Transcription
We've suffered a devastating defeat. We went into the war with four goals. We failed on all four counts. There is no escalation option here. There may not be an easy military option. Pulling back, that's no good.
But just to be clear, General Clark, you would go in harder and would that involve ground forces?
One word, scale. Scale. There are massive mountains. 11,000 Manhattan. That's the search problem. We have the scale problem.
What's made you so anti-Semitic?
What do you want then? What is your end goal with this?
I want you to admit you're just a brazen anti-Semite. You don't like Jewish people. You don't want to associate with Jewish people. Just admit it.
The chaos of unintended consequences is one of the biggest strategic problems with waging war. For all of the so-called war games and disaster planning, nobody can predict the future. Iran's proxy militia in Yemen is attacking Saudi Arabia's coastal oil facilities. It jeopardizes yet another alternative to the Humu Strait, and it drags in another country who didn't want war in the first place. This weekend, Ukraine launched a deadly attack on an Iranian vessel it says was trading weapons with Russia. Now, experts fear that Ukraine's European allies might be dragged in, too. They may want nothing to do with Trump Trump's Iran war, but they're lock step behind Ukraine in the war against Russia. You don't need to be a doomsayer to understand how this could spiral out of control.
Dangerous unintended consequences are one of the reasons why so many expert guests on this show have repeatedly called on Trump to declare victory and get the hell out of this. For a while, that is what he was doing. All of a sudden, the debate has pivoted. It's all about how and when the US should escalate and not if the war's public cheerleaders are making the case that US deaths may be worthwhile if the US escalates into operations like seizing Kar Island. No one in America wants American casualties. It's tragedy and a horror. We do understand that war does come along with casualties and we are willing to undergo those casualties in pursuit of an end and a victory for America. But as far as the idea that for example America, we can't hit Ka Island because the Iranian people would then be deprived of oil resources. The American people are, I should say, not particularly concerned about that. We are far more concerned with why we're there not winning.
Well, the American people are concerned about why the US is not winning, as well as the war's cost in lives and dollars. The question is whether any of the dramatic operations now being retailed will get them any closer to anything which could plausibly be called a victory. Why Trump has given up on giving up is unclear. The late Lindsey Graham had one precient explanation in newly released documentary footage about his pro-war crusade.
How long have we been pushing this?
I mean, you've been pushing this for years, right?
Right. It's here. I talked to Trump this morning.
It's literally
Well, he's Jack.
It's the best thing I've ever done. He loves he loves blowing stuff up.
Well, whether or not Trump loves blowing stuff up, it seems inevitable that he's about to start doing it again. And the whole world is again braced for the unintended consequences. In a moment, we'll have an all-star expert panel to make sense of what happens next. But joining me first with his assessment on Iran, Ukraine, and the Saudi nuclear deal is political scientist Professor John Mshimemer. Professor Msh, welcome back to Uncensored. Glad to be here. Pierce, where the hell are we? I I can't think of many people better qualified to at least try and explain where we've got to with this Iran war.
We've suffered a devastating defeat. Uh you want to remember we went into the war with four goals. One was regime change. Two was to eliminate Iran's ability to enrich uh uranium. Number three was to uh end uh support for the Houthis, Hezbollah, and Hamas. And number four was to put an end to the long range missile program. We failed on all four counts. Furthermore, on February 27th, uh the Iranians did not control the straight of Hormuz. They now control the Strait of Hormuz. Furthermore, our basing structure in the region has been destroyed. Our alliance structure in the region is in tatters and the international economy may go off a cliff at some point in the not tooistant future. This is a catastrophic defeat. There's no other way to cover it up. Now, people might say there is a military solution for fixing this problem. There is no military solution. We've tried every strategy in the book. a major air campaign, a blockade, and now this tit fortat strategy. All of them have failed, and nobody has an alternative strategy that will pull our chestnuts out of the fire.
I mean, that is my reading. Uh, what should President Trump do then?
Well, I think what President Trump should do is try to get an agreement, a new memorandum of understanding as soon as possible. But the problem is it's not in the Iranians interest to agree to new to a new memor memorandum of understanding anytime soon. They should drag this crisis out for a good month or so more because the more time goes on, the more coercive leverage they have. So I think Trump is going to have a devil of a time getting the Iranians to agree to a deal that's as good as the memorandum of understanding of June 17th. So, I think that he's in real trouble.
And you've got, of course, the Israeli position, which a bit like with Trump's midterm elections coming uh in the fall, you've got the same in Israel, Netanyahu will know that if it looks like he's failed with this war, that will probably lead to him being booted out of office. So, he has his own political imperative perhaps, you could argue, to keep this thing going. Conversely, Trump, you know, would probably face the opposite issue where if it's still raging this war in September, October and gas prices are still going through the roof and more American servicemen and women are being killed, uh, that this could be politically very toxic for him and end up costing him the whole of Congress.
Yeah, I think there's no question, Piers, as you say that, uh, Trump wants to put an end to this. He understands he doesn't have a winning strategy and as you point out from an Israeli point of view it makes sense to try to keep the war going. This is the war against Iran.
You also want to understand uh they're heading in different directions with regard to Lebanon uh southern Lebanon uh Syria and Gaza. Uh there have been reports on channel 13 in Israel uh that the Trump administration has asked the Israelis to leave Gaza, leave southern Lebanon and leave southern Syria. And of course this idea is anathema to Netanyahu and to most Israelis. So it appears to me uh that what you'll see is that the two sides are at loggerheads on two different sets of issues. It is a mess. And we've also got this added complexity of Ukraine launching a deadly attack on an Iranian vessel it says was trading weapons with Russia. This could potentially drag in Ukraine's European allies into a war they've so far resisted getting involved with in any offensive capability. What do you think is going to happen here? I think it's possible that the Iranians may strike at some target in Ukraine, but I think the Iranians do not have any interest in getting getting involved in a war against Ukraine. And I don't think Ukraine has an interest in getting involved in a war with Iran. Ukraine is up to its eyeballs and alligators fighting against the Russians. The last thing they need is a new front. So I think there may be some uh minor tit for tat uh but I don't think this is going to escalate in any meaningful way. I think the escalation that's really scary is what's happening with regard to the Yemenes or the Houthis and the Saudis. Uh and now it looks like Saudi oil is no longer going to come out of the Red Sea. and furthermore that the Houthis are actually destroying oil refineries inside of Sa Saudi Arabia. This is really potentially bad news. I mean, it could be absolutely catastrophic, couldn't it? I mean, and we haven't even got round to the potential apocalyptic uh element of this, which is if they start trading attacks on desalination plants, for example, the consequences for the people in these countries could be absolutely horrendous.
