Speaker 1: Hey, everybody, Welcome to another episode of Eyes on Geopolitics.
Speaker 1: I'm here with Nick mulroy, Jason Lyons, and I'm Dmitri
Speaker 1: con Tacos. Happy Easter to everybody who celebrates a lot
Speaker 1: cooking as usual, world falling apart at the scenes. It
Speaker 1: seems like, let's kick off with the Iran negotiations. We're
Speaker 1: shooting this on Saturday at eleven am, and they just
Speaker 1: wrapped up maybe an hour an hour and a half ago,
Speaker 1: and instantly on Iranian state TV that said that the
Speaker 1: talks were constructive. It was happening in Rome. There was
Speaker 1: some confusion last week about like is it happening again?
Speaker 1: Is it in Rome or is it happening in uh
Speaker 1: oman h. As long as they're happening, I think it's
Speaker 1: a good, good thing. I mean, you have seen over
Speaker 1: the last week or so since like the it's come
Speaker 1: out where like they're talking about a Jack poet number
Speaker 1: two point zero, like that's what I see a lot
Speaker 1: of people talking about it as that it's just crazy,
Speaker 1: like we shouldn't do this and stuff. And I get it.
Speaker 1: Some of my ran hawks are I randhawks, and they're
Speaker 1: gonna do what they need to do. But Mick, I
Speaker 1: wanted to ask you because I'm sure you've been in
Speaker 1: like meetings like this, or at least like seeing this
Speaker 1: go down, like how these talks go. Because they're saying
Speaker 1: that there's two the two parties are in separate rooms,
Speaker 1: and there's a mediator running between them both and stuff
Speaker 1: like that, and it seems to me like very odd,
Speaker 1: like these guys just can't sit in a room together,
Speaker 1: you know what I mean, Like it just seems like
Speaker 1: a weird buffer at least.
Speaker 2: Anyway, Yes, I can see how that would be the
Speaker 2: case looking at it, and I think it really stems
Speaker 2: from when the US assassinated cost some s the money
Speaker 2: right in Baghdad. The I told her said that they
Speaker 2: would never sit down with the Americans again, So that's
Speaker 2: probably a factor in this, got it, I would say,
Speaker 2: although it makes sense, I guess in the beginning stages
Speaker 2: of this negotiation to have the Omani's going back and forth.
Speaker 2: And this is in the Oman embassy in Rome, and
Speaker 2: Oman has traditionally played this mediator role between the United
Speaker 2: States and Iran. But if they really want to get
Speaker 2: into the weeds of this is a very complicated, very
Speaker 2: technical type of negotiation. They're going to have to not
Speaker 2: only be face to face, but they're going to have
Speaker 2: to bring in experts as well. They can't just I
Speaker 2: don't think I have some guy running back and forth
Speaker 2: talking about, you know, how many central futures are going
Speaker 2: to allow, or you know, what's the device that's going
Speaker 2: to be on the Iraq with the ar Ak heavy
Speaker 2: water treatment plant. I mean, there's all sorts of and
Speaker 2: I think it's important you to go back to the
Speaker 2: twenty fifteen so people understand what that was and then
Speaker 2: we can see how this is shaping up to either
Speaker 2: be a two point zero version, be an improvement, or
Speaker 2: essentially going back into the same agreement. But so that
Speaker 2: was a P five plus one, so US UK, France, Russia, China, Germany.
Speaker 2: In the agreement, basically it capped uranium enrichment at three
Speaker 2: point six something sixty seven, I think, so far less
Speaker 2: than it was now. Where right now we're at sixty.
Speaker 2: I mean the Uranians are at sixty and that's easy
Speaker 2: easier to get to obviously ninety apparently exponentially easier to
Speaker 2: get to ninety, which is weapons grade. The twenty fifteen
Speaker 2: agreement capped how many centerfuges they could have where they
Speaker 2: could have those henterfuges, which was that non tons, so
Speaker 2: that when it came to the IAEA inspecting they anywhere
Speaker 2: to go, they had to send out the spent fuel
Speaker 2: from you know, civilian energy to I think it was Russia.
Speaker 2: So they didn't have it around the water treatment plant
Speaker 2: or not treatment, but the heavy water plant at Iraq
Speaker 2: had this device on it, so they couldn't make plutonium,
Speaker 2: which is another material you can use to make a
Speaker 2: nuclear bomb. It had a lot of it, so it's
Speaker 2: very technical, very there's other there was other oh snapback saying,
Speaker 2: for example, so if Iran violated the twenty fifteen that
Speaker 2: sanctions would be automatic that Russia and China couln't veto.
Speaker 2: There was a specific part of the twenty fifteen. So
Speaker 2: that is kind of the framework, if you will. We
Speaker 2: elected to get out of it twenty eighteen. Now we're
Speaker 2: looking to get back into some version of it. Hopefully
Speaker 2: it is improved. But the criticism back in twenty eighteen
Speaker 2: was it didn't address proxy forces, which Iran apparently is
Speaker 2: not even talking about now, so it looks like it
Speaker 2: won't again. And I think to a certain extent, people
Speaker 2: were concerned that it wasn't transparent enough. So I hope
Speaker 2: we get a better agreement. But quite frankly, even if
Speaker 2: we end up back in the similar agreement, it won't
Speaker 2: be bad for the US national security interest in the
Speaker 2: region because it'll prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 2: So I hope that's the case. I think it's headed
Speaker 2: that way, although Iran has put at least in reports,
Speaker 2: put out specifics like they won't dismantle their nuclear anything
Speaker 2: they've done so far, which is unacceptable. It's way above
Speaker 2: where it was in twenty fifteen, So hopefully the US
Speaker 2: doesn't accept that they have to dismantle it back. Everything
Speaker 2: should go at least back down to twenty fifteen. Everything
Speaker 2: in place, then there's one quick step from being able
Speaker 2: to be a nuclear weapon. And I think the US
Speaker 2: in this area of foreign policy is on the right track.
Speaker 2: We're using the threat of legitimate military options as a
Speaker 2: pushing point for them, and it looks like we're headed
Speaker 2: toward an agreement that would be beneficial. But last point
Speaker 2: i'll turn over adjacent to your point, Israel is not
Speaker 2: going to like it. They just did. They didn't like
Speaker 2: the twenty fifteen, they pushed hard get out of twenty eighteen.
