Speaker 1: Hey everyone, Andy here, I just want to put in
Speaker 1: a quick plug for the new channel, eyes On.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: Previously we fell under Teamhouse and we shared subscribers, and
Speaker 1: what we're doing here is branching off still within the
Speaker 1: Teamhouse franchise, but it is important that we build up
Speaker 1: steam with our own subscription base. So please cost you nothing,
Speaker 1: click on the subscribe button. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Hello everyone, welcome to another episode of Iis On. I'm
Speaker 3: Andy Moreburn, I'm Jason Lyons.
Speaker 2: I'm Dmitriko Tacos. Mick who are you?
Speaker 3: You're Mim Moy Yeah you know I didn't that's one
Speaker 3: of us. Now, yeah, you're one of the hosts. We're
Speaker 3: very delighted to have Mick on as a as a
Speaker 3: weekly regular and with a focus on again discussing current affairs. Mick, uh,
Speaker 3: you know. I've introduced him many times, but he also
Speaker 3: his secondary job when he's not on I On is
Speaker 3: to appear on ABC as a He's gonna hate me
Speaker 3: saying this, an expert in all things, all things geopolitics,
Speaker 3: so we are delighted to have them on. Mike, please
Speaker 3: remember that that now is your secondary duty. Here comes
Speaker 3: first fus. All right, listen, everyone trumping all news, no
Speaker 3: pun intended, is the fact that today is the Marine
Speaker 3: Corps birthday, which one is it two hundred and forty
Speaker 3: nine forty nine, And since three out of four of
Speaker 3: us are marines here, we have to begin with that
Speaker 3: and make what does the Marine Corps birthday mean to you?
Speaker 3: I mean, does it still mean something?
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, absolutely. First of all, happy birthday to you guys,
Speaker 4: and happy birthday. And my son is a former Marine,
Speaker 4: and my brother in law is a former Marine. And
Speaker 4: as you would guess, shipped tone of my friend zero
Speaker 4: form Aracin.
Speaker 2: So what is it?
Speaker 4: I mean, you know, it's you know, it's it's in
Speaker 4: a way, it's it means a lot of different things, right,
Speaker 4: It's mostly about to be, frank, the brotherhood and sisterhood
Speaker 4: that the Marine Corps stands for. Right, So you know,
Speaker 4: to me, it's just the time to remember that, right.
Speaker 4: It was like most Marines, both when I enlisted and
Speaker 4: got commissioned, it was it was a time that I'll
Speaker 4: never forget and I certainly don't want to forget. And
Speaker 4: it really just means just absolutely committed to a cause
Speaker 4: larger than ourselves, right, And there's a lot of groups
Speaker 4: like that. But you know, I don't think any group
Speaker 4: is more like that than the United States Marine Corps.
Speaker 4: So I'm biased as hell, but and I always will be.
Speaker 4: But it's just a time to remember that and be
Speaker 4: with my fellow Marines.
Speaker 3: That's what it's about, Jason, What about you?
Speaker 5: So I'd wanted to be a marine since I was
Speaker 5: six years old and never lost sight of that. And
Speaker 5: even though I got the chance to serve at the
Speaker 5: Agency and do some other things, I will save, my
Speaker 5: time in the Marine Corps has meant the most to me.
Speaker 5: It was started out as like, hey, I really love
Speaker 5: their uniforms and I was a little kid. Then their
Speaker 5: historic prowess, and then as I got older, it became
Speaker 5: I want to do something bigger than myself. And made
Speaker 5: some of the best friends I've ever had in my
Speaker 5: life along the way, and those things will always stick
Speaker 5: with me. It's set the foundation for everything else I
Speaker 5: did in my life.
Speaker 3: That was beautifully put both of you, and you know,
Speaker 3: for me, as a first generation immigrant, I grew up
Speaker 3: not really knowing a lot about the Marine Corps. Some
Speaker 3: of you may laugh about this, and because it's so
Speaker 3: dated now, but I read a book called Battle Cry,
Speaker 3: called Leon by a guy named Leon URIs. I highly
Speaker 3: recommend it if it's still in print. It's Leon URIs
Speaker 3: and enlisted the Marine Corps. He's seventeen, you know, Jewish
Speaker 3: kid from I think from New York actually, But anyway,
Speaker 3: his the book's a book of fiction, but it's a rape.
