Trump Finally Puts Bibi in His Place & Neocons Cry Over Peace in Iran. Tucker & Piers Morgan React.

In your mind's eye, you imagine the American  Empire ending someday, probably in like a   confilgration, in some sort of conflict with  another great power. And if you had to pick one,   you would imagine the end might come in a dispute  over Taiwan, formerly Formosa, the island off   mainland China that might China considers part of  its country. There's been a dispute about this for   almost 80 years and the United States has sort of  informally suggested that it would defend Taiwan's   sovereignty and periodically that part of the  world, South China Sea, pops into the news and you   think, "Wow, that could be a big deal if you know  we actually had a war with China because every   year they get stronger. They now have a bigger  economy than ours." You can kind of imagine some   reckless American leader destroying American power  over Taiwan. But you probably never imagined that   the end of American Empire would come in a little  over a 100 day conflict with a little rogue state   on the Persian Gulf that has the 34th largest  economy in the world, a country called Iran,   which generations of Americans have been raised  to believe is crazy and dangerous, but basically   irrelevant and certainly not civilized and in no  way capable of affecting America's place in the   global hierarchy. You just couldn't imagine  that would happen. But something like that   apparently has happened and we know because  we now have the text of theou the memorandum  

of understanding between the United States and  Iran that unless something happens is going to   be signed in 2 days this Friday in Switzerland  by both countries. Now, versions of this have   been circulating for the past 3 days. And earlier  today, apparently on background, members of the   Trump administration read the 14 points in theou  to a bunch of different reporters at a bunch of   different news organizations. They im immediately  appeared online and you read this and you think   that can't really be real. And then within the  last hour, sources in Iran released their version   of theou and it turns out to be identical to the  one that members of the administration, these   unnamed officials gave to American reporters.  So both countries releasing the same text of the   agreement. Therefore, you can't be certain really  of anything, but you can be highly persuaded.   You can consider it overwhelmingly likely that  this document is real. At least as of right now,   thisou is real. 14 points to be signed on Friday.  It's pretty short and it's worth reading at least   in part because it tells you everything, not just  about how this war might end. It's not ended yet,   but how it could end, but it tells you even more  about the relative place of the United States and   Iran in the global order going forward. And it's  really kind of an amazing document. And to get   right to the point, you can see why neocons are  upset. I mean, they have cause to be upset. Not   taking their side, but just being honest here.  Wow. Here's part of what it says. Paragraph one.   The United States of America and the Islamic  Republic of Iran and their allies in the current  

war by signing this declare the immediate and  permanent termination of military operations on   all fronts, including Lebanon, and undertake from  now on not to initiate any war or any military   operation against each other, and to refrain from  the threat or use of force against each other and   ensuing the in ensuring the interritorial  integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon.   The final deal will confirm with the permanent  ter terminate termination of war on all fronts   including in Lebanon. Okay, so that's the  first paragraph for the agreement. Israel is   not mentioned, but Lebanon is mentioned three  times. Lebanon, what does Lebanon have to do   with this war? Well, strictly speaking, nothing.  And when it it began on February 28th, we were   told by the administration this was purely about  disarming Iran and preventing this rogue terror   state from getting a nuclear weapon, which would  be primapacia, a threat to the world. But very   shortly after this war commenced, Israel decided,  "Oh, wait. We're going to take this opportunity   not to achieve the goals that they convinced  President Trump to tell our nation about,   but instead to do something we've wanted to do  for a long time, which is steal southern Lebanon."   And so very shortly after this war began, Israel  started a new war with American weapons paid for   by American taxpayers designed to take land from  Lebanon, all the land south of the Latani River,   which kind of bisects the country diagonally, and  then starts hitting Beirut on the Mediterranean,  

an ancient and beautiful city, maybe the most  beautiful city in the world. and Israeli warplanes   started blowing up civilians in the middle of  Beirut while the United States was occupied,   tied down really both fighting this war that  Israel inspired. We followed Israel's lead into   the war according to the Secretary of State Marco  Rubio and tied up defending mainland Israel from   the response to that war from Iran. And Israel  takes his opportunity to use our money to start a   new war to steal land. So this agreement addresses  that in the very first paragraph. So while a lot   of people in America didn't even notice this  was happening, Iran focused on it. And so in   order to get everything else that follows in this  agreement, the United States will have to restrain   Israel, pull back from Lebanon, stop killing  civilians in Lebanon, and give back the land   that you stole while the rest of us were paying  attention to the Iran war. Wow. That's the first   paragraph. And apparently the US is going to  sign this. Paragraph two. The United States and   the Islamic Republic of Iran undertake to respect  each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity   and to refrain from interfering in one another's  affairs, eternal internal affairs. Why is this   significant? Well, because the United States  is addressing the Islamic Republic of Iran,   not as a rogue terror state, the Third  Reich reconstituted in the Middle East,   but as a normal country, in fact, as a powerful  sovereign country whose internal affairs will be,  

as a matter of record and agreement, a treaty  unmolested because you don't interfere in the   internal affairs in powerful countries. And so  basically this is acknowledging paragraph two   before we even get to the straight of four moves  and the nuclear program and all the rest. This   document is acknowledging that Iran is not a rogue  terror state. Iran is a sovereign nation. In fact   a great power because it's negotiating with the  world's greatest power, the United States. And the   United States is acknowledging that hey you know  you have a right to run your country as you like.   And so that means almost 50 years of watching  reports on television about how Iran is an out   of control theocracy that murders gays for being  gay and prevents women from getting educated or   whatever they've been telling you. We're okay  with that now because you're a great power and   if you want to throw gays off buildings, it's not  really our business. Well, that's quite a change.   Whatever you think of it, paragraph 4. Immediately  upon signing this, the United States of America   will begin the removal of its naval blockade  and any disturbances or impediments against the   Islamic Republic of Iran and will fully end the  naval blockade within 30 days. Retreat. Pull your   troops out. Get your warships out of this area.  Stop hassling us. That's not a victory. That's a   surrender. That's a retreat. It's a pullback.  Just a fact whether you like it or not. And to   be clear, this is better than the alternative, not  complaining about it. Just noting that wow, this  

is not unconditional surrender by Iran. Hardly.  Paragraph 5. Upon signing this memor memorandum of   understanding, the Islamic Republic of Iran will  make arrangements using its best efforts for the   safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge  for 60 days only from the Persian Gulf to the Sea   of Oman and vice versa. In other words, they're  going to open the straight of Formuz and not   charge anybody anything for a month. And at that  point, we'll talk. But Iran's going to talk not to   the United States, but to the Sultanate of Oman,  which would be the country directly across the   street to the south, the oldest monarchy in the  world. Iran and Oman will determine the terms on   which shipping flows through the straight because  after all they're the two countries on either   side, the north and south sides of the straight.  So like it would be up to them. You know, it's   not up to the United States which has effectively  controlled the Persian Gulf for your entire life.   But not anymore. Now it's up to Iran and Oman and  their allies or regional partners, the other five   GCC countries, maybe Iraq at the western end, who  knows? But not the United States. And by the way,   not China or Russia either, but the two countries  whose territory touches the straight of Hormuz,   they're in charge now. And by in charge that means  in charge of in effect the Persian Gulf because  

the overwhelming majority of the commodities  mostly oil and gas but not just oil and gas   fertilizer sulfur the rest you've heard so much  about for the last 100 days flow through that   straight and so Iran is now at least an equal  partner with Oman in determining how much it's   going to cost the rest of the world to get their  commodities out of the Persian Gulf. how much oil   producing, gas producing nations will pay to get  their commodities out of the Persian Gulf. Iran,   that was not true on February 27th. Apparently,  it's going to be true into the future. So,   that power, the power to determine who gets  their commodities out of the most energy dense   region on the planet by definition makes you into  a major player, if not a regional hegeimon. You're   certainly a big deal. People can't dismiss you  as a rogue terrorist state at that point because   you control in effect a fifth of the world's oil  and gas. Okay. Now, and it goes on paragraph six,   the United States of America undertakes with its  regional partners to develop a definitive mutually   agreed upon plan with at least USD30 billion for  the reconstruction and economic development of the   Republic of Iran. Not just the reconstruction, not  just rebuild the things that you blew up, but help   our economy going forward. Economic development.  The US has done a lot of that around the world or  