Speaker 2: I'd get it. I am very concerned about Israel's security
Speaker 2: and pro Israeli, but ultimately the concern is if we
Speaker 2: do the military option, it will be a continuous thing,
Speaker 2: so we'll be essentially at war militarily, and Roan has
Speaker 2: options to retaliate which will not be good to include
Speaker 2: shutting down the straits of overmoveth, attacking partners in the area,
Speaker 2: going you know, grey zone, killing diplomats. I mean, there's
Speaker 2: issues that we have to at least acknowledge. And again
Speaker 2: I'm not against the military option. I think it's a
Speaker 2: viable option, but it's not just to pull the trigger
Speaker 2: and this thing's over. It could trigger much broader conflict
Speaker 2: and that's something we have to take into account, including Israel.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I agree. I mean, there's not much for me
Speaker 3: to add to it. The only thing I would add,
Speaker 3: and you touched on it, is I'm not one of
Speaker 3: those bomba back into the Stone Age so there's nothing left.
Speaker 3: And I'm also not one of those let him have
Speaker 3: whatever they want. We have a nuclear you know, we
Speaker 3: have nuclear weapons. One of those people I don't believe
Speaker 3: that they should have it, and I hope they don't
Speaker 3: get it. But I also don't believe that we should
Speaker 3: completely dismantle their program. If when I say program, what
Speaker 3: I'm saying is their civilian program to be able to
Speaker 3: generate energy, because there are people are suffering. And even
Speaker 3: I believe, if I heard it correctly, President Trump during
Speaker 3: a ceremony for doctor Oz, I don't even know what
Speaker 3: the hell he was doing for him, but I feel
Speaker 3: weird even saying doctor Oz, but for him said he
Speaker 3: mentioned I ran, and he said, I want them to thrive.
Speaker 3: I want them to do well. So I'm hoping that
Speaker 3: that includes leaving the apparatus in place for them to
Speaker 3: be able to safely produce electricity for their people, but
Speaker 3: take away dismantle the ability for them and the mechanism
Speaker 3: for them to have a weapons grade material. So yeah,
Speaker 3: we'll see. And as far as Israel's concerned, I wholeheartedly agree.
Speaker 3: I think I would assume that they're going to give
Speaker 3: us a Hey, your guys are pushing it, and we're
Speaker 3: going to do this on our own. But I don't
Speaker 3: put it past them just doing it. And like you said,
Speaker 3: I think if that happens, it's going to be a
Speaker 3: continuous thing because one strike, especially without verification that it
Speaker 3: took out the intended targets, is not going to be enough.
Speaker 3: So and and there's also, like you said, we could
Speaker 3: actually bda that we took out the you know, the
Speaker 3: intended targets, but like you said, they have other tools
Speaker 3: in the toolbox. You know, they could go grade zone
Speaker 3: and they can do other things. So you know, hopefully
Speaker 3: it won't get to that point.
Speaker 2: Good point. The other issue is if Israel does take
Speaker 2: a strike, then the negotiations will probably be could put
Speaker 2: because the way the Iranians will view it is US
Speaker 2: and Israel are essentially one, so they'll view it as
Speaker 2: a US trying to get disagreement. At the same time,
Speaker 2: given that you can not to strike, Yeah, I think
Speaker 2: you're right. They might do it without our approval. That'd
Speaker 2: be a big step for them. But ultimately I think
Speaker 2: the goal should be preventing Israel from I mean, excuse me,
Speaker 2: Aron from getting a newclear weapon and if they do
Speaker 2: comply with the with and I think the Secretary of
Speaker 2: Rubio and Mike Walts are right on this. They have
Speaker 2: to be like hardline, especially going into the negotiations and
Speaker 2: then it gives them some wiggle room to come back
Speaker 2: closer to the middle and hopefully it's hopefully it's a
Speaker 2: better agreement than twenty fifteen, but quite frankly, if it's
Speaker 2: the same, we'd still be in a better place. And
Speaker 2: to your point, Jay, they the Iranian people will benefit, right,
Speaker 2: So the sanctions will come off, and they are very innovative,
Speaker 2: very educated society. I think they'll do really well in
Speaker 2: the global economy. The only thing that's hindering them is
Speaker 2: is the regime because of the sanctions, and they're you know,
Speaker 2: seemingly analyst desire to destabilize a region of a region
Speaker 2: of which they could prosper in. If they would just
Speaker 2: you know, stop that and let the Iranian people compete
Speaker 2: on a fair playing field, I think they'll do very well.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think it's good that like, yeah, we're willing,
Speaker 1: like we're saying we're willing to hit Iran for now.
Speaker 1: I mean, you gotta do that to bring them to
Speaker 1: the negotiation table.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: The wild card, like you mentioned, is Israel. Also, there's
Speaker 1: nobody else involved in these negotiations, right, Like the last
Speaker 1: one was a multilateral kind of deal. This one's pretty
Speaker 1: pretty bilateral and like our proxy, for lack of a
Speaker 1: better term, Israel, which is not our proxy. But you
Speaker 1: know what I'm saying, can literally destroy it with one
Speaker 1: with one go of it, right, and if Israel did
Speaker 1: do that unilaterally, they're probably not destroying it. I mean,
Speaker 1: we couldn't word is We're not going to be able
Speaker 1: to destroy it ourselves. They'll be able to bring it
Speaker 1: back in three to six months.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: We've spoken about this, so I don't know where it
Speaker 1: goes besides making a deal of some kind. It's funny though,
Speaker 1: because like we you know, the whole Trump agenda early
Speaker 1: on was how the first agreement was bs and we're
Speaker 1: getting out of it, and like we're back here in
Speaker 1: the same place where it's probably gonna look, if we're lucky,
Speaker 1: probably gonna look like the same exact agreement or like
Speaker 1: very similar wild same place, same region, Houthi's. We've been
Speaker 1: bombing the Wothi's for like what seems like an eternity.