Speaker 3: It's the best fiction work I've read about the Marine
Speaker 3: Corps other than Field so Far. I think both, you know,
Speaker 3: a very kind of different approaches. Field so Far, of course,
Speaker 3: is James Webritten about Vietnam, which is tremendous book. I
Speaker 3: recommend it too. But I read Battle Cry. I must
Speaker 3: have read it two or three times. I loved it.
Speaker 3: And then I read Goodbye Darkness by William Manchester, which
Speaker 3: is another great one, and Field of Fire, and I
Speaker 3: was hurt. I knew nothing practically about the Marine Corps.
Speaker 3: I had just been rejected by the British Army because
Speaker 3: of a rugby injury, and I had US citizenship as
Speaker 3: a Jaw national growing up in the UK and Parasitlum
Speaker 3: was my first taste of the United States, and I
Speaker 3: was there thirty thirty seven years ago today. As a
Speaker 3: matter of fact, this is my first Marine Corps birthday
Speaker 3: out in the field, and I remember that and that was,
Speaker 3: you know, like all of you. I mean, the Marine
Speaker 3: Corps birthday subsequently meant a great deal and I loved
Speaker 3: the you know, going to the balls and all of that.
Speaker 3: But but the two that stand out in my mind
Speaker 3: with that initial one in boot camp and just feeling.
Speaker 3: It's difficult to describe, but you know, just a sense
Speaker 3: of belonging, a real strong sense of belonging. And I
Speaker 3: can still remember the talk that our battalion, Sarah, major
Speaker 3: guy named Pees gave us and the field. He was
Speaker 3: a grunt and you know our paraphrase it, but he said, hey, listen,
Speaker 3: you're going to have many Marine Corps birthdays ahead of you,
Speaker 3: but I want this one to be special for you.
Speaker 3: And they brought out a ca can you believe this?
Speaker 3: Nineteen eighty seven in the field and third Battalion, which
Speaker 3: was thumping, third which was not renowned for its compassionate gestures,
Speaker 3: and that meant a lot. And I remember it and
Speaker 3: I remember the feeling. And the other Marine Corps birthday
Speaker 3: that stands out of my mind was twenty years ago,
Speaker 3: exactly today, Influjah. I was a it was an advice
Speaker 3: with that's a horrible word attached to a marine and
Speaker 3: I'm sorry. I was attached to a marine battalion which
Speaker 3: was First Battalion, Third Marines Lava Dogs, which by coincidence
Speaker 3: I subsequently commanded a few years later. But at the
Speaker 3: time I was an only major in charge, and I
Speaker 3: used that term very loosely of an Iraqi company attached
Speaker 3: to the battalion, and I remember the Sarah major whose
Speaker 3: name I forget, actually had a formation in Flujah while
Speaker 3: we tried to it was interrupted by mortifier and machine guns,
Speaker 3: but it but it meant a lot because we had
Speaker 3: gone into the city three days earlier at night and
Speaker 3: we'd had a rough time on the line of departure.
Speaker 3: The suicide bomb it had hit the company I was
Speaker 3: attached to and killed I think nine marines, wounded a
Speaker 3: number of others Before we went into the battle. We
Speaker 3: were pretty shaken up. And you know, you can look
Speaker 3: at this up but one three lost in the course
Speaker 3: of that deployment, sixty something marines, okay, in a three
Speaker 3: month period, but they were part of thirty first few.
Speaker 3: They were offloaded into the Battle of Flujah and then
Speaker 3: subsequently forty in Nambar Province. I left the battalion after
Speaker 3: Flugen went on to mos All, but the battalion had
Speaker 3: a really rough ride. And you know, I know that
Speaker 3: because we had a Flujah memorial outside my office when
Speaker 3: I was battalion commander and there was sixty something dog tags.