said it does a lot of that around the world and it  has to some extent, but never in Iran. Not since   at least 1979 when its proxy the Shaw got booted.  And Iran has been, you know, our kind of top enemy   in the world ever since. And now the United States  will somehow be involved in raising a fund, $300   billion. When this was leaked two days ago, most  people, including me, assumed that this was disin   disinformation. It was a lie spread by opponents  of the agreement as a kind of poison pill. Like,   no way. $300 billion. Isn't that like bigger than  the entire Iranian economy? Can't remember, but   it's in that range. Anyway, that can't be real.  Now, US officials, including the vice president,   have said, "We're not that's not coming from  American taxpayers." And that's probably true.   That would be very hard to sell, but it's coming  from somewhere. And apparently, according to the   agreement, the United States will be involved in  procuring the money, putting together the fund.   Who knows? But it says right there, the US is  part of this. Huh. Paragraph 7. The United States   of America undertakes to terminate all types of  sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran,   including the UN Security Council resolutions,  the IEA Board of Governor's resolutions, and all   unilateral sanctions, primary and secondary, in  an agreed upon schedule as part of the final deal.

Maybe the most significant and most difficult to  achieve point out of the 14, ending the sanctions.   Now, those sanctions have been in place in  one way or another for generations. They've   crushed the economy of Iran, and they are, as  sanctions always are, an act of war, soft war,   but an act of war that kills people, kills kids  through poverty, through starvation, always and   everywhere. Sanctions kill people. Now, you could  make the case that the people being killed deserve   it, I guess, but you can't claim it's anything  other than an act of war, but Americans for   generations have not had to face that reality. And  occasionally you'll see some report from some like   liberal and international group, sanctions kill,  and everyone except liberals in the United States,   everyone sort of dutifully ignores it. Sanctions  seem like a really easy, lowcost, nonviolent way   to impose our will on other countries, and we  always do them under the pretext of like a moral   crusade. You're getting sanctions because you're  like Hitler. And if we didn't impose sanctions,   we'd be like Chamberlain. And we don't want  to be appeasers. We want to be like Churchill   and strong and morally clear. We want to be the  right side of history. We're good people. That's   why we're sanctioning you. And Americans have the  Congress has used that justification to sanction   a whole bunch of different countries. And in  no case have those sanctions helped the United   States at all. In fact, they've done more than  anything else to weaken the US dollar. Long-term,  

they were impoverished the United States, those  sanctions. There's no question about that. That's   been acknowledged for a long time. But they've  continued because no one has really pushed back   because no one could. And now Iran apparently has  successfully and if it happens it'll be the first   time at this scale that it's ever happened has  pushed the US to roll back those sanctions. Now   there is you know a long distance between putting  that in paragraph 7 of theou which not even signed   yet and actually happening. Apparently it's going  to have to go through the congress. Will that   work? Hard to know. Hard to believe. But the fact  it's even up for discussion and that the current   administration is eager to agree to it tells you  that this is the biggest change diplomatically.   Well, in memory at least. It's incredible that  they actually wrote this down. Paragraph 8,   they wait till the eighth paragraph out of 14.  The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms that it   shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons.  Now keep in mind the whole point of this we were   told was to stop their nuclear weapons program  which didn't actually exist. They had a nuclear   program was a nuclear weapons program maybe. Why  wouldn't it be? Who doesn't want nuclear weapons?   France has nuclear weapons. Pakistan does. I mean  everyone wants nukes or else they get treated like   this. But was Iran actually building a nuclear  weapon? There's no evidence of that. In fact,   there's quite a bit of counterveailing evidence  that they weren't at the moment. Will they now?  

Of course they will. Like who wouldn't? You  don't see Trump or Lindsey Graham or Ted Cruz   standing up and saying, "We need to invade  North Korea." We can't. They have a nuke. So,   we treat them with respect. Despite the fact the  leader is very short, we treat them with respect   because they have a nuke. So, the incentive to  get nuclear weapons is overwhelming. And all   things being equal, countries that can get them  will. And Iran is no different. But this does,   let's be honest, makes it a lot more likely they  will because among other things, they'll be able   to afford it. Which brings us to paragraph 10.  The United States of America undertakes that   immediately upon the signing of thisou and  until the termination of sanctions, the US   Department of Treasury will issue waiverss for the  export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products,   and derivatives and all associated services  including banking transactions, insuranceances,   transportation, etc. Now that sounds technical,  but it is an incredible departure from where   we were yesterday where again we are at the end  stage of a multi-deade effort to isolate Iran in   the world to make even going to Iran as a tourist  verboten. You can, by the way, be prosecuted for   spending money in Iran. So subject are they to all  these sanctions that this announcement that, oh,   we're getting rid of all that stuff and like they  can do banking and companies can do business with  

them and they can export their oil and they're not  going to have to put it into unmarked tankers and   pretend it came from somewhere else. This is  a sea change that again connects to the other   paragraphs in one way. It treats Iran like a  global power, like a sovereign adult nation,   not like a rogue terror state. Just the  opposite. It treats Iran with respect.   It treats Iran like a nation to be reckoned  with and afforded sovereignty. Incredible. Paragraph 11. And we'll stop after this.  The United States of America undertakes   to make fully available for use the frozen or  unrestricted funds of the Islamic Republic of   Iran upon the implementation of this memorandum  of understanding. So there are many billions of   dollars that belong to Iran that have been frozen  in some cases since 1979 in banks around the world   and Iran has consistently without getting boring  about it demanded the return. And this was a   sticking point during the famous Obama Iran deal.  Iran wanted its money back. And in some cases,   they never got it back. The United States just  ignored its promise to return the money. But   it's Iran's money. They think about it quite  a bit. It's not a rich country. Number 34 in   the GDP list, as noted, and they want their money  back. And within Iran, this is considered a really   significant question. And it's a it's also,  of course, a matter of national pride. It's  

their money. Why can't they have it? Well, cuz  it's in US dollars, that's why. So, with this,   they would be getting their money back. So,  there's kind of no lying about this. This is   maybe good for the United States long term. You  could certainly argue that and one hopes it will   be. One prays that it will be. It'll be better  than what we have now. That's for sure. But it   is impossible from this text, assuming this is  real, and we think that it is. It is absolutely   impossible to say this is in any sense a win for  the United States because it's not. This is a   pretty humiliating loss for the United States and  as an American certainly not gloating about that   at all. This is a loss. This is by the way the  reason that you wouldn't want to start this war   in the first place because it could only end  as it has ended. And the people, by the way,   who pushed to start this, notably the Israelis and  their unregistered agents in the United States,   knew that, of course, because diminishing the  United States and reducing its footprint and   power and influence in the Middle East was part  of the plan. Of course, you can't really be in   control of your region if you're taking orders  from a foreign power. That would be us, the US.   And the Israelis wanted us out. They wanted us  out of the Gulf. They wanted the destruction of   our bases in the Gulf. and they got it. But what  they didn't want, what they definitely didn't want   was a resolution in which the United States, their  patron, their only remaining ally on the planet,  

admitted out loud that, hey, actually, Iran is a  real country that will have a seat at the table   going forward. It's an ancient civilization. You  can't eliminate it. We just tried. Didn't work.   And henceforth, we're going to treat them as  not just a real place, but a steward of the   most economically significant waterway on the  planet. So with this, no matter what happens,   even if this is not signed on Friday, with this,  the United States has officially acknowledged that   Iran is a player. And that changes everything.  In the same way that the 1956 Suez crisis,   another crisis, another war over a narrow  waterway through which commerce flows,   ended the British Empire. Now, of course, you  could argue the British Empire really kind of   ended with the armistice in 1918 at the end of the  First World War. You could definitely argue that   it was done by 1945 when they air quotes now won  World War II. But like a lot of fading empires,   it wasn't obvious to the rest of us. So there was  muscle memory involved. And Britain had ruled the   world. And so it was fading but not dead. But  in the space of a very short period of time with   that fairly complex crisis, Britain was done. Why?  Because in the Suez crisis of 1956, Britain made   it really clear that no matter what they said or  wanted, they couldn't actually affect the outcome.   They didn't have the power to settle things the  way they wanted. The US did. And so America,  