There's no question about that. You want to remember though that Iran hardly relies on desalination plants at all. uh they rely on desalination plants for somewhere between two to three% of their drinking water. It's the Gulf States that are heavily dependent on desalination. This is one of the reasons that President Trump has not gone after infrastructure, civilian infrastructure uh in uh Iran. His great fear is that if he starts going after power plants, he goes after bridges, oil facilities or desalination plants in Iran that the Iranians will retaliate in kind. And this will basically, and I'm not overstating the case here, it will destroy these countries in the Gulf because they can't survive uh without desalination plants. And this greatly limits our ability to escalate. I think there are also economic pressures on these Gulf states which are beginning to really bite particularly some of the smaller ones. I mean I've been hearing about Kuwait and Bahrain and these kind of states who don't have the kind of uh Middle East superpower uh economies of say Saudi Arabia who might be in real trouble the longer this goes on.
Well, the thing is if you look at the geography, peers, uh Bahrain and Kuwait can only get their oil out uh through the Gulf uh and through the straight of Hormuz. And given that the straight of Hormuz is closed to them, they're not getting any oil or gas out. Uh both the Saudis and the United Arab Emirates, the UAE, they're getting their oil out. Uh the Emirates have a base uh it's called Fujari that's on the Sea of Oman and they're able to get quite a bit of oil. I'd estimate somewhere on the order of 2 million barrels a day out of out of Fujari. And of course the Saudis up until very recently have been getting oil out through the Red Sea. So I would estimate that in total about 7 million barrels of UAE and Saudi oil have been getting out onto world oil markets, but hardly any Kuwaiti or Bahini oil has been getting out because it's all bottled up inside the Persian Gulf.
Summer is here and for once even we Brits have had nothing much to complain about. Very few things can spoil a long day at the beach or the park in the golden sun. Well, high on my list of threats to summer serenity, however, would be scratchy Spartan towels with no depth and the austere texture of Soviet sandpaper. That's why I'm very pleased that support for our show comes from Cozy Earth. They're well known for their luxurious bed sheets and lounge garments, but to my great relief, they also might make make some of the world's most comfortable towels. Now, for those of us who aspire to spa-like premium resort style luxury, they've got you covered. And if you're not going to the beach or the pool anytime soon, bring the five-star quality into your bathroom instead. They're oversized, ultra plush, and completely built for your best summer days. Head to cozyear.com and use my code peers, pie rs, for an exclusive 20% off. That's code peers for an exclusive 20% off. And if you get a post-purchase survey, tell them I sent you.
We also have this extraordinary situation where Donald Trump announced he was signing a deal with Saudi Arabia which would potentially allow the kingdom to enrich uranium in future and to avoid the fullest inspection rights of the international watchdog. Now you you have argued before that it's rational that Iran should acquire nuclear weapons for uh deterrent purposes. Would you use the same argument with Saudi Arabia given what's been happening?
Absolutely. From Saudi Arabia's point of view, it makes eminently good sense to have nuclear weapons. I think I've told you before that Ahood Barack, the former Israeli prime minister, said that the reason he believes that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons is because it makes so much sense. But the key peers, you always want to remember this is that what's good for Iran or Saudi Arabia is not necessarily good for the United States. And in this case, it is absolutely not in our interest, not in America's interest or Europe's interest for that matter to see either uh Saudi Arabia or Iran or Iran have nuclear weapons. So the fact that President Trump has allowed Saudi Arabia to have this significant nuclear enrichment capability is not good for the United States. But I think in this case Trump felt that he had no alternative that if he didn't provide uh the Saudis with some enrichment capability, they'd go on the nuclear market and they'd get that capability from another country. maybe China, maybe Russia, maybe Japan, uh or maybe Pakistan, who knows? But Trump, I think, concluded that they were going to get a nuclear enrichment capability and it would be better from our point of view, both economically and strategically, for us to be in control, and that we would be able to prevent uh any move by the Saudis to use that nuclear enrichment capability to get a bomb.
I mean, President Trump's made it clear the deal is contingent on the Saudis recognizing Israel and joining effectively the Abraham Accords. Can Saudi Arabia do that politically for its own reasons uh given what is going on in the Middle East right now?
No. And that's why the agreement that was signed last Wednesday made no mention of that and it wasn't part of the negotiating process because the Saudis would have never agreed to that. The Saudis have made it unequivocally clear that they will only agree to an Abraham accord with Israel if Israel gives the Palestinians uh a state of their own or makes significant movement in that direction. And if anything, the Israelis are going in the opposite direction. As you and I have discussed on this show before, uh Israeli behavior in uh Gaza is, in my opinion, a genocide. And what they're interested in doing is cleansing Gaza. So the idea that they're going to give the Palestinians a state of their own in Gaza or even in the West Bank. If you look at the pilgrims that the Israelis are conducting in the West Bank, uh that's even more evidence that the Palestinians are not going to get a state. And the Saudis say that as long as that is the case, there will be no Abraham accord. So I think that President Trump is whistling in the wind when he thinks that he's going to get the uh Saudis to agree now uh after signing the agreement last Wednesday to all of a sudden agree to an Abraham accord.
How does this all end? I mean, take me forward to the end of a year. Where do you think we'll be?
If I had to guess, I think we're going to get another memor memorandum of understanding. You know, a lot of people talk about a forever war. There really sort of two big options besides a peace agreement or a memorandum of understanding. One is escalation and the other is a forever war. We just go on with these tit fortat uh uh attacks against each other. Uh I don't think that you can have a forever war because I think the economic consequences rule that out. Uh, I think the longer this war goes on, uh, the closer we get to going off the cliff and ending up with a worldwide economic depression. So, this war has to be shut down. And one of the incentives to escalate is because people recognize you can't have a forever war and that this has to be shut down. So, they say, "Let's escalate." But, as you and I both know well, peers, there is no escalation option here. If there was an escalation option, we would do it, right? And in fact, if you look at the most significant military campaign that we've waged in this war, it was the 40-day strategic bombing campaign between February 28th and April 8th. And we ended it and we never started it up again because it was not a campaign, an air campaign that could produce victory. It was just not in the cards. So, we have no escalation option here. Some people talk about putting ground forces in. We don't have enough ground troops to invade an island, much less invade the country of Iran. And furthermore, if we invaded Iran, the Iranians would win that conflict. And furthermore, the American people have no interest in a ground war in Iran. So, we have no military option here. And what's going to happen? I believe I'm not 100% certain, but I believe that President Trump will sign another memorandum of understanding. And the terms from our point of view will be worse than the terms of the 17 June memorandum of understanding. But I think this war will come to an end by the end of the year.
Just finally, Professor Mir Shim, just talk about Ukraine briefly. We had an extraordinary spectacle at the weekend where Laura Loomer, the influencer who actually does have the ear of President Trump, flew to Ukraine, flew to Kev, sat down with President Zilinsky and apologized to him for all the abuse she'd held his way, calling him a Nazi and so on and saying America should do nothing to help Ukraine. Um, saying the complete opposite now. Um and doing so people think quite cynically because there is a belief that contrary to all perceived wisdom uh the Ukrainians are beginning to defy expectation and begin to get the upper hand in this war with Russia mainly through the the new types of warfare drones and so on that they've been deploying very skillfully. Um you've you know you've maintained from the start of this Russia will win that Ukraine will have to ultimately give up territory. They've refused to do that. Is your position modifying at all? Are you seeing here on the ground perhaps a possibility that Russia may not get the victory that you thought was inevitable?