Speaker 1: It's been over thirty days. They're still obviously capable. They
Speaker 1: shot down another m Q nine drone, fifth since March
Speaker 1: fifteenth and twentieth since October twenty twenty three, which is
Speaker 1: kind of a wild that's a lot. It seems like
Speaker 1: a lot. They obviously seem to still be capable after
Speaker 1: thirty plus days of US continuously bombing them. What needs
Speaker 1: to happen? Is it just gonna be an ongoing thing? Like,
Speaker 1: I don't what happens now?
Speaker 2: Mick, Yeah, so yeah, this I agreed with the need
Speaker 2: to escalate. I'll start there. I also think it's fair
Speaker 2: to say that you gotta be realistic about what you
Speaker 2: can actually do from the air, right. Heir's a major
Speaker 2: component in any conflict. It has been for many decades,
Speaker 2: but it's one of those continuously debated, although I don't
Speaker 2: know why that it can't essentially win a war without
Speaker 2: any kind of ground component. So again, I think hats
Speaker 2: off to all the servicemen and women that are out
Speaker 2: there carrying this out. It was the right move to escalate,
Speaker 2: but it is not having the desired effect, at least
Speaker 2: completely the desired effect, which is removing the Huthi's capacity
Speaker 2: to attack commercial vessels and military, our military assets and
Speaker 2: our partner countries if they chose to do so. They'll
Speaker 2: never stop the desire, But the only thing we can
Speaker 2: do is keep them from getting the weapons and basically
Speaker 2: just dismantling them like the Israelis did to Hesbla. But
Speaker 2: they also used the ground component, right, so they send
Speaker 2: in Israeli troops. So then the question becomes what's going
Speaker 2: to be the ground component. And I don't think anybody
Speaker 2: has a desire politically to send you know, you know,
Speaker 2: the Marines or confessional army forces in on the ground
Speaker 2: to be that ground component, because we're going to fight
Speaker 2: people who are heavily entrenched in their territory in the mountains,
Speaker 2: and we all know where that's going to go. Even
Speaker 2: though we're we are the most effective military in the world,
Speaker 2: we will lose a lot of soldiers of Marines. So
Speaker 2: I don't think that's even in the cards, thank goodness.
Speaker 2: But there is a sizable Yemeny capability that we've worked
Speaker 2: with before. There is a legitimate government of Yemen that
Speaker 2: is not, of course, the Huthi's once ur lah it is.
Speaker 2: It is a recognized by the UN, the US. They're
Speaker 2: they're headquartered out of Aden. There has been a plan
Speaker 2: for their forces to take who data going all the
Speaker 2: way back to twenty fifteen. We're the ones that kind
Speaker 2: of pushed them out to do it. We were concerned
Speaker 2: about kind of the humanitarian issition. You rightfully concerned. But
Speaker 2: essentially if the coalition forces took WHO data, they would
Speaker 2: cut off so and on right and that's where the
Speaker 2: Houthis are. So there could be a combination where we
Speaker 2: have you know, soft forces from both the military and
Speaker 2: the agency working with this partner force in conjunction with
Speaker 2: of course intel and air and it would be it
Speaker 2: would make them very effective, and I think they could
Speaker 2: actually take the port and that would change the tide.
Speaker 2: It would cut off the Hoothis. And on the humanitarian front,
Speaker 2: the World Food Program just cut off aid going to
Speaker 2: the Hoothy controlled areas because all the age is being
Speaker 2: taken by the Hoothis for their fighters, so it's not
Speaker 2: even going to the people. So that kind of took
Speaker 2: away that one component of the WHO data operation. So
Speaker 2: I don't know exactly what they're looking at, but that's
Speaker 2: what's in the media, and I think it's very doable
Speaker 2: and it would it would have a big impact on it.
Speaker 4: Talk to you for a moment about how you can
Speaker 4: support the show. If you've been watching it, enjoying it,
Speaker 4: but you'd like to get a little bit more involved
Speaker 4: and help us continue to do this.
Speaker 1: You can check out our Patreon.
Speaker 4: It is patreon dot com slash the Teamhouse, and for
Speaker 4: five dollars a month you can get access to all
Speaker 4: of these episodes of The Teamhouse ad free. The same
Speaker 4: goes with our affiliated podcast eyes On with Andy Milburn,
Speaker 4: Jason Lyons mcmulroy that one, you will also get all
Speaker 4: of those episodes ad free, and you support the channel
Speaker 4: and the show, and we really appreciate it. The Patreon
Speaker 4: members are literally what has helped this company, this small
Speaker 4: business survive, especially during our early years, and you are
Speaker 4: what continues to help this thing going even as we
Speaker 4: navigate the turbulent world of YouTube advertising.
Speaker 1: So we really appreciate all of you guys.
Speaker 4: There's going to be a link down in the description
Speaker 4: to that Patreon, and there is also going to be
Speaker 4: a link to our new merch shop, so if you
Speaker 4: guys want to go and get some Teamhouse merchandise, we
Speaker 4: got stickers and we also have patches, and I should
Speaker 4: mention if you sign up for Patreon at ten dollars
Speaker 4: a month, we will mail you this patch as well,
Speaker 4: so we really appreciate that. But they're also for sale.
Speaker 4: On the merch shop and additionally they got t shirts
Speaker 4: up there, water bottles, a tote bag, coffee mugs, all
Speaker 4: that good stuff. So please go and check them out
Speaker 4: and support the show. We really appreciate it, guys.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Yeah, agreed from that.
Speaker 3: I was thinking about as you were talking about air
Speaker 3: can't do it all From the time that I was
Speaker 3: a baby grunt at School of Infantry down at La Zune.
Speaker 3: You know, we were always taught, hey, it's about you guys.
Speaker 3: Everything else is supporting arms. You know, you support the
Speaker 3: war fighters, so you can bomb all you want. And
Speaker 3: I think we prove that in in Gulf War one
Speaker 3: that you know, you can have a one hundred day
Speaker 3: air campaign all you want, you know, your little the
Speaker 3: Highway of Death all that stuff, but until you put
Speaker 3: boots on the ground to hold that, it's kind of
Speaker 3: a moot point. So I agree. But I also I
Speaker 3: also think too on the far end of that, if
Speaker 3: you cut off the supply from uh Iran, which I
Speaker 3: don't think is coming anytime soon, when that well dries up,
Speaker 3: that might have an effect, you know, a positive effect
Speaker 3: as well. So I know we it's not probably not
Speaker 3: in the cards for the negotiations, but at some point
Speaker 3: I think that should be addressed.