Speaker 3: I can remember the exact number, but it was over
Speaker 3: sixty which is a lot dead, not casualties dead. There's
Speaker 3: maybe two three hundred casualties. A third of that battalion
Speaker 3: became casualties in what was less than half a deployment
Speaker 3: back then. I do believe that's the highest number. I
Speaker 3: know two four had a rough time in Ramadi, but
Speaker 3: in terms of numbers, I think that that took the record.
Speaker 3: So anyway, we were all. I was pretty shaken. For one,
Speaker 3: we'd lost one of our advisors the night before. We'd
Speaker 3: been shot in the back of the head, which was
Speaker 3: rather disturbing at short range, we think by one of
Speaker 3: the guys we were advising, which is never good. And
Speaker 3: we thought it was bullshit that we were being hauled out.
Speaker 3: We're all dirty, unshaven for this formation for the Marine
Speaker 3: Corps birthday. But I remember just standing there in those
Speaker 3: brief moments before you mortifiers did it coming in and
Speaker 3: just feeling, you know, that same sense of belonging, that
Speaker 3: feeling coming back. And I can tell you that it
Speaker 3: overcame everything. It overcame the tiredness, the fear, the lack
Speaker 3: of sleep, the sense of isolation because remember us with
Speaker 3: the Rockies, and it kept me going, you know, in
Speaker 3: a way that I can't think of anything else can
Speaker 3: so I always I always think that you know, there's
Speaker 3: a lot of rarah bullshit propaganda. We are great propagandas
Speaker 3: and Marine Corps. I think Eleanor Roosevelt said that we
Speaker 3: have a better propaganda machine than the KGB, and she
Speaker 3: has a point, but it is an all propaganda and
Speaker 3: you guys, I think will agree. There is a stamp
Speaker 3: on our hearts, as corny though it may sound, that
Speaker 3: remains with us the rest of our lives. And fast
Speaker 3: forward twenty sixteen, not quite on the rink carp birthday,
Speaker 3: but close to it. I'm twenty fifteen, I'm sir, I'm
Speaker 3: in Iraq and commanding the Special Operations Task Force. There's
Speaker 3: a multinational task Force and General Nella, the Commandant, came
Speaker 3: out to visit us and we gave him. You know,
Speaker 3: I mean, and this is really an eye open by then.
Speaker 3: I've been with SOFT for a few years and I
Speaker 3: although my experience was an infantry battalion commander, now it
Speaker 3: is with special operations, and difference was huge. I'm not
Speaker 3: talking about the caliber of guy, you know, but I'm
Speaker 3: talking about just the amount of intelligence and the things
Speaker 3: that we could do with that intelligence, you know. And
Speaker 3: I was showing the commandant and h and I could
Speaker 3: tell you he's really impressed, you know that, and taking notes.
Speaker 3: But afterwards he pulled me aside, said, Andy, when you're
Speaker 3: coming back to the Marine Corps, and it really hurt me.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: First of all, what's coming from the commandant. Well, first
Speaker 3: of all, I thought, well, you tell me. But the
Speaker 3: second I want to say, hey, I've never left the
Speaker 3: Marine Corps. I've always been a Marine. I may be
Speaker 3: working with staff, but but I you know that this
Speaker 3: is part of me that's you know, in A and
Speaker 3: and and so the sense of that involvement is so
Speaker 3: important to us that when we feel perhaps that it's
Speaker 3: been questioned, it becomes a very emotional issue. Sorry, that
Speaker 3: was an over lengthy answer back to you.
Speaker 2: Back on track, yeah, so happy birthday of the Marines.
Speaker 2: It's very yeah, many more all right.
Speaker 6: I mean the big news obviously is uh Trump elected
Speaker 6: president UH, and I think a lot of foreign policies
Speaker 6: pretty much everyone's angling and trying to figure.
Speaker 2: Out what's going to happen next.
Speaker 6: The big thing that stepped uh point, that jumped out
Speaker 6: at me this week a couple of days ago was
Speaker 6: Qatar booting Hamas officials out of Qatar, and Uh, I know,
Speaker 6: I read somewhere where it was they were planning on
Speaker 6: doing this right after the latest like round of like
Speaker 6: negotiations kind of failed. The timing is interesting where like
Speaker 6: they start, you know, to announce it after the you
Speaker 6: know election. So yeah, I mean I'm wondering your thoughts
Speaker 6: on that, all your guys' thoughts on that.