No. On the contrary, I think the Russians are in the process of winning the war. First of all, if you look at what's happening on the battlefield, uh the Russians are moving forward slowly for sure, uh but moving forward steadily. Surely by the end of the year, they will control all of Donbass. Uh and there's all sorts of evidence given the huge manpower problems that the Ukrainians have. They have a significant desertion problem. They have a significant draft dodging problem. They have a much smaller population than Russia to begin with. They're suffering badly up on the front lines. The lines are beginning to buckle. These are the Ukrainian lines. But I think more importantly at the moment, if you look at the Russian bombing campaign against Odessa, they have basically cut off Odessa from Ukraine. Ukraine no longer has a port on the Black Sea. And this is having devastating consequences. And it certainly will have devastating consequences over the long term inside of Ukraine. Ukraine needs Odessa. Uh it needs it to sell its wheat and to import all sorts of goods and weaponry, but that's no longer possible. So I think that the Russians are in the driver's seat here. And all this talk in the west about how the Ukrainians have turned the tide is just a propaganda campaign. Uh much like the propaganda campaign that we hear visav the war in Iran. You remember all the rosy stories that were told about how we were winning in uh the war in Ukraine and how the Ukrainians are winning the war against Russia. These are just propaganda campaigns and they bear little reality to what's happening on the actual battlefields.
Professor Mir Shimemer, always great to have you on our sensor. Thank you very much.
You're more than welcome, Pierce.
Well, we have no military option. Professor Mir Shimmer just told me my panel may disagree or maybe they agree. Joining me now is retired general and former assistant secretary of state Mark Kemet, the professor of political science and military analyst Robert Pep, and former general and NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark. Well, welcome to all of you. Um, let me start with you, General Kim, if I may. Welcome back to Uncensored. Let's start with Iran and we'll come to Ukraine uh later on on Iran. I mean, I got to say I found myself nodding away to Professor Mimer there. I don't see a good option here for the United States, just a series of bad options. Do do you see a way that the United States wins this war?
Well, first of all, let me correct a couple of comments that he made that uh I would take issue with. Number one, it was never the US objective for regime change. That was categor categorically stated a number of times by President Trump. uh our basing structure in the Middle East is not in shambles nor are our regional alliances and for that matter the Houthis have not destroyed any Saudi oil infrastructure. Now uh just wanted to correct the record on his comments. Uh is there a way to win this? Well, look, I think the best way to do it is uh we f continue to focus on the straight of Hormuz, but if you look at the objectives that we did have for this war, uh slow down their nuclear program, uh help eliminate their missile program, uh go against their proxies. In many ways, we have achieved some level of success. The fact remains is there's a question about if there is any uh nuclear program left at all. Of course, it is in the minds of the nuclear scientists, but we've really set that nuclear program back considerably, the missiles and the uh proxies. Now, the fact remains we could declare victory at this point, but not go home. We could declare victory and focus exclusively on the straight of Hormuz. And I think if we get a good agreement out of the straight of hormuz uh President Trump may not have achieved strategic victory, but you can bet he will declare victory in that process.
Okay, General Clark, welcome to you back to Uncensored. I mean, the problem is what's in it for the Iranians to do a deal here. you know, against all uh the predictions particularly by the Israelis when they were in the White House with uh Donald Trump in the buildup to this war, nothing they predicted has happened. I mean, they said if you take out the Ayatollah and the top people around him, then the IRGC collapses from within. The people rise up, there's natural revolution, everyone's too distracted to worry about the straight of moose and so on. Well, none of that has happened other than the Ayatollah got killed and his son took over. though he seems to be more hardline. Um, you know I look at this and say well they still got all their enriched uranium. U we I heard their general chemist say we've put back their nuclear program aspirations and so on. But we were of course assured only a year ago after the 12-day war that that had been put back decades. Um, so it's hard to know what to believe when it comes to where their nuclear program is other than they've got all their enriched uranium and the Americans and Israelis have got uh no apparent way of getting their hands on it unless it's voluntarily handed over. But crucially, the straight of Hormuse has become this asymmetric nuclear weapon that they've been able to turn on and off the tap when it suits them and cause enormous damage to the global energy market. And they now know they can do that with impunity. I don't see the incentive if I'm the Iranians who have been facing constant threats of existential destruction from Donald Trump in between trying to appease them. Where's the incentive to do a deal?
Well, the Iranians believe they're winning uh because they've got the straight and because they've still got their missile cities and Russia and China are just pouring in the resources, the technology, the rocket fuel, the motors for drones and other things. And you can't succeed militarily if you can't isolate the theater of operations. And so we haven't done it. We haven't wanted to do it. And just like in Vietnam, we're up against the same uh issues of uh well, we'd like to win this little war, but Russia and China are against us. And we got to be careful. There might be nuclear weapons. They might not like what we're saying. And so we're we're we're sort of hemmed in on this thing. But I do think that what Admiral Cooper was doing, going after the targets in the strait, was very productive. That's the center of gravity of this operation right now. That's the near-term center of gravity. And the fact that he was effective is proved by the Iranian reaction. They didn't stand by a ticket. They went after the infrastructure of our allies because they know that we can uh drive them out of the straight of Hormuz. Now, can you stop an errant drone missile that's or drone that's launched from uh 50 mi back or something? Maybe not. Uh, but you can certainly set up a system in which you can protect tankers going through. You can clear the minefields. You've got most of the uh straight cleared now. But one thing you can't do in these campaigns is you can't stop because by stopping right now they're rebuilding everything we just attacked and they're moving in whatever radars they can replace. They'll put in more patrol boats. They'll do everything they can to rebuild. So the idea of a bombing pause was really popular during Vietnam. Never worked. When I was running the operation in Kosovo and Richard Hullbrook suggested to me, why don't we do a bombing pause and I can't negotiate? says absolutely not. And here we are pausing the operation again. Now Mir Shimemer may be right. This may end with anou, but the truth is this is a lot different than the war in Vietnam in terms of the consequences of American failure. And so there may not be an easy military option. Uh, but pulling back uh that's no good. We've got a near-term problem and that's a straight war moves. We've got a longer term problem with Iranian nuclear weapons and possibly intercontinental ballistic missiles. And uh we have to face the fact that if we don't act, we will be facing a Middle East superpower. Uh and and this is simply their aim. They've worked out 47 years. They don't care about their people taking out their uh oil and taking out their energy and stuff. That's a near-term. That's like a a bite of a gnat. These people know what they're focused on. They're working. They're building their missiles right now. And the fact that we haven't stopped Chinese and Russian intervention in there and support is an indicator of where this is going. So, uh, um, this is a real break point for American foreign policy and American national security peers. uh if we uh if we decide to to pull out uh and get as uh John Mirshimemer said anou that's worse than the one we didn't have before um we're uh sacrificing our leadership globally. If we let Iran control the straight of our moves, that's a knock on our global leadership, on our deterrence, on our ability to lead in Asia, on the security of Europe. So there are so many consequences right now and we're actually at a decision point.