Speaker 2: Good point. Hopefully it's some kind of sidebar to this.
Speaker 2: You know, they won't Iron won't put anything like that
Speaker 2: into an agreement because they view them as their allies. Right,
Speaker 2: They'll they'll say, well, why don't you cut off support
Speaker 2: to Israel? Then? But I agree with you, Jason, it
Speaker 2: could be a side thing. It's like, we're going to
Speaker 2: have this agreement, but we're also going to see weapons
Speaker 2: flow stop from or on to the Hoothy's and Yemen,
Speaker 2: and we and our intel will know that, or or
Speaker 2: you don't even have to have intel if there's a
Speaker 2: web Ranian weapon that's getting shot at you know, the USS,
Speaker 2: Carl Vincent, there you go. So I hopefully they do
Speaker 2: include that as kind of subrows or you know, maybe
Speaker 2: an untalked about portion of that agreement. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So where Saudi Arabian all this, because Saudi Arabia
Speaker 1: for a long time is going at the Hoothy's and
Speaker 1: stuff like that. I know they've had a ceasefire and
Speaker 1: stuff like that. Where do they do they come in?
Speaker 1: What intelligence wise? I mean, clearly we're probably going to
Speaker 1: be flying stuff out of there, but so.
Speaker 2: They have excellent intelligence and you're right when I was
Speaker 2: referring to the twenty fifteen discussion on WHO data, it
Speaker 2: was a Saudi led coalition that was the air component
Speaker 2: of the effort against the hoo'sies. Yeah, so we just
Speaker 2: replaced them, but it was Saudi Arabia UAE was on
Speaker 2: the ground. They have really effective special operation forces and
Speaker 2: they're probably the ones that would be fully embedded with
Speaker 2: perhaps I don't know, but certainly was at the time
Speaker 2: the Emen forces that would take CRE data. So I
Speaker 2: think I think they will be involved, certainly on the
Speaker 2: intel side and uh and they have a lot of
Speaker 2: you know capacity there, especially UAE, So I think it
Speaker 2: would be a combined effort against the Houthis. But it's
Speaker 2: much needed and it's it's past time they have I mean,
Speaker 2: think about it. Every shot that they take at a
Speaker 2: commercial vessel is the International Terrorist Act Terrorism Act, right.
Speaker 2: These are civilian, unarmed commercial vessels that have nothing to
Speaker 2: do with nothing when it comes to you know, the
Speaker 2: war and GOZ, which of course the Houthis were doing
Speaker 2: this before the war and Goz even started, So they're
Speaker 2: just using it as a as a rally and cry now,
Speaker 2: but it was done far. It's time for them not
Speaker 2: to be able to take the world hostage in essentially
Speaker 2: target commercial vessels and international waterways, and everybody should be
Speaker 2: for This shouldn't just be a US thing. This should
Speaker 2: be like where's China this The energy goes of the
Speaker 2: world comes out of this area and mostly a lot
Speaker 2: of it goes to China. We don't even need it, right,
Speaker 2: so yeah, we should get a lot more support. If
Speaker 2: not military support, it should be political support to do
Speaker 2: or do it.
Speaker 1: I mean, is there any talk like from US talking
Speaker 1: to China about like, hey, you guys want to help
Speaker 1: here or as like that doesn't work. We can't talk
Speaker 1: to China because they're the enemy when it comes down to.
Speaker 2: Talk to them. But right now, you know, we're in
Speaker 2: a trade war with them over the pages, uh, And
Speaker 2: I know we're going to get to the topic. But
Speaker 2: now there's Chinese soldiers showing up on the battlefield in Ukraine.
Speaker 2: So I mean, we think we can split this group,
Speaker 2: but we have not proven that to be the case,
Speaker 2: and every step that we see they come closer together.
Speaker 2: Whether it's you know what I'm talking about, of course
Speaker 2: it is China Russia or Iran, North Korea. They're becoming
Speaker 2: more intertwined, and their relationships seem to be more and
Speaker 2: obviously are more important to them than any kind of
Speaker 2: dayton with the West, especially when the West is separated
Speaker 2: like we are now, you know, talking about share Yeah.
Speaker 1: O, God, why don't I never feel better about these conversations,
Speaker 1: guys Jesus. So moving to Ukraine just happened just now
Speaker 1: as well? Putin put out a thing where there's gonna
Speaker 1: be an Eastern truce, I think for I don't know
Speaker 1: what it was thirty six hours from the nineteenth, that's
Speaker 1: seven to the twenty first, and then Zelensi came out
Speaker 1: maybe forty or so minutes later, saying that the Russians
Speaker 1: are still targeting areas in Kursk and the Belagrad region.
Speaker 1: So who knows what's gonna happen with this truce. There
Speaker 1: have been a number of like some offensives that the
Speaker 1: Russians have been taken in the last few days that
Speaker 1: have failed. Maybe that's the move, like to replenish their
Speaker 1: their lines or whatever. Also in terms of like talking
Speaker 1: ceasefire and some kind of like stop orn't like stop
Speaker 1: to the fighting. The US came out a couple of
Speaker 1: days ago UH saying that they were possibly okay with
Speaker 1: acknowledging CRIMEA as part of Russia, and UH, help help me,
Speaker 1: help me figure this out. When you negotiate in public
Speaker 1: by just giving the other side more and more shit,
Speaker 1: doesn't that make I mean, I'm not a business guy,
Speaker 1: I mean I've owned businesses. But doesn't that make your
Speaker 1: position of negotiation weaker?
Speaker 2: Yes? Especially yes, absolutely, especially with one of the parties
Speaker 2: not being an honest broker when it comes to negotiations
Speaker 2: at all. I think it's clear that Russia is not
Speaker 2: interested in a ceasefire. Last month March in Saudi Arabia,
Speaker 2: the US offered a ceasefire thirty days Ukraine accepted. Russia
Speaker 2: did not. Russia continued not only to attack Ukraine, but
Speaker 2: attack civilian infrastructure and civilians in Ukraine. They are not
Speaker 2: accepting this because they do not see what's in it
Speaker 2: for them. Because the US hasn't put more pressure on
Speaker 2: Russia to get to that point, we could have secondary sanctions,
Speaker 2: which means sanctions against China and India for buying Russian oil.