maybe not formally, but certainly practically took  Britain's place as the ruler of the Middle East.   With this, the United States has shown that it  does not have, despite possessing the world's   best or biggest or certainly most generously  funded military, does not have the military   power to impose its will on the 34th biggest  economy in the world. That is not a lesson that   we're going to take decades to come to. That  is an extremely obvious conclusion. In fact,   that is the obvious conclusion of this document.  Again, for good or bad, and there's something   poignant about it. There's something sad about it.  There's something also bitter about it considering   it was predictable. This is why people opposed  a regime change war against Iran because this   was always going to happen. Because the question  of Iran's military might, its nuclear program,   its ballistic missiles was always secondary to  what really mattered about Iran, which was its   geography. It sits on the northern side of the  straight of Hormuz. It could close the straight   with mines. It's not that hard. And because of  where it sits on the globe, Iran was and now is   universally acknowledged as a powerful nation, as  a real place. It's not Somalia and it never will   be Somalia. And this makes it official. So, how  did we get here? We didn't get here because anyone  

in the administration decided, hey, let's sign  a deal that our last remaining political allies,   the neocons, hate. And they have every reason  to hate this for sure. to extend them not grace   necessarily, but just to be honest about what's  happening. They're upset for good reason. The   administration didn't do this to alienate its  last remaining pocket of supporters. No, it did   this because we had no choice. The two things you  need to understand about the American negotiating   position right now are these. One, we're running  out of weapons. The United States has expended   about half of all of its existing missile defense  in 7 weeks. Half of its THAAD interceptors gone.   So at a certain point, you can have whatever  intention you want, but if you can't defend   yourself against ballistic missiles or even drone  attacks, and you can't defend your allies in the   region from those attacks, you can't continue. We  have reached the limit of our industrial capacity.   The United States actually can't defend  itself as of right now in a major conflict.   We're assuming this is a less than major conflict.  It is Iran after all. It's not China. It's not   Russia. But the United States will be unable to  defend itself despite having a $ 1.5 billion a  

year Pentagon budget because it doesn't have the  industrial capacity to replenish those stocks. So   we are very vulnerable at this moment and with  every passing day become more vulnerable. Okay,   that's the first thing to know. The second thing  to know is that gas prices have gone up a lot.   Six bucks for 93 octane in a lot of places. More  than that for non-ethanol for the privilege of   using non ethanol gasoline that doesn't wreck your  motor. It could go a lot higher than that. Brent   crude prices, as the president said the other  day, have actually not skyrocketed. Well, one   of the reasons they haven't is because the United  States and other countries, especially China, have   massive oil reserves. Ours is called the strategic  petroleum reserve. And the US government draws   down on that in order to keep prices from going  crazy, from spiking because that's politically   scary. And by the way, it's real as an economic  factor. It can spur real inflation. Our strategic   petroleum reserve is at its lowest point since  1983 in 43 years right now. So we are running   out of oil and we're running out of weapons. And  it's not because we were beaten in some sort of,   you know, broadside artillery exchange between  aircraft carriers. We famously destroyed their   navy and their air force, which most people didn't  know existed. But it doesn't matter because the   kind of conflict that is actually taking place  is asymmetrical. And we have reached the limit  

of our ability to fight it short of using weapons  of mass destruction against Iran, which no normal   person wants. Many people on television want, but  no normal person wants that. Not just because it's   the most immoral thing you could do, but because  the downstream consequences are unimaginable. So,   we actually don't have a choice. The Trump  administration is boxed in. we lost in a   meaningful way. And this is probably while not  great for the United States, in fact devastating   in some ways, less bad, less devastating than what  would happen if we continued. And it's very clear   that the Trump administration has understood this  for a long time within days of the beginning of   the war back in February. Why? Because as is  now widely understood, the administration, the   president believed Israeli estimates about Iran's  nuclear program, its strength, and critically how   it would respond to the decapitation of its  leadership class. Kill the Ayatollah, kill the   top 150 guys in charge of running the government  and the military, and the place will collapse and   something good will happen. That was the pitch.  And it turned out to be wildly comically wrong.   The Iranians, who are whatever else they are, not  stupid, had thought this through and had created   a system that was impervious to decapitation.  You kill the first 150, another 150 rise up to   take their place. Probably a little more radical  than the ones you just killed, but certainly clear  

about what their task is. So, there was never  going to be regime change on the cheap. Regime   change would require a land invasion of Iraq, and  there is no stomach for that in the United States.   There's never been majority support for any kind  of war with Iran. Any kind of war with Iran in the   United States. And if, by the way, if you cared  about the promise of democracy, that would be a   stumbling block for you. But the advocates of this  don't care at all what the public thinks. Whether   their children die, not of interest to them. In  any case, the Trump administration knew very early   that this was not going to produce the easy win  that the Israelis had promised. And there's a lot   of evidence that the president was angry about  that. Now, we've spent the last 100 or so days   listening to him try to posture his way out of it,  threaten the Iranians into submission. It didn't   work. But underneath it all, it's very obvious  that the president, whose decision this was,   by the way, and it's unfair to pass the buck to  Netanyahu. He's not the president of the United   States, but it's very clear that the that the US  president blamed Netanyahu for misleading him.   That's why also very obvious in retrospect, he  sent the Secretary of State out within days to say   publicly in a stairwell in the US Congress that  we followed Israel into this war. Trump blamed   Netanyahu early and he continues to. So what's  the response from the people who pushed this war,  

including the ones who called Trump personally on  the phone? and there are many of them who called   him on the phone or who used their perches on  Fox News to convince him to do this. What's   their response to this settlement? Well, it's  completely hysterical, but it's also revealing   of their motives and of their wisdom. So, here's  just one among many examples from Fox News. This   is from 2 days ago. This was before we got the  actual text of theou. This is when its basic deal   points were being shared by text and it wasn't  clear how many were real, but it was pretty clear   this was not a triumphant victory. And it was  even more clear that the current Iranian regime   would remain in place by the end of it. Here's the  response from a Fox News contributor to the deal.   Watch this deal and everything that we know about  it. To the degree that it is being spun in public   by this, you know, and behind the scenes by the  administration, everything about this deal seems   bad to me. It all seems bad. It all seems like  a setback. It doesn't seem like it meets any of   the measures that the president actually put out  there of his goals when it came to this conflict.   And look, at some point, this Republican party  needs to decide which kind of foreign policy it's   going to have. Is it going to be an America  first for foreign policy? One that is bold,   that uses American power in key moments decisively  in order to affect what it wants to achieve. Or   are we going to just backslide into being some  kind of hillbilly Obama kind of GOP? That is not   something that is acceptable to me. It should  not be acceptable to Republicans and it should  

not be acceptable to any conservative who is who  is in interested in the success of America going   forward. It's amazing to see that if you're one  of the overwhelming majority of Americans who no   longer pays for a cable package and you're sort  of wondering why are leaders doing these things   because they're watching stuff like that and  they take it seriously. So you put someone on   television who has no knowledge whatsoever of the  region hasn't been there, doesn't understand it,   is taking almost all of his understanding of  it from Fox News. you have the snake eating his   tail is a guy who's believing the lies that he's  ingesting and then coming to absurd conclusions on   the basis of them. So it's like someone who has no  authority to weigh in on this is telling you his   august view of it. So there's that. It's childish.  But then there's the deeper question of okay,   you don't like the deal. What's the option? What  does victory look like? The president articulated   it pretty clearly. He wanted regime change.  He wanted new people running Iran. He wanted   an end to support for the proxies, the terror  proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah and the Houthis.   Okay. He wanted Iran to stop producing apparently  ballistic missiles. Stop, I guess, having national   defense. Okay. And he wanted famously total abject  surrender. He wanted Iran to get on its back all   four paws in the air and say, "Do with me what you  will." Well, none of those, and that analyst is   correct in noting, none of those goals have been  achieved. The question is, how would you achieve  