But just to be clear, General Clark, you're if you were in charge here making the big call, you would go in harder and would that potentially in that eventuality involve ground forces?
No. No, it wouldn't. I think you can define a box of operations maybe 10, 15 kilometers deep off the Gulf. It might involve some new technology. I think you need steering continuous ISR over this region and you need the ability to strike immediately, but you can get the straight open, keep it open and uh with some escort vehicles. Maybe there maybe there's some civilian contractor operated ships that are uh out there helping so we don't putting uh our sailors at risk and maybe we get the Gulf States to pay for this force. But there's a way to get get this through. Maybe you have to subsidize insurance companies, but this is a this is the near-term problem. A longer term problem is what about the missile cities? What about pickaxe mountain? What are you going to do about that? Can you create a deeper penetrating bomb? What is it? Are you going to have to use a nuclear weapon? Or can you rip up the communications inside Iran so effectively that the IRGC simply loses control of the country? There are rebel groups there. There are people who don't like the IRGC like maybe 80 million of them. But they're intimidated because whenever they surface they get their heads cut off and that's what's happening now with accelerated executions. So uh but but you know there are options here but they're hard to discern and none of them are easy and it's very very difficult for a president to lead a country that's divided into a conflict like this. It's um got the elections coming up. You've got all sorts of agendas at play here other than this. So, um, if you were looking at this from the aspect of China and Russia, be feeling pretty good right now.
Well, that's the point, isn't it, Robert P? Welcome, uh, back to you, uh, to Uncensored. Um, you've warned that America with this Iran war is in the most wicked escalation trap in our lifetime with the US potentially making Iran stronger throughout the conflict. Now certainly, you know, I can easily see why that argument could carry water. Um because they're still, you know, they're still in charge. They're still controlling the straight of moose. The people aren't rising up. It's the evidence is fairly conclusive that there certainly doesn't appear to be on the back foot. In fact, if anything, the opposite. Um President Trump has said we're in very deep talks with Iran. If they don't work out, we will go back to very strong military action. Asked how long he give the negotiations, he said, not much time. Either it goes fast or not at all. And General Jack Keane U who said he's familiar with the administration's next steps told Fox News today uh on Monday, our plan is quite massive. It exceeds everything that we did in Epic Fury and then some and obviously the Israelis will participate. The problem is Robert P with all this sort of bellose rhetoric is we've been hearing this for month after month after month after month. you know, the president goes from wanting total annihilation of Iran one minute to these these are pretty good guys to deal with. I'm sure we'll get a deal. And so it's gone on uh in a kind of increasingly in my estimation quite ridiculous manner of everything being gamed out on social media and very little of it actually happening. Um where do you think we are with this? And in relation to what um General Wesley Clark just said, do you think the only the only option uh for United States is to go in harder as appears to be the potential scenario they're gaming out?
We are in the spiral phase of the escalation trap uh where escalation is occurring both vertically and horizontally and those dimensions are reinforcing each other where there are now multiple actors who are making decisions and America what that means is America is progressively losing more and more control. Now I want to say that I highly respect uh uh General Clark and General Kmet. These are people that I truly respect. I taught for the US Air Force. I believe um that our uh military is the best in the world. However, I want to point out that I don't think there's a way to win between now and the time frame that matters politically, and that is the midterms. So, I want to be super clear. I'm not saying we can't win ever. And I'm not saying if you kept this up for years, you couldn't possibly win dot dot dot. However, if there is not demonstrable victory, and I'll explain what that would look like between now and the midterms, there's a very good chance that uh the Democrats are going to win both houses and that is going to bring an end to the war. Much like in 1974, Congress ended the Vietnam War. So, we need to be very very clear here that this is not like, well, we can just keep this up and it's just up to us to play the chess game. Now, between now and the midterms, the core issue is going to be opening Hormos. and now opening Hormuzes and the Red Sea which just in the last week has doubled the problem. But I want to come back to the problem of opening Hormuz between now and the midterms. And I'd like your listeners to just hear one word scale. Scale. Now it's very important to understand that a Shahed 136 drone given its range it has a drone launch zone of roughly 500 miles of coastline by 500 miles deep. not just a few kilometers deep. That is a drone launch zone bigger than California. And that problem of scale is not just 2x two, a two-dimensional problem. There are massive mountains in that 500x 500 mile dr the Zaros mountains. Think about mountains as a skyscraper where the drone, which is a little just a little bit bigger, heavier than a king-size mattress, could be on any crevice anywhere. Could be deeply buried in the basement. It could be on 12, you know, 412. And the problem is, do you know how many Manhattan Pierce you can put in that zone launch area that I'm describing? 11,000 Manhattan. That's the search problem. We have the scale problem. And we got to solve this in three months. And we're nowhere near being a we haven't won the first victory yet, let alone taken on this massive problem of scale. Now again, I am the top believe. I believe in American primacy. I believe in America should be the strongest country. I believe we should have the strongest military. This is not coming from somebody who is who is anti any of those things. this coming from the opposite. And I believe that we're in the most wicked escalation trap. President Trump is trapped. The trap part is a political trap. He is trying to reverse a defeat. He's trying to reverse it because if he doesn't, this will be the end of his presidency and he will be the lamest of lame ducks going forward for years. So, this is the trap of the escalation trap. We are likely going to escalate further. I think you're going to see uh multiple efforts here, but we're not alone. We're not alone. Iran is now initiating escalation. The Houthis are initiating escalation. The Saudis are initiating escalation. And notice, we've totally stopped talking about Israel initiating escalation. Initiating escalation. We're not yet talking about the proxies in Iraq initiating that. As this war has expanded, the escalation trap is in the spiral phase. And this is the crucial thing to understand. And in that spiral phase, this is not just a chess game like we're Gary Kasparov and we're 2400 on the scale. And we know better than the others. This is this is what I've been studying for three and a half decades. How military action impacts politics. So I've never served in the military. I've never dropped a bomb. I'm not I have nothing but the highest respect for the folks who put their lives who are the best and die to be the best. This is not a case where I not respect. This is the opposite. And what we need to do is we need to have the respect to truly lay out what's in front of us, what's in front of our country. And th this is that wicked of an escalation trap.
Fascinating assessment. I mean, General Kim, I you know, this is I got to say something. I've been reminding people of regularly is the impending double political uh eventuality of these two elections, one in the United States, the midterms, but one also in Israel. And they're both extremely important elections, particularly given what is happening with this war. Um, before I get your view of that, what about this New York Times story suggesting that one of the reasons for wanting to ease back from the United States point of view is to do with military hardware, that the number of Patriot missiles, for example, is running low. They can't replace them fast enough to replace the ones that are being used and so on. When you've read that report, does that worry you or is this normal stuff that goes on in any war?