Speaker 2: That's how they feed their war machine. We could increase
Speaker 2: our support for Ukraine, so that Russia sees no realistic
Speaker 2: in state coming to fruition because the support to Ukraine
Speaker 2: keeps growing, not subsiding. If we don't do that, Russia
Speaker 2: is just going to keep nodding, winking, take the compliments
Speaker 2: and continuing their war. And if they're successful in Ukraine,
Speaker 2: the chances of them going into another country, particularly European
Speaker 2: country that is not NATO goes way up because you know,
Speaker 2: one of the old Russian adages is going back to
Speaker 2: the Soviet times, when you proceed with bayonets, if you
Speaker 2: strike steel withdraw, if you strike mush, as they call it,
Speaker 2: you proceed, And that's what they're seeing mush. So if
Speaker 2: we're not going to increase our capacity to arm and
Speaker 2: supply Ukraine, and apparently we rejected them purchasing patriots, patriots
Speaker 2: are a defensive weapon, like think about that that is
Speaker 2: only used to defend yourself against missiles that are flying
Speaker 2: at your cities. So it might be and I think
Speaker 2: the US should stay involved. Obviously, I think we should
Speaker 2: increase our support. But if the US isn't going to
Speaker 2: do anything to push Russia into a position where they
Speaker 2: want to negotiate and support Ukraine and punish Russia the aggressors,
Speaker 2: that perhaps we don't need to be involved in the
Speaker 2: ceasefire negotiations because we're not even a neutral party in this,
Speaker 2: and maybe Europe needs to step up, which is probably
Speaker 2: going to happen if this keeps going like this, And
Speaker 2: I mean Secretary of Rubio I think should be leading
Speaker 2: the effort, not a Special envoy. But if he's saying
Speaker 2: that they're going to withdraw, I think the people in
Speaker 2: Ukraine and Europe are like, fine, I mean, you're doing
Speaker 2: nothing to actually hold Russia accountable. They claimed they took
Speaker 2: the ceasefire and did it, and then the next day,
Speaker 2: before the Special Envoy even left Russia, they were attacking.
Speaker 2: So they're making a mockery out of US. So as
Speaker 2: much as I think the US is on the right
Speaker 2: track on the Uranian thing, I don't understand how we
Speaker 2: think this is an effective way to negotiate with Russia
Speaker 2: and try to get to a ceasfire. We have to
Speaker 2: we have to actually show Russia consequences to their continuation
Speaker 2: of their unlawful, unprovoked attack on Ukraine.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think I think you're gonna step up, like
Speaker 3: you said, I really think they they don't have a
Speaker 3: choice at this point. And I think Ukraine is gonna
Speaker 3: not necessarily turn its back on us for support, but
Speaker 3: it's going to blade away from us and be like,
Speaker 3: you're you know, what can you guys do for us?
Speaker 3: Because as it stands right now, even if we stepped
Speaker 3: out right now for there's breaking news and we said
Speaker 3: we're done with the negotiation, we have left Russia in
Speaker 3: a position of power just by our words, you know,
Speaker 3: just even even saying we could we consider you know, uh,
Speaker 3: recognizing this territory as Russia's that's enough, you know.
Speaker 2: In that.
Speaker 3: In that aspect, all that is just sticks and stones,
Speaker 3: All that doesn't account because words do count in this,
Speaker 3: uh in this in this instance, and uh yeah, I
Speaker 3: think Europe is going to step up. And I just
Speaker 3: think we're we're digging ourselves into a really bad hole
Speaker 3: with this, the things that we're saying and doing, as
Speaker 3: far as Ukraine is concerned, I think as far as
Speaker 3: Iran is concerned, we're wombing in the right direction basically,
Speaker 3: But with Ukraine, we're we're digging ourselves in a bad.
Speaker 2: Hole worldwide, So yes, absolutely, and it's just to recognize
Speaker 2: crimea as Russian territory essentially just promotes the idea, if
Speaker 2: you're strong, you can take territory. Period. I mean it's yeah,
Speaker 2: of course nobody else will except for Russia. Uh and
Speaker 2: then uh and then of course in the United States
Speaker 2: there's always a shift in you know, who's the president
Speaker 2: who's not, and they'll go back to not recognize it.
Speaker 2: So it's it's it all not only show a bizarre
Speaker 2: deference to Russia, one of our most significant adversaries. It's
Speaker 2: not gonna last as long. It's not gonna last. It's
Speaker 2: gonna just uh. And Ukraine's gonna keep fighting and Russia
Speaker 2: is not gonna be successful in taking over Ukraine. And
Speaker 2: to Jason's point, the Europeans are definitely going to step up.
Speaker 2: They are stepping up. They realize like they have to,
Speaker 2: they have to spend a lot to ensure that Russia
Speaker 2: loses Ukraine. And I think they're willing to do it,
Speaker 2: and they have the economies to do it. Yeah.
Speaker 1: The interesting thing is like we're we've like bled Russia
Speaker 1: big time over the last three eight.
Speaker 2: Hundred thousand casualties, eight thousand, probably around three hundred thousand dead.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Yeah, that's like incredible because like I imagine, imagine a
Speaker 1: war the US was involved in and we had that
Speaker 1: kind of casualty count. Yeah, they would be riots in
Speaker 1: the street. Oh yeah, it would be like this.
Speaker 2: Is eight thousand Vietnam, all of Vietnam, fifty eight thousand deaths. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: over three hundred thousand.
Speaker 1: So, and just the blatant dist reguard of Putin and
Speaker 1: his regime for like Russian people is kind of unfucking believable.
Speaker 1: It's like biblical. It's World War two number stuff.
Speaker 2: Annihilation of a whole generation of young Yeah.
Speaker 3: I think I read something of it was like one
Speaker 3: percent of their male population or something like that has
Speaker 3: been wiped out.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and a lot and a lot more. It's fled.