them? So, yeah, the United States is admitting  defeat. We did not get what we thought we would   get or wanted to get. Some of us never thought  we'd get that, but it's not what they promised us.   So, what's the bold, decisive action that we're  not using to get us those things? Oh, wait. And   of course there's no answer. There's no answer.  Half our THAD batteries and patriots have been   expended in seven weeks. Kind of gave it our best  shot. What would you do if you were the president?   Attack Car Island and that's going to do what? I  mean there are no options is the truth. But no one   advocating for this will admit that because if  they admit that then they have to concede that   the real goal has nothing to do with what the  president of the United States articulated in   public in February or March. No, the real goal  is the Israeli goal. And the Israeli goal is   not regime change or end of the nuclear program.  The Israeli goal is chaos, is dysfunction, is an   open superating wound that lasts for generations.  The real goal is Syria or Libya or Iraq. Somalia,   the real goal is destruction for its own sake.  Any potential rival to your power is so consumed   with a tribal ethnic conflict in his own country  that he has no ability to resist your territorial  

expansion. He has no ability even to to notice  you exist because he's busy trying to stay alive   in the middle of a generational civil war. That's  what they wanted in Iran, which is a country of   almost a 100 million people. So what would be the  natural obvious well doumented effects of this?   Well, migrant crises in Europe, further destroy  Europe. Well, that's always been an Israeli goal.   Destroy Europe. Still mad about Rome in 70 AD or  something. Who knows what? But that's the actual   goal. But none of the advocates for this war,  staying the course, exerting American power. No   one in this country will admit it. And so instead,  they hypnotize Trump voters with, "We have to be   strong. We can't appease the Iranians. Okay,  what's your plan? No one ever asked that." And   if asked, let's say someone actually snuck onto  a Fox News set and said, "Okay, tough guy. How   would you do it? What would the next 30 days look  like? At what cost? What do you think is likely to   happen? You're the same person who told us that  killing the Ayatollah, murdering an 80some year   old religious leader was going to collapse the  regime. It didn't work. So, what do you think   will work? They have no idea because their real  goal is so ugly that they can't say it out loud.   So they were upset, really upset when the news of  this first broke, even before it was confirmed.  

But Trump, Trump made it much worse. Again,  this is the last group of Americans who reliably   support Trump, neocons. He did what they wanted.  They've been talking about this war, as Netanyahu   himself said, for 30 odd years. And Trump is the  first American president who actually did it. He   fell for it. They lured him into the trap and he  just jumped. Hope for the best. It's going to be   okay. I promise. Okay. Now, so he did. And Trump  understands how shafted he got. He understands   just how fooled he was. And he's clearly bitter  about it. and he understands further that in   order to get out of this he needs to make this  deal bad as it may be because there's no option   and he knows that the only force that can prevent  this deal from actually happening it's not the US   Congress it's the government of Israel they will  try to queer the deal as they have so many times   they'll try to blow it up and so Trump knows  that he has to diminish Benjamin Netanyahu and   not just Netanyahu but the state of Israel's moral  legitimacy in the United States in order to keep   And so amazingly, he's done that. Someone who  knows Trump very well once said to me 15 years   ago, long before he became president, said, "In  the end, Trump disappoints everyone." Everyone who   loves Trump is in the end disappointed. From  his ex-wives to his former political allies,   you name it. They're all disappointed. It  looks like it's Benjamin Netanyahu's turn  

to be disappointed. Here's Donald Trump today at  the G7 in Europe describing Israel's behavior.   And you'll see that when you see the agreement,  but it's appropriate that we release the agreement   and we did send a copy to Israel. By the  way, they've been a good partner. Again,   I think they could do better with respect  to Hezbollah. I'm not saying they shouldn't   protect themselves. I'm saying when two drones  are shot into the desert and dropped harmlessly,   you don't have to knock down buildings in  Beirut. They could behave better. And frankly,   they could do a better job. Uh I I love them  as a partner. They were terrific. But they   could do a much better job with Hezbollah. Wow.  Consider that for a moment. And he said a lot   of things like that in the last 24 hours. But  just in that statement, he said, "By the way,   we sent Israel a copy of the agreement." Oh,  you sent them a copy, did you? You BCCed them.   Didn't consult Israel. They're a participant.  They're our partner in this war. This is a joint   war we are waging with the government of Israel  somehow. First time in American history that's   ever happened. Not a good idea, by the way. Note  to self, don't do that again. But as of right now,   we were waging a war with Israel and we just  reached the outline of a peace agreement   with the country we are fighting with Israel  without consulting Israel. We sent them a copy,   [ __ ] That's exactly what that means. Adults are  talking. That's exactly what Trump is saying to  

Israel. Then he goes on to say, "Yeah, I mean,  I I think what they're doing in I understand you   got to defend yourself and everything, but  like it's brutal what they're doing. It's   brutal what they're doing in Beirut, in Lebanon,  blowing up apartment buildings." At one point,   not in that clip, but in another from yesterday,  he said, "You know, I just think it's it's just   too much. It's just too much. I think going  forward, we may leave the fight against Hezbollah   to, I don't know, Gelani who runs Syria. He's a  good guy. Let him handle it. He'll do it in a more   measured way. Now, Galani, of course, is a former  al-Qaeda leader, is running Syria, brilliant, and   thanks to Israeli pressure because Assad, who is  literally a practicing medical physician educated   in Britain, he's just too radical, meaning too  anti-Israel. So, we have to have the former   al-Qaeda leader, Al-Qaeda, which they told us did  9/11. I don't know if you remember that. Remember   those 19 Arabs with box cutters who killed  3,000 Americans? That was the story. Anyway,   one of those guys is now our ally in Syria. And  by the way, that guy, the former al-Qaeda leader,   he's just a more reasonable person. He's just more  humane than Benjamin Netanyahu. I mean, I like   them all. They're all good guys, but really, if  you're looking for humane treatment of civilians,   you got to go to the al-Qaeda guy, not the Israeli  prime minister. That's what the That's what the   president said. It's unbelievable. If I said that,  which I I don't know if I would say that. Is that  

true? I don't even know. I have maybe less faith  in former al-Qaeda leaders than the president   does, but if I said that, it' be anti-semitism.  What are you saying? Well, Trump is saying that   the Israelis are such inhumane savages who do  not consider non-Israeli life fully human. That's   true, by the way, obviously, that we're going  to trust the al-Qaeda guy over them. So again,   watching all this stuff for the last couple of  days and your instinct of course is always to   enjoy the hysteria and the suffering of neocons  considering how much suffering they've imposed on   the rest of us for the past 25 years. I mean, it's  almost incalculable. No group has done more damage   to the United States. No group has come close to  doing the amount of damage to the United States   the neocons have done over 25 years. So when you  see them go totally bonkers and start rending   their garments on Twitter, you're like, I kind of  enjoying this. On the other hand, you just got to   be honest and say, I get it. You went into this  thinking this would be the war that allowed Israel   to fully take over and control the Middle East.  They would have no more real imminent threats.   And yet, in one of those ironies that define life,  the war ended up radically diminishing Israel,   radically strengthening Iran, which you  consider the existential threat to Israel,   which is absurd, but they think that. They've  talked themselves into believing that,   some of them, and you lost the only president you  had full control over. Trump went from being a  

slave to Israel to comparing Benjamin Netanyahu  disfavorably to al-Qaeda. Man, what a ride. So,   we could pick a thousand different responses and  enjoy every one of them. But in the interest of   restraint and decency, we're only going to play  one and it's from Ben Shapiro. Here's Ben Shapiro.   So Trump, while characterizing the Iranians as  very reasonable, says that Israeli Prime Minister   Benjamin Netanyahu is a very difficult guy. Okay,  I'm just going to be clear. One of these countries   has been flying sorties next to the United States  and putting the lives of his own soldiers at risk   next to the United States. One of these countries  has been trying to kill American soldiers. So   probably we should, you know, be a little bit  more measured in our critiques of our allies.   The one thing I will say with regard to  the president and the vice president and   the signals they are sending, if you keep sending  the signal to a terror backing regime that chants   death to America that you want to deal with them  so badly that you're going to tell our allies in   the region to stand down, you are giving them  an enormous amount of forward momentum and that   is a huge mistake that should not be done and I  hope that the president does not do that. Again,   that signing ceremony in Switzerland  should be cancelled. It should not happen.   All right. Now, well, I mean, there's so many  things to say, but we'll just keep this uh limited   just because it's just too easy. But you'll notice  big picture that there is no distress at the truly  