Well, I certainly wouldn't be upset and worried if I was Admiral Cooper in terms of how many Patriots, how many uh Jams, how many fast attack tomahawk missiles we have. The people that are worried are the uh Indopaccom commander and could well be the Yukcom commander whose contingency plans all depend on having a certain availability of those uh critical materials. I believe that Admiral Cooper is going to get what he needs from this administration simply because he's in a war. Uh but Cooper and the Indopaccom command uh uh the Indopaccom commander and the and the uh European command commander are probably shaking in their boots. Look, one thing that wasn't mentioned and I want to throw this in here uh because there is another dimension and there's another set of actors in all this and that's the Europeans. Uh the fact remains is we ran the tanker war 1981 to 1988. The United States at that time was not a belligerent and we were able to escort those Kuwaiti tankers through the Gulf for the simple reason that neither Iraq nor Iran wanted to take on the United States. Uh the maritime discussions that have been going on among the Europeans rests on a simple process and a simple assumption. They are not belligerent to this war. Yes, the Americans couldn't join join that coalition, but it is certainly the case that the EU already has a maritime mission in uh Dubai right now and they could expand that. The question that would be faced by the Iranians would be do we want to draw Europe into war possibly? Do we want to draw China and India into this war if non-belligerants are escorting those ships? So I think that's a very simple uh logic that needs to be explored and candidly I also think that uh frozen assets from the Iranian accounts ought to be used to finance some of these options as well such as reimbursing those tankers that do go through. So I don't necessarily believe the straight of horm as a tactical issue as professor paper would always remind us is an insolvable problem.
General Clark, this political backdrop to uh to the war is incredibly relevant. I think as Robert P outlined, you know, he's completely right. If this is still raging away uh in two three months time and Trump and the Republicans end up losing both halves of of uh of Congress, the House and the Senate, it is highly likely that the Democrats will just end this almost immediately, as fast as they can, and that Trump will become, as Robert Paper said, a lame duck president, and this will become a terrible millstone for him. What I'm struggling to work out is how he given how close this all is, you know, we're we're almost in August now, you know, how does he stop this becoming the millstone in the time frame?
Well, it's a good question and that's probably why Jack Keane is talking about massive escalation. But my concern about the massive escalation of force is that air campaigns run out of decisive targets. We strike uh the air defense first. We clean it out. That's that's all well and good. But uh you can't expect to win against Iran by doing countervalue targeting. Taking out civilian infrastructure other unless it's militarily relevant like uh transportation nodes and bridges and things like this. Um, it it's not going to persuade the Iranians to give up their 47year quest to dominate the Middle East. it's going to it's going to appeal to some of the domestic base uh and they're going to feel like boy this is really good we're going in there and getting them but you've got to have a comprehensive plan and so I go back to isolating the theater of operations focusing on the straight of war moves yes uh uh as professor P knows and he studied my campaign by the way in Kosovo I know that and I appreciate it Robert but but the scale problem is significant but remember Um, Ukraine has a scale problem and they've figured out how to deal mostly with the Shahites.
Now, you still got a ballistic problem and you've got some jet propelled Shahed. I don't know if you can put all this together before the election. I don't you certainly can't put it together before Labor Day. But I I do think that you uh have to explain to the American people what the consequences are. You have to try to bring the two parties together on this in some way. In some ways, you know, President Trump is a stuck on this. Uh you can argue about whether he should have started this or not, but the fact is that the Iranians have spent 47 years developing the means with a strategy to go after Israel and uh and they call us the great Satan. And so if they can make a missile that shoots 1500 miles and then one that shoots 2500 miles and puts uh England at risk, um I'm sure Russia and China can teach them how to shoot one that hits us. And what could be better for Russia and China than to use uh Iran as a proxy to go after the United States to take out our assets to uh disrupt our influence in the Middle East to wreck the economy that the global economy freedom of navigation. Those are the things we depend on more than anybody else. And uh and so uh I think the president really has an obligation to come to the American people. You you talk about the Democrats and what's going to happen after the election. I'm talking about military and uh every president has tried to rally the American people, pull them together and have a united country at least in facing this imminent challenge. Uh I hope he'll do that. Uh and I hope we'll focus on the strait and I hope we won't do any more pauses that give the Iranians a chance to rearm and refit and repair their efforts in the straight. We got to do better protecting our friends in the Gulf and um we've got to isolate the theater of operations. And if we're not willing to do that, we're going to be in the same position we were in Vietnam, which is the American people saying two years from now, either get in or get out. We had that decision to make in 1964.
We failed. And this is the decision point for the United States and our leadership. And peers, with all due respect, it really isn't about the congressional elections. It really is about the future of American global leadership and uh and it is about what's good for the American people as a whole. And that argument has to be made and we've got to get the media to look broader than the the the horse race for November.
And General Clark, just finally for you, how difficult operationally would it be if you were running the American military right now to have the commander-in-chief conducting a constant public dialogue on social media about what he is going to do, not going to do, constantly changing depending on how the wind's blowing and so on. Surely from an operational point of view, that cannot be helpful.
Give me a mission. Let me do it, boss. That's all I'm asking for. You handle the politics. You talk to the people. I need the allied support. Need the defense industrial base. Uh need some assets from those other theaters. Um we took them during Kosovo. And uh he needs them now. And um let the commander do his job. Give him a mission. He had that mission on the straight of Hormuz. Uh we did 12 or 13 nights of attack. I think we as U. Admiral Cooper said he basically got rid of the targets, but you have to continue the campaign because they replace, they refit, they rebuild, and then you have to have the follow on, which is the escort ships and the insurance subsidies and the other things to get this thing open. Um, if you um think you can do it by taking out uh uh energy plants in Tehran, you're going to be very disappointed. I hope we don't do that. All that does is invite retaliatory attacks against Gulf infrastructure and uh we're more vulnerable than Iran is on that as professor said and and Mark Kim said.
Robert P you've made several predictions and like 99% of everyone else's predictions that haven't come to fruition yet. One was in June you predicted a 70% chance American troops would be on the ground in Iran within a month. that hasn't happened yet. You also warned of a mass casualty attack coming from Iran uh potentially in in June when you're on the D of a CEO podcast. Um again, we haven't seen that yet, but that is obviously an ongoing concern, I would imagine. So, put your predictive hat on again for the next month, two months. Um, do you think America will ultimately have to commit boots on the ground? And do you still have high concern?
about a mass casualty attack coming from Iran, as this escalates if it does?
