country in the Middle East.

Again, most people in America just don't care. They're hurting, the economy is on a bad footing. They voted for President Trump, they voted for MAGA, the America First Agenda, to do just that, to actually put America first. And now we have a lot of that base that is furious right now because they feel like they were lied to. And our country, once again, is prioritizing foreign policy and foreign wars that aren't directly in the American people's interest. I think it's very interesting and important for those of us that are deeply steeped in

counterterrorism and foreign policy to discuss was Iran an imminent threat. However, most Americans know that Iran was not an imminent threat and they're not dealing with that in their daily lives. What they're dealing with is the cost of living, how unsafe and unclean our cities have become. That's what they're worried about. And so this is going to be a major issue for anybody in 2028. They're going to have to show how they'll actually

prioritize security and the progress and just the, I think, affordability and quality of life for the American people.

I agree.

I agree. I agree.

Putting America first is very important.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And I think an alliance with Israel puts America first.

Yeah, that's your position. I think the problem is that the polling is so bad for Trump personally. The approval rating is crashing and the animosity.

We have to change that. That's why I joined the Republican Party, to help that.

Well maybe they'll see you as the unlikely savior of the Republican Party, Alan, which would be most entertaining. Not a savior, but somebody who at least wants to put a little bit of his thumb on the scale. Yeah, but I would like a bit of a thumb on scale of this Israeli government too, which I think is a lot of the problem in the perception of Israel around the world. And I feel that not just because I think it but because many Israelis have told me that and They're incensed about what Netanyahu

Being enough Israelis think that they will change because Israel's a democracy So, let's see if these are with that and if they do there will be a new election

That's the nature of democracy that won't happen in Iran, but it will happen in Israel. Yeah

on that note, we can all salute democracy. Thank you both very much indeed.

Thank you.

Well, joining me now is the president of the Eurasia Group, Ian Bremmer. Ian, welcome back to Uncensored. You've got a very formidable analytical brain when it comes to complex foreign affairs. Can you get your head around what is actually happening in Iran right now with this war?

Well, in Iran is a little more challenging, Piers, since there's asymmetric information out there. The Iranians have a much better sense of the pressure that Trump is under to get out of this war than the Americans do about the Iranian position. And that is a problem, right?

To try to have a war end and also get an agreement done. I think the two sides have been talking to each other through Pakistan consistently, including today. So I think that there's still very much a possibility that these second round of talks do come together in Islamabad relatively soon.

There has been progress between the two countries on the nuclear file, on getting the enriched uranium stockpiles out and on preventing the Iranians, verifiably, from engaging in any enrichment going forward for an unspecified, as of now, period of time. The Americans have also given up on a few things, like the ballistic missiles. Trump is saying that that's something

that the regional states have to discuss and negotiate with Iran. That's not America's issue. As well as Iran's support for proxies across the region, which is frankly less urgent than it was a year ago, given all the damage that has been done by Israel

and by others against the Iranian proxies in the region. But I mean, the reality is that this, this strait is still blocked. The Iranians still have leverage over it. And even though it would be a lot worse if there was active fighting,

every day this continues is a matter of weeks, frankly, that we're gonna have, be all living with the economic damage. And it is really piling up.

And do we really know how damaging this already has been? Or is there, as you say, is there like a delayed response here to the global economy? Many people writing quite, you know, really quite intense pieces now about we could be on the verge of a massive recession, if not a depression, because of all this, because the real fallout from it hasn't been properly factored in yet.

And the markets have been actually remarkably resilient so far, but that may not continue.

So I was in Washington a lot of last week with the IMF World Bank meetings, and this is where all of the world's finance ministers, central bank governors are coming to DC and they're having conversations in the midst of one of the most overconfident groups of folks in the world today, inside Washington. And look, some of this is because people don't want

to criticize Trump publicly inside Washington, and especially not in the administration, among Republicans, among financial supporters, CEOs, that kind of thing. Part of it is that the American economy is much better insulated from these challenges,

directly and indirectly, than many other countries are. I mean, I spoke with some of the Indian senior officials last week. They already have like restaurants across the country that have closed down because they can't get fuel. They can't get gas. You've got the Europeans, Lufthansa today

is cutting back on 10,000 flights. They're just canceling them because they're not gonna have enough fuel. And the potential that some of these airlines are going to have to shut down in Europe and Asia is very real in the coming weeks. You could see a financial crisis in some of the poorer countries in sub-Saharan Africa

because they're just not going to have the fiscal space to get through all of the supply chain shortages, shocks and inflation that comes on the back of it. You know, even AI, AI requires inexpensive energy and lots of it. That's going to be a problem. You need semiconductors,

which require helium in part that's coming from Qatar, coming from through the Strait, which is now South Korea, Taiwan. As of June, they're going to be out. And those boats, you know, takes weeks and weeks for them to get over there. So soon that's going to be a problem.

So I think that even if you were to get a ceasefire agreement that led to a breakthrough this week, which is very unlikely, and then it was actually implemented, which is very unlikely, the damage would still be much greater than I think most of the market participants are presently estimating.

It's the ultimate beneficiary from all this, likely to be China?

Yes.

And why is that, for those who are not as savvy about that as you are?

Well, I didn't know exactly where you wanted to go with that, but clearly in the near term, China does take a hit. I mean, they have far more energy stockpiles, commodity stockpiles than other countries. Their oil stockpiles are greater than the US and Japan and Europe all put together. And so, I mean, they can handle it for a longer period of time.

The inflation does hurt them. Their economy is not doing well. The part of their economy that's doing particularly well is exporting cheap manufacturers to other countries around the world that feels like dumping.