harmful effect to the United States of this war,  to the American economy, to our ability to project   legitimate power, assuming there are times when  you do need to project legitimate power around   the world, in the Middle East, specifically the  deaths of well, we don't know the real number.   The number is 13 according to Grock of Americans  in this war. Is that the real number? No, it's   not the real number actually. What is the real  number? We don't know. We will at some point know,   but Americans have died for Israel in this war.  No concern about that at all. The concern is that   Trump isn't being appropriately respectable to to  a foreign head of state. He's not showing enough   respect or difference to a guy who runs a tiny  country of 9 million people in a partate state   with no natural resources at all from which we  der derive nothing. It's only an expense. Israel's   side of the ledger is just bright red. We're not  getting anything out of this at all. And Trump   is treating him like the junior partner he is in  negotiating with a real country, Iran. And that's   just that's that's what just sends this guy into  orbit. But you'll notice that's not enough to just   say like, "How dare you criticize Netanyahu. How  dare you?" Because his real interest, of course,   is not the United States. It's in Israel.  Obviously, it's not a slur or slander or blood   liel. It's just like demonstrable from watching  the guy. Come on now. Stop lying. That's all you   care about. Fine, but let's not lie about it. But  it's not enough just to make that case. You also  

have to get self-righteous. And oh, they're  risking their lives for for what? The second   this war started, they used it as a pretext to  steal land in a neighboring country, Lebanon.   They used our money and our military and the lives  of our service members to steal more land. Okay,   that literally happened. It's happening now. And  guess who paid for it? We did. Has Israel and the   United States spent more money defending Israel  in the last 100 days? Oh, that's an easy one. We   have. We're paying for their self-defense. We pay  almost half of their entire military budget one   way or the other. So, don't lecture me about how  we owe you something. Are you kidding? And then   to the question of whether or not Israel's  our ally. In what sense? If Americans die,   if the nation gets poor, if pressing problems  in the United States are ignored in favor of   theoretical problems, ideological problems, or  Israel's problems thousands of miles away, if your   average senator is more concerned about Islamic  jihad than homelessness or housing prices in   America, and that is true, how are they an ally?  If the Israeli intelligence service had foreign   knowledge of 9/11, which they did, according to  the American FBI, how is that an ally? You know,  

it's coming and you don't tell us. That's what the  FBI said. That's not an anti-semitic conspiracy   theory. That's a provable fact because there  are photographs from September 10th of MSAD   operatives mocking the burning of the World Trade  Centers. And you can look them up if you want. And   Fox News at one point right after 911 ran that  package. Wouldn't do that now. The point is not   to attack Israel. The point is to attack the idea  that this is an ally. There's nothing allied about   that. That's an opponent, a rival, a resentful,  dependent nation. And of course, that shouldn't   surprise anybody. Dependency breeds resentment.  People who take welfare hate the government.   Adults who take money from their parents resent  their parents. It's like dependency always causes   resentment and they resent us. I get it. That's  our fault, not theirs, by the way. But the point   is it's all ending. Many times today I got texts  from people including in the government saying,   you know, I hope this works, but there's no way  honestly that we can stay at peace as long as we   maintain this relationship with Israel. when there  are no signs despite Trump's theatrics about not   liking BB. By the way, nobody likes BB, including  Mrs. BB. So that's not like a unique position,   right? He's insufferable and everyone knows  that. So a bunch of people texted to say,   you know, it's nothing's going to change.  Just like after the 12-day war last June,  

we took out their nuclear sites and we're done.  But of course, everybody who follows this knows,   knew then this is just preparatory to a regime  change effort, which it was, right? took till   February, but it happened. And so cynical people  in Washington are convinced that this cycle will   continue. But it won't. It may not end soon, but  it will end for two reasons. First, in one word,   Gaza. What's happening in Gaza, what Israel  has done in Gaza, which is ethnic cleansing,   which is murdering people and moving them  out because you don't want them there. and   by people people on the basis of bloodline, not  even on the basis of religion. This is happening   to Christians and Muslims, but they're Arabs.  They're Palestinians. And they're being moved out   of Gaza and the West Bank and southern Lebanon  because Israel wants the land that is ethnic   cleansing. It's genocide. It's the definition  of genocide. It has happened before. That is   happening now. It's happening with US tax dollars  in the Middle East and Israel is doing it. Now,   that fact was until recently very controversial  in the United States. You couldn't say that you   are somehow the criminal. The people committing  murder were fine. The people complaining about   it were the criminals. That's been kind of the  status quo for a long, long time. It's fine for   you to commit genocide. It is totally evil for me  to say something about it. But that's nonsensical.   It's actually totally unnatural. It's crazy,  really. And so that can't continue. And now all  

of a sudden it's not going to continue because too  many people know what's happening. Now they don't   know details because they can't because there's  almost no access access at all to Gaza. Over 100   journalists have been murdered in Gaza by Israel  in an effort to keep secret what they have done to   the civilian population. And we have no even good  guess as to the death toll which is clearly over   100,000 Palestinians. Women and children being the  majority of those deaths apparently but we don't   know because Israel won't allow any independent  assessment of what has happened there. But images   including satellite images make it really really  clear that Israel used the pretext of October 7th   to just destroy Gaza. Over 2 million people  live there. How many people live there now?   Like at some point we're going to know exactly  what Israel did. And it will be very obvious,   in fact impossible to deny that what they  did was genocide. And genocide is wrong,   no matter who commits it. Whether it's the  Nazis, whether it's the Rwans, whether it's the   Turks against the Armenians, it doesn't matter.  Killing entire populations because you don't want   them there. Killing their children because you  don't want them to grow up into your opponents,   that's always wrong. It doesn't matter. There is  no special carve out for that kind of behavior.   Ethnic cleansing is never allowed. Period. Because  it violates a universal standard that applies even   to Israel. Now, that's not something that  Americans have heard except maybe on like   the cookie left. They've been mad about it for  a long time. But now, normal people are like,  

"Yeah, well, why is that wrong?" And the response  has been unvarying. Shut up, bigot Nazi. No. It's   like, I'm not the one who killed all those  kids. You did. and you're making excuses for   it. That is a daing realization on the world,  including the United States. And no amount of   buying social media platforms or CBS News or CNN,  it's too late. People know. And at some point,   they're going to know a lot more. And when they  do know a lot more, the people who did it and   made excuses for it will be punished because  justice does exist cuz it's organic. It's part   of nature. We don't create these standards of  behavior. were born knowing them because they're   part of the natural order. God created those  standards. And no amount of pretending that he   didn't or pretending that certain people don't  have to observe those standards because they've   got a special deal. No amount of that kind of  silly lying changes the fact that when you kill   innocents, you are punished for it. Certainly  in the next life, but usually in this life,   too. And they will be punished for it. Everybody  who participated in this and everybody who made   excuses for it or pretended it wasn't happening or  attacked people who noted the truth about what was   happening. All of those people will be reviled and  in some cases they'll be formally punished. Not   celebrating that, just noting that that's a fact.  And you can tell when you listen to them talk,   screech, when they get hysterical, you  know they know it, too. They know it, too.  