Uh, uh, yes, I do. And and I understand people want predictions like Poly Market, give me the day X is going to happen, uh, Pierce. And so we get pushed to do that, but that's not what my model is really doing. My model is laying out the stages of escalation on that score. It's been right month after month after month after month. So we're not, remember theou, I'm one of the big people that was saying theou was not going to hold. I explained exactly why. I've explained the details and the mechanism. So, so, um, seriously, this this is about the stages. What I would like to tell you is we are heading to, uh, bad times. But I want to answer your question, which is, um, the advice to President Trump, because there is some advice I want to give to JD Vance and President Trump if they're going to listen to this, and you yourself might be able to get it to them, which is we've got to understand that right now, one of the big advantages Iran has is not just that we're on that Titanic where we're heading over the cliff on the, uh, for the world economy, but the world is blaming America, blaming America for this. I want to be super clear about this. Okay.
Um, and what that, um, and what is happening is if we escalate now on any of these options, and I think we are likely to, but if we do that, the world, we're going to go off the economic cliff. This is not going to be stopped, and the world is going to blame America, doubling down. That's the biggest problem we have to America's leadership in the world, to our primacy in the world, to the Europeans working with us, to the Democrats giving any sort of grace period whatsoever to do any of these options the generals are are talking about here. And this is the big framing that President Trump needs to understand, which is everything he's doing is making that political problem worse. And this is not a general's problem. This is the president of the United States that has to understand the political reason we're failing strategically. And this is the reason the world is blaming us. And if we keep initiating, doubling down, going forward right now and over the next few months, what's going to happen is we will be blamed in ways that are unrecoverable. And they won't, the world is not just going to say once Trump is gone, they forgive America. And these predictions I'm making about the economic. So, so the the terrorism after when we invaded Iraq, I explained we were going to touch off the largest suicide terrorist campaign in modern times. It took six months for that to happen. And so this is not a situation, Pierce, where these predictions are measured in terms of the day of a prediction like you're doing a C. This isn't right. The reason, but what we do is there is some real advice coming out of this, and this would be a way to truly try to change and and move where we are for the good of the country. I'm not saying this for the good of the even the president or MAGA politically. I'm saying this for the good of the country. This is the approach that the White House needs to take, and it is not taking this approach.
General Kimmy, I think I detected a slight shake of the head there, or was it an involuntary tick?
Not voluntary at all. I think we still make the fundamental error. The original sin is that we somehow think that conventional warfare can change behavior of the regime. That somehow, uh, the more we bust, the closer we'll get to the end of this war. Look, General, uh, Clark understands as well. Uh, we thought and we made that same fallacy. We embraced that same fallacy inside of Vietnam. And somehow the more of them we killed, the closer we would get to victory, the body count fallacy. And we have now the structure fallacy that the combined efforts of knocking out air defense, missiles, so on and so forth is going to win. It's not. We are fighting a conventional war. They are fighting a revolutionary war. And that revolutionary war, like all revolutionary wars, depends on two factors for the fighter: patience and resistance. In resistance, you win by not losing. And patience speaks for itself. This is how the way we got rid of those pesky British back in the 18th century. The fact remains is we wore them out. The purpose of war is to change the behavior of the leadership, to change directions. And as long as they think they are winning because they're not losing, they will continue this behavior and they will do it as long as necessary. And they are taking the bet that we're going to wear out and we're going to walk away. So in many ways, this whole conventional campaign is part of the original sin of how we're trying to fight the Iranians. I hope we can get our way through this. One of the ways is to lower the bombing campaign, but make it very clear that we're going to be doing it for as long as it takes, and we're going to out-patient them.
I want to ask all of you what the same question. I want a one-word response to round things off, and it's simply this: Given what has happened, do you think if Donald Trump had his time again, and I'll start with you, General Clark, he would have agreed to go to war with Israel in Iran?
Pierce, I'm not going to be able to answer a question like that. Obviously, he's got, uh, he had reasons for wanting to go to war. He's got reasons and concerns right now. Uh, everybody understands that when you start a war, it's not that hard, but to finish it and end it is is really difficult. Uh, and, uh, you know, many, many books will be written about this and why and so forth. I I just want to go back to what Mark Kimmit just just said. Patience, limit the objective, use military force against military targets, not countervalue. You're not going to punish the Iranian people, and the leadership will then say, "Oh my goodness, we can't afford that. We've got to have more. We've got to have water for our children." They're not going to say that. So you've got to focus it, limit it. If you really work the Strait of Hormuz, you can get it open, and you will avoid some of the blame that Robert Pape is attributing to the United States going forward if you focus on the strait. Now, can you do it? Well, that's the mission. You've got some really smart people, uh, in Central Command and in the Pentagon, and you've got some great technology gurus out there in Silicon Valley and elsewhere. Put them to work. Give them the mission. But stay with it. If you go back to the Iranians and say, "Please give me a deal. I'm really, I think I'm over my head. Can you help me?" They're not going to help you. They don't want to help the United States. They're against the United States. So is China and Russia, and they're going to do everything they can to pile on. So I think the president has some real decisions to make. Uh, but I don't think this is a situation in which the United States just has to throw up his hands and say, "Oh my goodness, it's all over. We should never have done it. Throw the bombs out and let's retreat back to, uh, to Cuba, Venezuela, and Greenland."
Well, it's a fascinating response. Um, not exactly the one word I was seeking, given the time limitation we now have. Robert Pape, can you give me a yes or no? Would Trump have done this if he'd known what was going to happen?
No. Um, I advised the first Trump White House. Uh, this was about Afghanistan, how to bargain with, negotiate with the Taliban. Um, I saw behind closed doors, movement, actual, uh, even though you don't see this with leaders necessarily on when cameras on. Not saying there would be, uh, reason in this case necessarily. What I am saying is that, um, what, uh, little I know, the answer is no. And I think more importantly, going forward here, uh, it is extremely important here to see that, uh, desperation doesn't necessarily have to make matters worse. It could mean searching for answers where you're not necessarily, uh, uh, you know, normally looking.
And General Kim, the light has literally gone out on us as I'm talking to you. Um, so I do need a yes or no out of you. Do you think Trump, if he had a do-over, would have done this?
Look, very quickly. Uh, we've tried the economic sanctions for 40 years. We've tried diplomacy for 20 years. None of that was working. This war may not have been imminent, but it was inevitable. Uh, as Professor P would understand, it's better to fight it before you can't fight it.
Gentlemen, a fascinating debate. I honestly, I can't think of three people better qualified to have had that conversation. I've learned a lot, as always, from talking to you all. Thank you very much indeed.
Thank you. Thank you. Last month, a teenage Ivy League student made global headlines for declining a job interview for an internship on the basis of the boss's religion. Austin Franco, a student at the prestigious Cornell University, told the prospective employers that he was, quote, "not interested in working for a Jew." The two Jewish brothers who ran the company went public, and the remarks started a media frenzy, including days of dedicated coverage on Fox News. Two Jewish brothers offered to interview him for a summer internship at their startup. He posted this reply: "Not interested in working for a Jew. Thanks."
Cornell student Austin Franco is accused of sending the anti-semitic message. And in several online remarks, he appears to be standing by his comments.
I'm glad we know this individual's name. I'm glad he was exposed.