Speaker 1: Who's gonna get who's in the clip Putin? Bro, Let's
Speaker 1: let's make up, let's do it, Let's let's devise it
Speaker 1: right now. There's got to be something in the works,
Speaker 1: like Ukrainian or some kind of like S SBU or
Speaker 1: whatever trying to figure it out, or the polls. I'm
Speaker 1: sure they're they're involved heavily. The scary thing is, I
Speaker 1: know it's like more speculating, like if that were to happen,
Speaker 1: like who takes over after pot and is it more
Speaker 1: of a lunatic which is hard to believe, right, or
Speaker 1: somebody who would be looking to looking for the off
Speaker 1: ramp here. I mean, I don't know. It's just unbelievable.
Speaker 2: It's a transition for just from the normal you know,
Speaker 2: life cycle of a leader. And Putin gets to pick him,
Speaker 2: then it's imagine it's going to be somebody aligned with
Speaker 2: him or potentially even more fervent if it's a if
Speaker 2: it's an organic overthrow of the government. Ohs right, who knows,
Speaker 2: total crap show. I mean, he stayed in power in
Speaker 2: this long. He's a former KGB colonel, he knows security,
Speaker 2: he I mean, he knows how to keep his regime
Speaker 2: in place. So it's, uh, we can't count on change
Speaker 2: in leadership.
Speaker 1: Sure, and I'm sure like probably scared the ship out
Speaker 1: of him, went down with uh pregosion, right, I'm sure
Speaker 1: like after that he probably clamped clamped down times ten. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there seems to be a real schis him in the
Speaker 1: Trump administration of you know, the wick Coughs, the Rubios,
Speaker 1: the Rubio's catalogs and the wick Coughs and everybody else. Basically,
Speaker 1: I honestly don't know how Rubio's doing this, how he
Speaker 1: wants to do it.
Speaker 2: I mean, I would say that there's a traditional Republican view,
Speaker 2: which of course is Russia is our adversary, the US
Speaker 2: should lead the free world, you know, kind of the
Speaker 2: Reagan view, and I think Rubio kind of represents that
Speaker 2: in the current administration, and so does Mike Wells to
Speaker 2: a certain extent. So I hope they stick around because
Speaker 2: it's important, you know, from a person who kind of
Speaker 2: views them the world that way, that that is represented.
Speaker 2: The idea that you can go kowtow as some have
Speaker 2: to President Putin and somehow that's going to work out
Speaker 2: well for you. It's just lost on me. It just
Speaker 2: ignores essentially all of human history, so that especially when
Speaker 2: dealing with an autocrat, right, they never go, Wow, this
Speaker 2: guy's really nice. I won't take advantage of them. They go, wow,
Speaker 2: this guy's really nice. I am definitely gonna take it.
Speaker 1: To him, right, yeah, right.
Speaker 2: Right, it's I'm sure the Russians are baffled. There's even
Speaker 2: reporting that they're like it's they're confused, you.
Speaker 1: Know, yeah, like, is this a move like what's going on?
Speaker 1: It's too easy.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean listen you you hear Steve Waykoff speak
Speaker 5: and he's a he's a point guy right for this
Speaker 5: at this point, at this point in time, and it
Speaker 5: literally like you listen to it and you're like, what
Speaker 5: is going on?
Speaker 1: Like this isn't a real estate deal. This isn't a
Speaker 1: deal where like everyone could kiss each other's ask because
Speaker 1: everyone's gonna get rich. This is like real life people
Speaker 1: living and dying. Uh, Civilians dying like in both Ukrainians
Speaker 1: and Russians fucking dying too, like and just like the
Speaker 1: flip it kind of like, yeah, we're all buds. Here
Speaker 1: is head scratching.
Speaker 2: It's head scratching for a lot of reasons. But I
Speaker 2: can tell you and anybody's ever dealt with Russia knows
Speaker 2: they don't view us as a friend. They never will.
Speaker 2: They never will. You could say all that stuff and
Speaker 2: they'll be like, yeah, yeah, yeah, stud just left the room.
Speaker 2: They're like at that guy. Yeah, I mean they they
Speaker 2: they're like part of their existence is to be counter
Speaker 2: to whatever the US is. Just it's just how they
Speaker 2: It's how a lot of autocrats, the autocracies work, right,
Speaker 2: They build up nationalists sentiment by having an enemy, right, well,
Speaker 2: were the enemy. They're not not going to change. They'll
Speaker 2: say things and the piece things and you know, not
Speaker 2: peace but the conciliatory, but they don't mean it and
Speaker 2: they never will. And you know, we've had other presidents
Speaker 2: that you know, have thought this and proven wrong, and
Speaker 2: they even acknowledge it. You know, President Bush, what he
Speaker 2: looked into the eyes, you know, and it's just not
Speaker 2: the case. It's time to be realistic. Doesn't mean we
Speaker 2: can't deal with We should deal with everybody world right,
Speaker 2: we should do everything we can to mitigate another world war,
Speaker 2: because I think people have forgot just how horrendous a
Speaker 2: world war is. So I'm certainly not saying that we
Speaker 2: should be at fisticuffs with Russia at all times. And
Speaker 2: we also ought to be smart enough to realize that
Speaker 2: they have no interest in being conciliatory to the United
Speaker 2: States in actuality.
Speaker 1: And the interesting thing is too, they've done some polling
Speaker 1: on this too, and like almost sixty percent of the
Speaker 1: United of American people are like, yeah, we should continue
Speaker 1: to continue to support Ukraine. Yes, So like the polling's there, obviously,
Speaker 1: it's number twelve on the list or of whatever. If
Speaker 1: people things can't care about. But at the same time,
Speaker 1: there is sentiment in the United States where people are like, yeah,
Speaker 1: we should continue to help them out.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Absolutely, it is in our own interests. It's in
Speaker 2: our own national security interest. It's not charity, and it's
Speaker 2: important that we stay as a main leader in the world.
Speaker 2: This is it. If we pull out of it, that
Speaker 2: people view it what it is. The US is was
Speaker 2: drawn for being the leader of the free world.
Speaker 1: And who takes over.
Speaker 2: Who takes over probably be some European or probably europe
Speaker 2: in general.
Speaker 1: You talk in terms of like in general generality as
Speaker 1: the leader of the free world, or like the guy
Speaker 1: a person who takes over the country that takes over,
Speaker 1: like fills the vacuum there. I think it's China obviously
Speaker 1: not having it. I think China, even though there have
Speaker 1: been reports of Chinese fighters on the ground in Ukraine,
Speaker 1: and there has been a report too of some Chinese
Speaker 1: officials going over to Ukraine to like observe what's going
Speaker 1: on or Russia to observe what's going on.