There will be no Holocaust museum in the world  that doesn't note what happened in Gaza because   it's too absurd. Genocide's okay in one place but  bad in another. No one believes that. And so that   will make it absolutely impossible for the US  Congress, no matter how much money they take from   various lobbies, to continue to uncritically  and without any strings attached at all,   which is the status quo, send money, billions,  billions and billions of American tax dollars   to Israel. That just that just can't continue.  And the second thing that has dawned on people,   including people who sort of paid attention like  me, we didn't really know until recently was the   people advocating for the state of Israel  are both dishonest and in some cases like   completely crazy. And not not saying that in  a pjorative way. I mean, it sounds like that,   but but literally disconnected from reality. And  not everyone who disagrees with me or you or is   crazy. I mean, they're legitimate disagreements.  We just see things differently. We have different   interests. That's okay. But there is a kind of  style of argument that's instantly recognizable   as nuts because it has no reference point at all  in reality. It's all made up. And what it lacks in   veracity, in verifiable truth, like here's why I  think this is true. Let me show you. It makes up   for in vehements. And so crazy people, in case you  haven't dealt with them before, religious nuts,  

keep repeating assertions that don't make any  sense with increasing vehements as if saying   it again and again and again will somehow make  it true. It is like a spell in that way. And   you don't want to pick on him because he's got  enough problems. But Ambassador Mike Huckabe,   the US ambassador to Israel, has been a non-stop  generator of examples of this nice man. But   something's gone really wrong, and now everybody  knows it. So, here's Mike Huckabe's latest defense   of Israel, which is in fact an indictment of  Israel and of himself. Watch this. This is just   another reminder that it is your heritage without  a doubt. But minister, it is also the heritage   of the United States. Without Israel, without the  Jewish Foundation, there would not be an America.   We owe our very existence to what happened to this  lane. Without Israel, there would be no America.   So, you almost want to just say, "Hold on for a  second, ambassador. What are you talking about?"   I mean, just not to be autistic or literal about  it, but Israel was founded in 1948. America well   now famously 250 years ago next month. So like  that doesn't the timeline doesn't seem to add   up there. Obviously you don't mean it literally.  You mean it like conceptually or ideologically   or theologically. But like tell me how that  works. Well I tried a version of that with   him. Like just explain what you're talking about.  And the answer when you pressed was shut up Nazi.

That's not an answer, of course. And it doesn't in  the end stain the person who at whom it's aimed.   It stains the person who throws it, who says  something like that. It diminishes the accuser,   not the accused. And it's not just Mike Huckabe,  of course. It's almost every defender of the   indefensible, which would be the behavior of  the state of Israel. over the past 2 years,   almost every single one of them has gotten to  that place where rather than answer the question   in a rational way, even if you disagree, but like  here's my case, if you press them on the details,   whether it's pick one, Tom Cotton or Ted Cruz or  any of them, Mark Levin, the answer pretty quickly   is shut up Nazi. And we know from the short but  awful reign of terror by 50-year-old liberal white   ladies a couple of years ago during BLM, you know,  these things burn bright but then burn out because   there's nothing underneath them. You can scream  racist at someone and it works for the first 6   months or a year, but it doesn't work for 10 years  because that's not an answer. In this latest round   of identity politics and liberal divorced lady  politics has gotten us into the single least   helpful war and maybe most momentously bad war  the United States has ever been involved in ever.  

That's where it got us and everybody knows  it. So while I understand the concern that   this horrible cycle which has been going on for  decades now where the United States gets abused   by its proxy state Israel and then continues to  pretend it didn't happen. No. No. They didn't   attack the US Liberty on purpose or whatever. They  had nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination.   We just redacted all mentions of Israel from the  Kennedy files just cuz. Okay. now where we pretend   it didn't happen and then attack anybody who asks  about it. That's over because too much has become   public. And you know that you know that they know  that. The defenders of the Netanyahu government   know that because they've doubled down on their  truly counterproductive and morally disgusting   effort to conflate the government of Israel with  global jewelry. Attack Israel. attack Netanyahu,   you hate all Jews. It's totally irrational  and wrong. And it does nothing but inspire the   anti-semitism they claim to hate. Maybe they're  trying to inspire it. Who knows what their motive   is? It's having the opposite of the supposedly  intended effect. But, you know, they're losing   control because rather than train their fire on  long-term sincere critics of Israel, they have   started, as all religious fanatics do. In the end,  they had have started reserving their harshest  

criticism for apostates, for people who are on  their side or sort of on their side, have always   kind of been on their side, but who may differ on  one minor detail. I believe in the resurrection,   but this transubstantiation thing, that's tough  for me. That's the guy we burn. And they're doing   it because they are religious nuts. Not because  they believe in Torah, Judaism. They clearly   don't. but because the crazed irrational religious  impulse has run away with them. By the way,   the irony of them calling the Iranians theocratic  fascists is not lost on the world. When Mark   Levvin calls you an extremist, it doesn't hurt. A  lot of people hesitate before getting traditional   therapies for cholesterol health. They don't  want to wind up stuck on capsules for the rest of   their lives. pills. They'd rather feel like they  have some say in how they take care of their own   bodies. And that's why more Americans are turning  to more gentle alternatives with ingredients they   recognize, ingredients like ginger, and  pomegranate. One of those alternatives is   a dose for cholesterol. Dose for cholesterol is a  clinically backed cholesterol support that targets   triglycerides, LDL, HDL, and total cholesterol  levels. We know a bunch of people use it and   the results have been overwhelming. And they no  longer fear having blood work done because at last   the results are good and they're not on some kind  of weird chemical cocktail. It actually works. We   wouldn't partner with them if it didn't work. Dose  is easy to use. It's a daily 2oz liquid shot that   tastes like mango. Ooh. No capsules, no powders.  It's seamless to use. Visit dosedaily.co/tucker.

Use code tucker for 35% off. That's  dosedaily.co/tucker. code Tucker for   35% off. It's worth it. But we thought it'd be  interesting to talk to one of these apostates.   It's Pierce Morgan who's been in the television  business, newspaper business, media for 40 years.   And for almost all of that time, in fact, probably  even now, was like a pretty reliable supporter of   Israel. He's not against Israel. I've always had  the same view like, yeah, I don't I don't think   we should be paying for this. But of course,  they have a right to defend themselves. The   right to self-defense is an inherent human right.  It cannot be taken away, and it applies to states   as much as it does individuals. So, of course,  they have a right to defend themselves. No one   wants to destroy Israel. He doesn't. I don't.  But like, this is too much. Like, genocide. I   don't think so. I'm out. That's all he said. And  now they are painting Piers Morgan, specifically   Mark Levin of Fox News is calling the guy a Nazi.  A Nazi. So, we thought it'd be amusing to talk to   Piers Morgan about what's that like? What's  it like to spend your entire life supporting   Israel in the way that kind of all center left,  center right, you know, sort of professional class   people have always supported Israel. Maybe  not passionately, but just sort of by wrote,   of course, I support Israel. H tiny heroic little  country surrounded by enemies, you know, love   the kabutsas or whatever. What's it like for that  guy to be called a Nazi by a Fox News anchor? So,   we asked him. Here's Pierce Morgan. Pierce Morgan,  thank you for doing this. I've known you for so  

long and I always have thought of you correctly.  I think as a very reasonable man, as pro-Israel,   in fact, as a basically a Zionist, a defender  of Israel, and then I wake up and I read from   Mark Levvin that you're literally a Nazi. You're  a member of something called the woke Reich. And   I wonder where you went wrong. What happened? Are  you taking Well, it was it was also news to me,   Tucker, I have to say. No, it's not not often you  wake up and discover you are actually a member of   Adolf Hitler's Nazi party, but that appears  to be what Mark Lavine thinks I am. Um, yeah,   I mean, the guy I don't really know Mark  Lavine, you know him better than I do. Um,   I've watched his work. He seems to resort to ad  hominemum attacks on anyone that dares stand up   to this particular Israeli government, which I  think is an interesting strategy because most   people I talk to of any political persuasion  right now are pretty critical of this Israeli   government. And in the same way that Ben Shapiro  and others have, I think, really caused themselves   enormous reputational damage over this Iran  war in particular, uh, it it comes down to   their refusal to countenance any criticism of  Benjamin Netanyahu, even when he's doing things   which most people think are completely wrong. And  I don't understand why they think that's a winning   strategy. It seems from the uh dwindling viewers  that both of them have that viewers don't like it.   Uh I'm not quite sure who they're doing this for  other than their own egos. But it's embarrassing.  