Indeed. And the brothers are so generous and graceful, certainly more than I am, because I do want his life to be ruined. I agree with you. It is a permissive structure, and parents, what are your children putting out there?
Well, uh, Mr. Franco may find it difficult finding another internship.
What it appears to be an open-and-shut case of anti-semitism, it was the campaign to, quote, "Ruin his life" that some people found uncomfortable. Leo Terrell, who is an official in the Department of Justice, posted dozens of times on social media about Austin Franco, with one comment urging the public to make him permanently unemployable. Commentators, including Glenn Greenwald, who is himself Jewish, said it felt a bit too much like cancel culture. Or listing the many powerful figures who'd mobilize to condemn Franco, he added, "Adults with large influential platforms, pundits, media types, even alerted officials right here on X, routinely say things as bad as, and often much worse than, pretty much every other group you can think of without facing a single consequence, let alone a completely unhinged, coordinated campaign of very powerful people to ruin their lives forever." But what Franco said was blatantly outrageously wrong. There's no question of that. By commentators like Greenwald, raised some interesting questions. Should a teenage student be treated so harshly? From the Republican lawmakers who compare Muslims to barbarians and dogs? Have we made it impossible for young people to make stupid mistakes in the age of social media in a post-cancel culture society? Do people like Austin Franco deserve a second chance? Well, we decided to interview him so we can decide exactly that. Austin Franco joins you now. Mr. Franco, thank you for joining me on Uncensored. It's good to meet you, Pierce.
So, look, let's just just start with the obvious question. When you, uh, said "Not interested in working for a Jew," thanks. What did you mean?
Yeah. Well, so coming into it, I intended to always let him know I wasn't interested in working for him after looking at his LinkedIn profile, and I just wanted to see what would happen. To be frank, uh, I was curious what the reaction would be by the Jewish community and, uh, by the United States collectively.
So, right, but I, I'm not quite sure again why, why say that?
Um, I've had bad experiences with Jews, uh, at Cornell. One of my friends at Virginia Tech as well, before I transferred to Cornell, said, "We should genocide all Palestinians. We should have done it 50 years ago in one fell swoop so that everyone would forget about it." And then while at Cornell, uh, two out of the three house managers for the apartment complex I was living in were also Jewish and made up things about me that weren't true and dragged me through the mud. And the university, uh, like the civil rights office, they would drag me through it and make up random statements about me that weren't true, uh, to get me in trouble. And they ultimately kicked me out of the house right before finals, as well. And so those experiences compounded together for me to say, "Listen, I don't want to be around you people anymore. Uh, you know, you've made my life a living hell, especially when it comes to studying for finals, and you continue to make things up about me. I just, I don't want to work for you." It was as simple as that.
There are 15 million Jewish people in the in the world. Why would you blame all of them for the actions of a small handful?
So, this is not to say, like I said, I've had good experiences with Jews as well, but I've had enough experiences that were displeasing that I didn't want to be around them. It's, you know, it's just a preference, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Uh, you know, if you had a problem with Asian people or midgets, right? Like, you know, let's say you're around 10 midgets, right? And all of them are really mean to you. They step on your feet, right? You're going to say, "Okay, I, I don't want to be around you anymore." And if your boss is somehow a you're going to say, "Listen, I don't want to work for you because you're a midget." It might not be a nice thing to say, but is it really worth losing our marbles over this like the Jewish community did within America? Um, you know, saying, "We're going to make this kid unemployable. Uh, let's ruin his life. Let's kick him out of Cornell." I mean, it's really ridiculous.
Actually, if you don't mind me saying, what you've just said is more ridiculous, isn't it? I mean, what on earth has this got to do with, with, as you put it, midgets?
The point being is that if I were to say something about the community, like, I don't like midgets. I don't want to work for them. Nobody would be like, "Oh my god, this is, you know, crazy." Right? They'd be like, "Okay, you're just an asshole."
Of course they would. Of course they would.
I don't think so. I don't think so, Pierce. Um, listen, if it's a question of was it a nice thing to say, the answer is no. I, you stated that, and I can agree with that. But another question we have to ask is, is the reaction equivalent to what I said? You know, we have kids out there saying the n-word on a
Well, I'm going to come to that. I'm No, I'm hang on. Hang on. I'm going to come to that. I'm going to come to that aspect of the story in a minute because that's where I do have concerns. But I have to say that from everything you've said so far, um, it, it seems to me you are genuinely anti-semitic. You don't like Jewish people. Do you, do you just accept that?
So no. Uh, because I being around and not wanting to be around Jewish people does not mean you don't like them. Um, one of my exes who I dated was half Jewish. So it's not a question of, oh, he's, you know, hating on Jews. Obviously, that's not the case. Uh, the question is, is do I want to be around them?
Well, it can, it can, hang on, hang, it can be the O. Of course, it can be the case. When you say I don't want to be around these people, you're talking about 15 million people, and they are a people who historically, as we saw in World War II, have been the victim of the most appalling prejudice and anti-semitism and genuine hatred that led to six million Jews being killed in the Holocaust, for example. So, this is not something that should be treated lightly. When you say, "I don't want to be around these people," you are sounding like you don't want to be around all Jewish people, unless I'm hearing you wrong.
Listen, there are always exceptions. Um, but the point being is like, if I don't want to live in New York, that doesn't mean I hate New York. I just don't want to be in New York or be around it. All right. No, but if you said, "I don't want to live in New York because I don't want to be around," if you said, "I don't want to be around New Yorkers, all of them," then you're branding millions and millions of people with the same brush, aren't you?
But what's wrong with that? You know, it's not like I'm hurting them by saying, "I'm not going to come to New York and give you my business or my labor, right? It's just saying, listen, I have a freedom of association. I don't like New York. I, I think it's disgusting. I don't want to live there." Right? There's nothing wrong with that. Can I ask what your family made of your comment?
Uh, they were not happy. Uh, our views have diverged, uh, much over the past four years. So.
Um, but one thing when you say not happy, what, what did your, what did your, what did your parents say, say to you after it? Because obviously you became national news and, and for the most, yeah.
Egregious of reasons. Well, I mean, there, there are plenty things, plenty more things that we could probably focus on than what a 19-year-old said, but my family and me disagree on certain things. And they were not happy with it. Uh, I was not happy that they were collateral in what I said. I mean, my dad had to have his web page taken down. Uh, my mom also had problems with her, her job. I mean, the, the, the scale of this, this is what I'm saying, right? Is I said something that was immature, right? And not only do I get screwed.