Speaker 2: Well, China will try to take it over as the
Speaker 2: world superpower, right correct, world because they're not even a
Speaker 2: part of it. But the US is the one who's
Speaker 2: set up the current system worldwide after World War Two,
Speaker 2: with US essentially at the helm, which is a good
Speaker 2: place to be security wise, economic wise, and everything. We
Speaker 2: don't want that even just looking at if you want
Speaker 2: to use the term America first. America first would be
Speaker 2: to maintain our leadership of the free world. It's in
Speaker 2: our own interest financially, security, everything, So we don't want
Speaker 2: to be replaced. But we have to actually do more
Speaker 2: than just talk. We have to actually act, and we have,
Speaker 2: but we just need to continue to do so. Humble opinion.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we'll see what goes down. Another bit of news
Speaker 1: coming out from Nicky shared this with us yesterday. Do
Speaker 1: you want to give a rundown of what went down?
Speaker 1: It looks like the program to help the folks that
Speaker 1: helped us in Afghanistan is getting its funding revoked and
Speaker 1: make if you want to give us some more specifics
Speaker 1: on that.
Speaker 2: So, of course, going back to the horrendous withdrawal of Afghanistan,
Speaker 2: obviously a lot of people, but certainly veterans, became involved
Speaker 2: in the evacuation of our partner who fought alongside us
Speaker 2: for twenty years. It was quite frankly an embarrassment the
Speaker 2: way we left it, but a lot of things were
Speaker 2: put into place to help those that were left behind
Speaker 2: since it was such a precipitous withdraw Even people with SIVs,
Speaker 2: which is special immigrant vices to come to the United
Speaker 2: States weren't didn't come because they didn't get a half
Speaker 2: a way out, and they've been trying to ever since.
Speaker 2: So it looks like the coordinator for the Afghan relocation efforts,
Speaker 2: which is CARE the acronym for the office, is going
Speaker 2: to be closed down this month, which would leave people
Speaker 2: essentially stranded. People who fought alongside US, who met the
Speaker 2: qualifications for SIV or were very close. Of course, the
Speaker 2: Taliban doesn't care if you met it or were very close.
Speaker 2: They're still going to kill you and they have no
Speaker 2: place else to go. And would point out that this
Speaker 2: is one of the most heavily screened populations of any
Speaker 2: person coming to the United States. They went through extensive
Speaker 2: background and of course many of them, if not most
Speaker 2: of them, supported directly US military in the fight against
Speaker 2: the Talbot. So it would be a horrendous change, in
Speaker 2: my opinion, and it would be essentially abandoning our promise
Speaker 2: to these folks. There's a lot of other veterans and
Speaker 2: I was involved in a group called the Dunkirk, but
Speaker 2: a lot of other veteran groups that have stayed and
Speaker 2: really done a lot to continue this effort. Sean van
Speaker 2: der Bert was well, I think it's Afghan eMac. Hopefully
Speaker 2: we can get them on the show and you guys
Speaker 2: can interview them, but that are still very much attracting.
Speaker 2: This can go into much more detail, but essentially this
Speaker 2: needs to happen. There's a lot of vets left right
Speaker 2: and center who who think this should happen and are
Speaker 2: going to be pushing for this and talking to their
Speaker 2: congress men and women about making sure we don't abandon
Speaker 2: these partners.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and just to note, this was funded through twenty
Speaker 1: twenty seven. Are supposedly supposed to be funded to through
Speaker 1: twenty twenty seven, and it's checked my time. It's not
Speaker 1: twenty twenty seven. Congress funded it, which is how the
Speaker 1: constitution works, which maybe we should you know, do that,
Speaker 1: and I think it, you know, the blowback in terms
Speaker 1: of like what are other allies going to think if
Speaker 1: we're trying to use a partner force and stuff like that.
Speaker 1: They're not going to believe a fucking word we say.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't, right if I have some CIA guy coming
Speaker 1: to me like you're gonna fucking abandon me too the minute,
Speaker 1: like the political will is gone.
Speaker 2: Yep. Yeah. And as a guy who spend a lot
Speaker 2: of my time with partner forces, yeah, it's a big problem.
Speaker 1: I mean, at the same time, I'd be like, I'm
Speaker 1: going to take your money and stuff, but you know,
Speaker 1: I'm not expecting that much from you guys, if I'm
Speaker 1: completely honest.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, pass this prologue. Man, That's what I would
Speaker 2: I would be asking the same question if I was
Speaker 2: in their shoes. Yeah, we're remember the earlier part of
Speaker 2: this discussion, not that we're going to promise all these
Speaker 2: Gemini fighters. Uh, you know, s I v S. But
Speaker 2: we're talking about using a partner force right now, right exactly,
Speaker 2: and it's gonna that's that's the way of modern warfare.
Speaker 2: Regular warfare. Partner force operations are a key component for
Speaker 2: a reason. We don't like to. Uh, it's a big
Speaker 2: political decision to put conventional US forces on the ground
Speaker 2: and arms way again. And after twenty years of fight
Speaker 2: in Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: In the Middle East.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's very unlikely to happen again, or at least
Speaker 2: it's it's it's less likely. So Parker forces are going
Speaker 2: to be key going ahead. And if we don't keep
Speaker 2: our word, it's gonna it's gonna change the the attitude
Speaker 2: they have towards us.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and listen to me as being like a regular
Speaker 1: hit is that doesn't hasn't done anything, that's just been
Speaker 1: experiencing the last twenty years and stuff like that, I
Speaker 1: can kind of get behind, you know, a handful of odas,
Speaker 1: some a little piece of the rage of regiments and
Speaker 1: Jaysuck and CIA, you know, facilitating the Yemeny Army into
Speaker 1: going after the Houthis and stuff like that, Like that
Speaker 1: I can buy, but not you know, one hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty thousand, one hundred first airborne guys or marines and
Speaker 1: stuff like that going in Like that's that's it. It
Speaker 1: is a political no go in this country.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it should be.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, Yeah, I agree one hundred percent.