It's ridiculous. And obviously I'm not a member  of the Nazi party and never have been. Um and I   don't equate criticizing this very hardline  Israeli government with in my view complete   psychopaths like Bengavir and Smodri. uh saying  and doing things which are utterly repellent. Uh   I you know I just think the idea that criticism  of that kind of thing meaning that you become a   member of the woke Reich is patently ridiculous.  Well, it's also weird considering that the people   being targeted and honestly I would include myself  in this are the more moderate people. Certainly,   you have been I just want to say it again,  a consistent and pretty loyal defender of   Israel ever since I you know I noticed your  your public career. Megan Kelly, same thing.   Why attack those people? Why not make some effort  to say to people like you or Megan Kelly, look,   I know you like Israel. You always have. There  are some lunatics in the current government. We   can reform this. Why the zero tolerance policy  for any criticism? It seems counterproductive.   Well, it's not just counterproductive. It's  it's actually deeply offensive. Um because as   you rightly say, I have always supported Israel's  right to to exist as a basic right. I've always   supported their right after October the 7th to  defend themselves. I thought they had a moral uh   public duty to their people to defend themselves  after that appalling terrorist attack. But I also   questioned quite early on uh whether their  response was proportionate. And I continue to  

question the proportionality of Israel's response  to all the threats that they face. And I don't,   you know, I don't I don't say for a moment that  Israel is has not been threatened and doesn't   remain threatened by a variety of terrorist groups  from Hezbollah to the Houthis to Hamas and the   tentacles of Iran spread long to all those groups.  I I don't I don't for any moment want to suggest   that isn't happening or it's not a real thing.  But how a country like Israel, which is, you know,   pretty much the superpower of the region,  which has an extraordinarily powerful military,   um, you know, it's got itself into a really  difficult place on this where it is becoming   increasingly a global prior. And that's not your  fault or my fault or Megan Kelly's fault. Um but   increasingly I think it is a situation exacerbated  by the li likes of Ben Shapiro and Mark Levvin   because they conflate legitimate criticism of the  actions of a government with in many cases they   spray gun people with the charge of anti-semitism  or as we see now well you must be part of the   woke Reich which of course would be ridiculously  ironic if that was the case given what they think   I'm about. Um, so the whole thing to me seems  uh completely absurd, dangerous, I think, for   Israel and its reputation, dangerous for Jewish  people around the world, many of whom have said   to me they completely agree with my criticisms  of this Israeli government. The conflation of  

criticism of any government with the people or  the country, I think, is always absurd. I mean,   in 2003, I led the Daily Mirror newspaper in the  UK, one of the biggest selling daily newspapers,   in a relentless and very, very full-on campaign to  prevent or try to prevent Tony Blair going to war   in Iraq over what turned out to be misinformation  about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass   destruction. And the point about that was that the  Daily Mirror was the labor supporting newspaper.   We had been full square behind Tony Blair. We've  been very supportive of Tony Blair. But on that   decision to go to war in 2003 and my own brother  was fighting in the British army at the time and   was sent to Bazra to fight on behalf of my  country. So I think I had a right to have   a view about this and my view was that we had not  proven the case against Saddam Hussein and I stood   up with the paper and a day after day opposed it.  Now, does any of that visceral criticism of Tony   Blair's decision and that of his government mean  that I hated the people of my country? No. Did it   mean I hate my country? No. The opposite. In fact,  I was doing this because I wanted to be supportive   of my country, supportive of my country's  people, my fellow countrymen, by stopping   something happening that I felt was detrimental to  the interests of both my country and its people.   And I feel the same way about this decision to  go to war in Iran. I think that Benjamin Neta,  

it's pretty clear now, uh, spent a lot of time  trying to persuade Donald Trump that America   should join Israel in attacking Iran. And he  presented to him, we know this from a big New   York Times deep dive on this. He presented to  him a sequence of events that would happen if   they decapitated the leadership. If they killed  the Ayatollah and they had information that would   allow them to be able to do that and many of his  top people, then the argument that Netanyahu and   the head of Moss presented in the White House  situation room to Donald Trump face to face,   the Moss guy came in remotely, but Netanyahu  was sitting there, was that if they did this,   then what would happen is the regime and the IRGC  would collapse from within. the Iranian people   would rise up in rebellion and finally overthrow  this regime after nearly five decades and that   they would all be too distracted to concern  themselves with the straight of Hormuse. Well, the   only thing that happened after all that because  Donald Trump, I think, bought into this and   thought this was achievable and maybe there was a  bit of hubris after what happened in Venezuela and   other successful missions. Maybe the 12-day war  last year and the fact Iran didn't really respond   or retaliate gave Trump a full sense of security  about what may happen if he did this, but he went   along with it. I think that he believed what  Netanyahu told him. Ultimately though, Trump   is the president of the United States. Decisions  he takes on behalf of America are on him and I   don't think he should be, you know, no one should  be under any illusion about that part of this. But  

I do think Netanyahu persuaded him this is what  would happen. And none of that has happened. And   now we have a deal which most people, including  many people on the conservative right in America,   think is a terrible deal that is no better,  potentially worse than the deal that Obama got,   which of course Donald Trump and many others trash  mercilessly at the time and have done ever since.   Uh, and what was it all for? The regime remains  intact. The Ayatollah was killed, but his younger   son, obviously younger son, but his son has  replaced him and is much more hardline and   radical from reports I've seen. The IRGC remains  in a complete vicelike grip of the country. Uh so   much so that there've been no rebellions by the  Iranian people whatsoever. And I think they've   been badly let down in this whole process. And of  course, there's been this asymmetric war that's   been waged by the Iranian regime where they they  worked out that if they controlled the flow of   uh 20% of the world's energy uh gas and oil and  fertilizer and other things through the straight   of Hormuz, if they turned that tap off, they could  cause enormous economic damage to the whole world.   And if they did it simultaneously with firing  off missiles and rockets at their neighboring   Gulf states, thereby causing those state enormous  damage in terms of economic damage in stopping   tourists going there and so on, which is very  much their next business model. As you know,   you and I had interviews together in Riyad and  we know this is the way they want to take things   away from reliance on oil to tourism and sport  and entertainment and so on, opening things up  

that way. But it relies of course on safety  and the Iranians knew that. So there's been   two wars going on. You know, I don't dispute  for a moment that the Americans and Israelis   have damaged Iran's military capability in the  short term. But if this report is true, Tucker,   about this 14point deal that's being proposed,  which apparently the Americans have signed up to,   if the Iranians get $300 billion out of all this,  not notwithstanding, wherever it comes from,   if they get that amount of money, well, what are  they going to do with it? They're obviously just   going to replace all the military hardware that's  been destroyed. And I suspect they will continue   to try and develop the nuclear weapons which was  this was all supposed to stop. So I'm not I'm not   sure whether there's any kind of victory here. In  fact, I think quite the opposite. And I think if   Donald Trump was honest with himself, if you take  him back to the day before he launched this attack   with the Israelis, I think now knowing everything  that's happened, he wouldn't do it. Cost of living   is already making it hard to live here and  it's not getting any better. Unfortunately,   it's likely to get worse and a lot of Americans  fill the gap with credit cards, not just for fancy   dinners, but to cover things like groceries and  bills. That is a disaster. It's understandable,   but don't go down that road because there is a tax  in effect a survival tax of 20% interest or more.   Why would you do that? Why would you hand money  to the big banks when you could keep it for your   family? Our friends at American Financing have a  better way. If you're looking to buy your first   home or refinance your current one, they're  helping Americans achieve the dream of home  

ownership with monthly mortgage rates currently in  the fives. American Financing saves its customers   an average of 800 bucks per month. That's nearly  10 grand every year back to you. This isn't just   a loan. It's a total financial reset. So, debt  is tough, but there's a smart way to do it and   a reckless, self-destructive way to do it.  credit cards. And so we recommend American   Financing. They're salary based, not commission  based, which means they actually work for you,   not the banks. They're called America's Home  for Home Loans for a reason. Call 8006855696. 800685-5696 or visit americanfinancing.net/tucker. Well, a lot  of organizations talk about supporting veterans,   but not all of them actually do it. Not even  close. And that's why we only partner with   companies we know are telling the truth and  really working earnestly to make a difference.   Black Rifle Coffee is one of them. We've been  partners with them for years. We know them.   Black Rifle supports good-hearted American  philanthropies like Boot Campaign. For years,   Boot Campaign has provided individualized care  for veterans and military families dealing   with the wounds of foreign wars, PTSD,  chronic pain, traumatic brain injuries.   When you get your coffee from Black Rifle, which  we do cuz it's delicious, you help keep missions   like Boot Campaigns alive. Caring for American  Heroes does not stop when they leave the military.   That's why companies like Black Rifle and groups  like Boot Campaign are vital. To help today,   visit boot campaign.org. boot campaign.org.  It seems like the biggest loser, and I hate to  