Yeah. But hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on. Rewind. The problem, Austin,
It's not that it's not that you said something immature or stupid or anything like that, because had you then said, "I'm sorry. I shouldn't have said it. I don't mean the way it came across." But it's the opposite with you. You do mean it. You don't want to be around any Jewish people. As 15 million Jewish people. So therefore, you are de facto anti-semitic. And that puts you in a different category to teenagers who say dumb stuff and then regret it and apologize. You've got no intention of either expressing regret or apologizing. You mean it. You don't want to be around Jewish people. You've brazenly admitted that in this interview. And that changes the context for me about the way that the fallout was then handled and the punishment that people have called for. I don't believe in cancel culture, but I do expect people who say incredibly incendiary, anti-semitic or racist or misogynist things when it becomes public to either express regret or say they're sorry or do something to atone for what they've done. You've, you've doubled and trebled and quadrupled down. You've extended your dislike of the Jewish people that you were dealing with in your, uh, university campus, and you've embraced the entire Jewish population as, "I want nothing to do with you people." That is racism. That is anti-semitism. It is, it is an appalling thing to hear a young man say. "If you were one of my sons, I'd be utterly ashamed of this." And yet here you are laughing. You think it's all quite funny. I can tell you it's not funny to Jewish people.
I believe in freedom of association. That's fundamentally what it comes down to. Um, you know, you have jocks and nerds in high schools, and you know, the jocks make fun of the nerds all the time because they can't get laid or they can't get a girlfriend, right? Yeah, it's not a nice thing to say, once again, but it's not the end of the world. And just because the jocks don't want to associate with the nerds does not make them bad people. It doesn't make them, uh
Yeah, but you're not singling them out for their. You're not singling them out for their nerds. Hang on. Hang on. You're not. You're not singling them out for their ethnicity. And you don't seem to understand that or care that what you have done is genuinely shocking. And it's shocking to hear you double it down. Now.
I don't understand why you don't understand that what you said is so egregious.
Let me ask you this. If, if you don't want to work for someone for whatever reason it may be, maybe you don't like their shirt color, right?
Why does it matter? Why does it matter if I don't want to work for a Jew or I don't, I, I could not
You made it matter.
No, no, no. If I didn't by saying I don't want to work. You said I don't.
You didn't. You You didn't say that. And you are a white person. That's a completely different thing.
But let's take a hypothetical.
If you said, "I don't want to work." If you'd said, "Well, let me No, let me ask you a hypothetical." And I don't find this quite as funny as you do, but we'll persevere with this for a while anyway. But if you said, "I don't want to work for black people." What would you have thought about that sentence?
I'd treat it the same as if I didn't want to work for a white person or an Asian person or a Latino. Doesn't really.
You are white, so it's different.
You are a white person. If you, if you, would you have said, "I don't want," would you have said, "I don't want to work for a black person?"
Uh, if I felt that way, yeah. You wouldn't think that's racist and offensive?
No, because I believe in freedom of association. Things may be unkind to say, but ultimately.
Oh, no. You can mix with whoever you like. You can mix with whoever you like. But when you, when you commit your thoughts to writing and you send them to third parties, and you're being brazenly racist, and in your case anti-semitic,
What I find shocking is not that a teenager would do something stupid. It's that a teenager, having had plenty of time to now think about this, who's been national news and been debated by Americans all over the country, should come on an interview like this and just double and treble down as if none of this matters and that actually be quite proud of your anti-semitism. I find that very disturbing. And where have you got that from? What's made you so anti-semitic?
What do you want then? I mean, what is your end goal with this? I mean, if it's, if we're not allowed to choose who we want to associate.
I want you to admit. I want you to admit you're just a brazen anti-semite. You don't like Jewish people. You don't want to associate with Jewish people. Just admit it.
I can't be a brazen anti-semite. All right. One, because, you know, I've dated Jewish people. So, it's, it's, it's clear that I do.
Well, it does, right? You know, if I.
You literally said you don't want to associate with any Jewish people.
And what's wrong with that? Like, genuinely, what's wrong with that? I don't understand.
It just seems to be you have these tied up that says if you say anything.
How have you been so, how have you been so poorly educated? Honestly, what's happened to your, your parents here, your family, your friends? And what's allowed you to develop this mindset where you're prepared to just come on a camera like this in an interview watched by millions of people and just brazenly say, "I don't want to be anywhere near Jewish people," and not understand the enormity of what you're saying and have no sense of remorse, no sense of shame, no sense of guilt. You don't give a damn, do you?
Um, listen, Pierce, when you have a genocidal country that's made up of 90% Jews that insist upon killing Palestinians and reporters and dragging America into wars abroad, no, I'm not going to want to associate with those people. And you're seeing this among the youth. All right? You're seeing this with the emergence of America First. And this is a common sentiment that is held. If you think this is just me, you are completely wrong. It might not be held among your children, but it is held among the youth. And I've talked with plenty of people who have come out in support of me who are tired of these games, all right, playing, you know, going in wars abroad for foreign countries. They're tired of it all, and they're tired of seeing their country destroyed by third worlders. All right, they can't find a job, and they have nothing to lose.
Okay, so just to be clear, what, what's your view of the war in Iran?
I think we should have no part in it.
Okay, good. So because America's gone to war in Iran, presumably by the same argument you've just put forward, you would not want to be associated with any American for the decisions taken by this American government. You want nothing to do with any Americans. Is that, is that your position?
No. America is made up of a multicultural.
Okay. You know what, Austin? You know what, Austin? You know what, Austin? I knew you'd say no because you're just not only stupid, but you're a massive hypocrite because you're blaming 15 million Jews for the decision-m by a prime minister and a government in Israel, which has nothing to do with the vast majority of Jewish people worldwide, many of whom hate it as much as I do. But when the same logic that you've espoused is applied to a war in Iran waged by this American administration, your position is not you want nothing to do with Americans, is it? Because you're a hypocrite, and you don't understand the difference because frankly, I think you're too wound up in enjoying the ride of being the most famous anti-semite in America. I just find it incredibly depressing that a young man, given the privilege that you've had to go to a top university, could be this thick, or worse, not care about what you're saying and the consequences to a huge number of people around the world who see a young, arrogant kid who wants to brazenly espouse anti-semitism in interviews like this. And shame on you, and shame on everyone that has made you like this. And you know what? I was prepared to give you a bit of a fairer hearing about the, the, the people calling for you to be canceled and unemployable and so on. You kind of make yourself unemployable. I, I wouldn't employ, I wouldn't employ you. I wouldn't, I wouldn't had you, had you said, "I'm sorry." Had you expressed, had you expressed any remorse, had you done any of those things? I'd say, "Yeah, you know what? You've been dealt a harsh, a harsh lesson in life, but you've learned your lesson. Move on." You haven't learned your lesson, Austin. You've doubled down. You're proud of it. And so for that reason, I don't give a damn what happens to you, frankly. So, we're gonna, I don't care. You've explained yourself.
You're an anti-semite and you're a hypocrite. And you know what? Future employers, future employers can watch this interview and they can decide if you have the values that they wish to have in their company. Good luck with that. Good luck with it. That's the end of this interview. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you, Pierce.
Pierce Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent. The only boss around here is me. If you enjoy our show, we ask for only one simple thing: Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Piers Morgan Uncensored on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate, and entertain. And we'll do it all for free. Independent, uncensored media has never been more critical, and we couldn't do it without you.