Speaker 2: Not just because my son's an unders right, but I mean,
Speaker 2: I mean seriously, and when it comes to committing US
Speaker 2: force on the ground, it has to be an absolute
Speaker 2: direct US national security interest and no other option. That's
Speaker 2: what I would that would be my policy until then. Yes,
Speaker 2: Partner Force Operations, Special Operations, Intel for sure.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, I mean that's the name of the game.
Speaker 1: That's that's what they that's what they do best, right,
Speaker 1: So I'm down with that, you know what I mean.
Speaker 1: But I don't want it to be another quagmire in
Speaker 1: Yemen uh where when it's like there's no coalition, really
Speaker 1: like international coalition, especially what you would think though, an
Speaker 1: issue like what's going on in the Red Sea with
Speaker 1: navigation and freedom and navigation should be more likely to
Speaker 1: induce a coalition to get together to do something like this. Yeah,
Speaker 1: because everyone's economically involved and affected by this stuff.
Speaker 2: It's a good point because there is a coalition. I
Speaker 2: don't remember how many countries, but it's it's Operation Prosperity Guardian.
Speaker 1: I think make you're an expert. You're an expert, and
Speaker 1: you couldn't remember because like, what's this fucking coalition actually doing?
Speaker 1: Yeah right, sorry, I'm getting I'm getting why I'm getting
Speaker 1: red hot.
Speaker 2: And we had that, we had the International Maritime Security
Speaker 2: Construct when I was at the Pentagon, So it's the
Speaker 2: same thing. Basically because there's especially it comes a naval power,
Speaker 2: there's political like hey, we're with you guys, But then
Speaker 2: there's actually capacity, right, and very very very few countries
Speaker 2: actually have naval, maritime air capacity, and it's basically the US,
Speaker 2: the UK, and France.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: So this coalition of I don't know, say, thirty five
Speaker 2: countries boils down to like three, yeah, and nobody holds
Speaker 2: the candle to us. So I hope, especially with their
Speaker 2: European partners, they start realizing that they have to do more.
Speaker 2: They have to bring more to the game than just
Speaker 2: you know, what they're doing. And I think you're seeing
Speaker 2: that because they're concerned about Russia. But that's why these
Speaker 2: coalitions sound huge, but you can't remember who's in it
Speaker 2: because you never see any of them actually doing anything.
Speaker 2: They'll send staff folks to our jock, right, and that's
Speaker 2: them participating.
Speaker 1: But now you stand there with like a clipboar.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and what everybody does. But yeah, and I'm not
Speaker 2: diminishing it. We need politically, we need other countries. So
Speaker 2: it's not the US, But when it comes to naval capability,
Speaker 2: it's there's not a whole lot of countries out there.
Speaker 2: They can even participate at this level.
Speaker 1: Yeah, all right, is there anywhere somebody could go to
Speaker 1: help out with like maybe putting the screws to the
Speaker 1: administration about not pulling this funding from Congress.
Speaker 2: You already said it. Call your congressman, And there's plenty
Speaker 2: of veteran congressmen on both sides of the aisle who
Speaker 2: are and have been very big, staunch advocates of this program.
Speaker 2: So I think this is this is that is where
Speaker 2: people should go and have them explain why we're abandoned
Speaker 2: in our partners after not only promising them then, but
Speaker 2: promising them after we withdrew and left them. If not,
Speaker 2: there's gonna be there could be a lot of them
Speaker 2: are in other countries. I think I read ninety different
Speaker 2: countries or and they're on their way here. Again, they
Speaker 2: are completely vetted, and if they're not vetted, they shouldn't come.
Speaker 2: But if they are vetted and we're you know, we're
Speaker 2: confident they are who they said they were, They fought
Speaker 2: alongside of us, and they're not a threat. Those are
Speaker 2: the kind of people who want to.
Speaker 1: Be American, right, you would think, yeah, I mean.
Speaker 2: They already fought for America.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, they've done more than most most people were
Speaker 1: citizens of America, so myself included.
Speaker 2: So it's like, and I know a lot of them,
Speaker 2: not that I mean anecdotally. They come and man, they're
Speaker 2: like a lot of immigrants to the United States. They come,
Speaker 2: they're driving an uber in the first generation and second generation.
Speaker 2: They're you know, they.
Speaker 3: Own own business or business.
Speaker 2: Right, going to fancy paid schools. I mean, they are
Speaker 2: here to They're not here to mooch. Nope, right, they do.
Speaker 2: They do really well. They have a very tight knit community.
Speaker 2: We're tied into him just because people are knew in
Speaker 2: Afghanistan and they and they look at for each other
Speaker 2: and they do really well. They are very productive members
Speaker 2: of society in general. I think everybody knows that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, very well said anything else, guys.
Speaker 2: We covered a lot.
Speaker 1: Yeah, do us a favor. Go and check out the
Speaker 1: links down in the description. If you want to find
Speaker 1: Mick on LinkedIn or fog bow Lobo, any of his publications.
Speaker 1: The links are in the description Jason Lyones. His links
Speaker 1: are in the description. Andy Millburn great book, When the
Speaker 1: Tempest Gathers. Sorry he couldn't make it today. He's in
Speaker 1: the gym. Link is in the description as well. And
Speaker 1: if you want to help support the show and get
Speaker 1: the Teamhouse ad free in early access is on Geopolitics.
Speaker 1: AD free and early access go to our patreon Patreon
Speaker 1: dot com slash the Teamhouse, buy some merch you saw
Speaker 1: make drinking that of the eyes on mug. It looks incredible.
Speaker 1: And yeah, guys, happy Easter.
Speaker 2: Whoever celeb happy, best place to celebrate greeced it out
Speaker 2: to you man. You ever getting to be there and
Speaker 2: on Easter, that's the place to be. Yeah, yeah, you'll
Speaker 2: know what I'm saying once you go there.
Speaker 1: And uh, Jason sent me an Instagram story yesterday stereotyping
Speaker 1: us Greeks, and you know what it was, what goes
Speaker 1: on during Easter and stuff like that. It was pinpoint perfect.
Speaker 1: That's literally what's going to be happening tomorrow my aunt's house. Awesome,
Speaker 1: Thanks guys, Yeah, thank you.
Speaker 2: Great rest of your weekend, all right too, Happy Eastern