agree with Mark Levvin on this, but is Israel.  I mean, I Israel did not defend itself during   this war. The United States spent many billions  defending Israel, much more than Israel spent   defending itself. And Israel used this war, which  it inspired to start another war in Lebanon. So,   it behaved disgracefully. Everyone in the United  States saw that the US is its last remaining   supporter, meaningful supporter on the globe.  And that's clearly going away. Trump, who was,   you know, Netanyahu's closest partner in the  world, who called for his pardon repeatedly,   defended him against corruption charges  ridiculously but vigorously. He's attacking   Netanyahu. So, Israel and and I just want  to ask you since you live in a world where,   you know, of a lot of sort of center right, center  left, but Israel supporting people in the media,   do you feel a change in what people are saying  out loud about Israel? It feels like they brought   massive support. 100%. And I think Netanyahu's  become massively damaging to Israel and to the   country's reputation around the world. I mean, the  statistics in all the polls speak for themselves.   You know, I've never seen polls quite like I'm  seeing now about the uh view of Israel amongst   Americans. You know, near twothirds of Americans  now have a negative opinion of Israel. It's never   been like that in our lifetime, ever. Um there's  always been the opposite. There's always been a   majority support for Israel. This is the real  time damage that I believe Netanyahu fueled by  

ministers like Bengus Modri have been causing and  you know Netanyahu I'm afraid I'm very cynical   about his motivations for all this wararmongering  he knows that the wararmongering is popular   internally in Israel far makes him far more  popular than anything else does in fact the rest   of it makes him unpopular so this is a politician  a canny politician you know he's very skilled at   But he's facing his own political future and his  own liberty is at stake because he's obviously   at the moment able to use all the wararmongering  as an excuse as he has been to keep delaying this   criminal prosecution against him which if he's  found guilty of the charges he'll go to prison.   So this is a guy fighting for his political  future. And this is a career politician who   loves and craves power. And he's fighting for  his actual liberty. And both of these things   seem to me to be predicated on him continuing  to attack other countries, whether it's Iran,   whether it's uh southern Lebanon, wherever it may  be. He is using this I think uh from a personally   in my I'm cynical about it. I think that there's  a personal upside for Netanyahu in continuing to   do these things. And I think in the case of  Bengavir and Smadridge, their agenda is even   more insidious. I think it's pretty crystal clear  now that what they want to do is kick all the   Palestinians out of Gaza, out of the West Bank and  take over both of those territories completely,  

bring them into Israel and do the same with  southern Lebanon. I think they're pretty they're   pretty unashamed about it. You know these are  people Tucker Ben on his 50th birthday several   weeks ago his wife gave him a cake with a noose  on it and that video was put out. He's somebody   that when detainees from a flirtatilla which was  behaving perfectly peacefully whatever people   think of it when a female detainee was pretty  well brutalized on camera. Bengavir posted it to   his own ex account proudly with him smirking and  encouraging it in the background and that was too   far even for Netanyahu who had to condemn him for  doing that. Um, so there's a lot going on here,   a lot of personal agendas, a lot of very big  picture agendas, but the combined impact of   all of this is that Israel is getting ever more  unpopular. And I I know from speaking to many   of my Jewish friends around the world, whether  it be London, New York, LA, or further a field,   they're all very concerned about this. So this  idea that Netanyahu represents what most Jewish   people think for example I think is for the birds.  I'm not aware of a single Nazi official who was   as openly bloodthirsty as Ben Gvere in including  Gerbles who was a nutcase in my opinion. And you   know they of course were all executed. The ones  who survived the war were executed at Nuremberg.   We don't actually have visibility into what's  happened in Gaza because they've murdered so many   journalists and no one's allowed in to see it.  But we know over 100,000 people have been killed,  

most of them non-combatants, tens of thousands of  women and children. Like when all of that comes   to light, which it will, I I don't see how we go  back to the kind of the status quo of even a year   ago where you normal people like me, including  me, would say, "No, I support Israel." Like,   how could anyone support once that comes out,  people are going to be punished for that? No,   I think that the some of these people in that  government are evil. I think Bengavir and Smodri   are evil people and you just judge them on what  comes out of their mouths and their actions and   you know it's an interesting irony in what you  just said because they've literally just brought   in a new law in the Knesset uh that was celebrated  by Benig because he drove it and is basically a   two-tier apartheid style uh new amendment to  the law where if they determine the Israeli   authorities that a Palestinian is a terrorist they  can execute them. But the same rule will not apply   if it's an Israeli. Uh even though you've seen  previously you've seen Israeli prime ministers   murdered by right-wing Israeli terrorists. So you  know that that killer uh who killed Rabine would   not be held to the same account as a Palestinian  they determine has committed an act of terrorism.   That is exactly the kind of two-tier legal system  and apartheid uh system which we saw ravaging   South Africa before Mandela was released from  prison and which I think is part of the ongoing   problem which is what happens in the Middle East.  Well, it all comes back to Palestine. It all comes  

back to the view that many people around the world  have that the Palestinians have been oppressed by   the Israelis. Um, and that they have been treated  as secondass, second tier citizens. When you bring   in a law that only applies to Palestinians, but  not Israelis as a government, you are telling   the world that not that you deny a two-tier  system, but you're actively encouraging it.   So those that have been criticizing Israel for the  what people many people view as an occupation of   Gaza, for example, they're now seeing in real time  new laws being brought in which prove the point   that the Israeli government treats Palestinians  in a different way, in a lower way, in a worse   way than they would treat their own Israelis.  Remarkable. I don't think there's any coming   back from this. I I would just end by asking, do  you have a message for Ben Shapiro and Mark Levvin   who've been engaging with you quite extensively  online? What would you say to them right now? I   I'd say you can have all the ad hominemum attacks  you like. I've been trading ad hominemum blows   with people for about 40 years. I used to do it  in my I used to do it Tucker in my local pub in   southern England and be regularly banned by the  land lady Mary for getting too geralous on a   Friday night and and arguing too vehemently and  getting too ad hominemum. Uh I'm more than broad   shouldered enough to deal with what comes out  of Shapiro's mouth or Lavine's mouth. I don't  

care and I'm quite happy to trade those kind of  blows and I find it quite enjoyable actually. Uh   which probably says a little about me. But uh but  the bottom line I would say to them is you're not   winning this, you're losing and you've put all  your cards on the belief that everybody else is   going to agree with you. That if anyone criticizes  the Israeli government, then they're Nazis or they   are anti-Semitic or they hate Jewish people. And  that has been one of the most insidious false   claims widely repeated by people that follow the  likes of Shapiro and Levvin. uh certainly since   October the 7th and the idea that you cannot stand  up to a government even if it's a government you   support it's your own government in many cases uh  the idea that you can't criticize that government   means you're not actually journalists these people  can't be journalists who look at these things with   an open mind and have intellectual honesty about  it you are just partisan activists and you're   propagandists for a government that is making  Israel increasingly globally unpopular. And so   my message to them, not that they want to hear it  or that they will listen to me, but my message to   them is I'd stop the ad hominemum attacks, stop  attacking people simply for doing their job as   journalists in rightly holding Netanyahu and his  government to proper account. And maybe you should   start doing that, too. You would be doing Israel  a favor. You'd be doing Israelis a favor. You'd  

be doing the world's 15 million Jewish people  a favor if you just got off this ridiculous   propaganda wall that you've been perched on for  all this time and actually started calling out   what the rest of us can see is increasingly  unconscionable action. Amen. Piers Morgan,   I hope they listen to you. I don't think they  will, but I hope so. They won't. They won't. But   I feel better for getting it out there, Tucker.  Amen. Great to see you. Thank you for doing this.   Pleasure. Nice to talk to you. And thanks for  joining us. We will see you next Wednesday.