So there's backlash that's occurring against China as well. So this is not a trivial environment for China. But long term, this is a war that America is fighting, that Israel supports, and that almost no other country in the world does. And the anger that those countries are feeling

towards the Americans and the lack of reliability that they're feeling for the United States is making them want to reduce their exposure to the US. Even as the market does very well, they're worried about the security alignment, the diplomatic alignment, the intelligence alignment,

the alignment in multilateral institutions. And for all of those places, the Chinese are doing well. Further, the Chinese have already shown Trump that they have the ability to hit back. And that's why Trump is so excited about coming to Beijing in May.

And there, China has the upper hand, not only because Trump really wants a stable relationship, that's why the US is announcing this Board of Trade, Board of Investment with the Chinese, but also the Chinese know, and Xi Jinping knows, that President Trump doesn't care very much about Taiwan,

like Ukraine, thousands of miles away, not really America's problem. Shouldn't they be doing more for themselves? Shouldn't they pay more for defense? And Trump wants to be the peacemaker. So I assure you, Xi Jinping is gonna do his level best

when he meets with Trump to say, hey, I'm willing to give you a lot. I'll buy a lot more Boeings, buy a lot more soybeans. I'll cut deals that are going to make you look like a big winner. I already gave you TikTok, let you buy it.

But you need to tell me that you oppose Taiwanese independence. And Trump's own advisors on China who would oppose this will readily admit privately that when Xi Jinping asked Trump that question, they don't know what Trump will say.

And especially in the backdrop of this, like, you know, they're gonna show him an incredible time. They are gonna put on a show for President Trump like they have never done for any other president. They're gonna show him so much deference, show much respect,

the way that he doesn't feel from the Europeans, he doesn't feel from the Canadians, that the Chinese are going to show that. And all Xi Jinping is asking is, hey, you don't want a war over Taiwan. We don't want a war over Taiwan.

This president, he's causing so much trouble. He wants independence. Us adults, we can create peace, right? Right, Mr. President? And you know Trump a lot better than I do, Pierce. I mean, I'm very interested in how Donald Trump

is gonna respond to that.

Yeah, me too, it's a great question. Just finally in, the Gulf States have had a really awful six, seven weeks. I spent a lot of time there in the last few years in Saudi Arabia, in Qatar, in UAE and so on. And they've all made it crystal clear that all the drive, the dynamism, the money, the

resource, the willpower and so on has all been directed at finding a long term future revenue to replace the oil. And they had decided it was going to be around tourism, opening up, selling safety and sunshine, and sport and entertainment and leisure and travel, holiday resorts, and so on.

And everything to do with that has been really dismantled in a sharp and awful way by what's happened because people don't feel safe. They've probably been made aware of how close they are to Iran and how dangerous that potentially is and so on. How do they come through this, do you think?

And how damaging has it been for the Gulf states?

So what you just described, Piers, does really apply to pretty much the entire Gulf. They've all taken it on the chin. They're all facing insecurity. It turns out that a $110 trillion global economy can really be upset by a very small amount of resource set against it.

And the Gulf is maximally vulnerable to that. The idea that they're going to be the Switzerland of the Middle East, these Gulf states, sounds very quaint when you can't get through the strait and when you've got missiles that are hitting Dubai airport, right?

Having said that, the impact on these countries and their responses are very different. They're very different. Saudi Arabia can get 7 million barrels a day of oil, and they are out through their East-West pipeline

through the Red Sea. They don't need the Strait. If you combine that with the higher prices that they're receiving, this year, Saudi Arabia's budget is actually going to look pretty good.

They've got other problems, as you just mentioned. They're going to be pulling out of, it looks like, the Live Golf Tournament Formula One. They weren't able to do as, same with Bahrain. And the sovereign wealth funds in Saudi Arabia will be tilting much more towards critical infrastructure, security buildup,

you know, things that they really need to ensure that if this ever happens again, they're in better position. But the Saudis are not existentially threatened, as of right now, by this war. The Emiratis are.

90% of the UAE's population of 10 million are expats. And it is essential that they act as a hub for Gulf transit, as a hub for advanced healthcare, for education, for great tourism. And all of that is deeply impacted, not only by the last six plus weeks of war, but also by an Iranian regime that has the capability

and wherewithal to threaten that going forward. Saudi Arabia has their own labor. You know, 35 million people, they're investing heavily in making that labor more effective, more productive, bringing women into the workforce, diversifying that labor base. The UAE needs to attract that labor and keep that labor when they could go to Singapore

or Europe or the UK, right? It's much, much harder for them. And another point that I just want to make here, Piers, is that these countries, they're all aligned with the United States in terms of security and intelligence,

but if they can't rely on the United States to protect them ongoing with Iran, if the Americans, if Trump is saying, okay, not my problem, you guys are going to have to handle the strait, you guys have to handle ballistic missiles.

Their responses are radically different. The UAE will tell you that over the last weeks, the one country in the region that they really have been able to rely on is Israel. And the Israelis can't live with the Iranian regime, neither can the Emiratis going forward.

That's what they're saying privately to Trump. The Saudis are much closer to Pakistan and the nuclear weapons program Pakistan has, which the Saudis have helped fund. The last couple of weeks, the UAE pulled a $3 billion credit line to Pakistan.

Saudi Arabia immediately backfilled it. And if the Americans pull out and declare this war over, Saudi Arabia is going to use their Pakistan relationship with China to try to rebuild some form of stable relations with the Iranians. And so the Gulf Cooperation Council, the loose formation, regional formation of Gulf countries that has been aligned on political and security and some economic and infrastructure measures,

I fear is fragmenting because of this war. It's one of the most important geopolitical developments that you and I have seen globally because of this war.

Yeah, 100%. Ian Bremmer, always great to have you on Uncensored. Thank you very much.

Thanks, Piers. Good to see you.

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