Speaker 2: Well, my question is.
Speaker 5: Do we know or do we think that Hamas knew
Speaker 5: ahead of time that this was coming, like or was
Speaker 5: it you know, hey, you know, let's look at ABC News.
Speaker 3: What the hell we're being picked out? You know?
Speaker 5: What do you do you think make that they knew
Speaker 5: ahead of time?
Speaker 4: So I do think because they rejected this very minor
Speaker 4: concession of like a four day ceasefire, it was. It
Speaker 4: was a very limited duration and it was very limited
Speaker 4: in how many hostages would come out. And they was like,
Speaker 4: I think it was like four. I might be getting
Speaker 4: numbers wrong, but and they said no, that it was
Speaker 4: to a point where all the mediators, so the United States,
Speaker 4: Guitar Egypt, are like, what the hell are we doing here? Right,
Speaker 4: We're launching our you know, head of the CIA every
Speaker 4: Tuesday to go talk to these folks, and they're not
Speaker 4: even serious at all. Right, So I think, and this
Speaker 4: is my speculation I had, I've had nobody tell me that.
Speaker 4: I think that was basically the last straw. And then
Speaker 4: from there, uh, you know, Cutter being being one of
Speaker 4: the main mediators, just like, well, you guys are not
Speaker 4: dealing a good face with us. We don't know why
Speaker 4: we're giving you this level of protection being in Dola,
Speaker 4: which I think does give them protection. I don't think
Speaker 4: Israel would say go after these leaders because they're in
Speaker 4: dolaw And I think also Quitar is tired tired of
Speaker 4: being tied to them, right, so they get criticized for
Speaker 4: supporting them, even though is approved by the United States
Speaker 4: and Israel to provide financial support in Degaza, and I
Speaker 4: think they're probably also looking to kind of remove that perception,
Speaker 4: which is not really correct because we again ask them
Speaker 4: to do that. But I think that's probably why they
Speaker 4: told them to get out. I think we tarbet we
Speaker 4: the US said they need to get out.
Speaker 3: So where to now make who do you think they're
Speaker 3: going to set up shop?
Speaker 4: Well, the places have been named Turkey. I don't think
Speaker 4: the United States would be good with that. Obviously, in
Speaker 4: NATO Ala, it's a good question, you know, where do
Speaker 4: they are they going to end up?
Speaker 3: Going? To Iran?
Speaker 4: That's probably the likely of course they realize that doesn't
Speaker 4: make them necessarily safe if you look at Ishia, But
Speaker 4: I don't know many other countries that would want to
Speaker 4: take them unless there was general approval that these folks
Speaker 4: need to go somewhere and they're requested to do that.
Speaker 4: If I was a country that was being considered, I'd
Speaker 4: certainly want top cover from folks, and I'd also want
Speaker 4: to know from Israel that I'm not going to worry about,
Speaker 4: you know, an assassination in my country. Right So there's
Speaker 4: a lot of issues with these individuals in at the
Speaker 4: end of the day, they're terrorists. They were just happened
Speaker 4: to be the ones doing the mediation, and unfortunately, when
Speaker 4: you have a situation like this, you have to deal
Speaker 4: with them. But if they're not going to be even
Speaker 4: close to an honest broker in these negotiations, then you know,
Speaker 4: you make your choices and you deal with the consequences.
Speaker 4: And so I think it's I think it's indicative of
Speaker 4: how those Eastfire negotiations went. And I although I agree
Speaker 4: with the DA, I think this happened before the election
Speaker 4: and we'll talk about it. But the incoming administration, if
Speaker 4: they're going to be hawkish anywhere, it's going to be
Speaker 4: on or on, and I think that's one of the
Speaker 4: things that's factoring into Iran's response or lack thereof, against
Speaker 4: Israel that's going on right now.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I saw in twitter Land that one of the
Speaker 3: members of the Hamas polyp Euro who was previously and
Speaker 3: kind of still is based and kind of showed up
Speaker 3: in Mauritania of all places. You know, it didn't try
Speaker 3: and disguise his presence there, but it did speak to
Speaker 3: a group of local journalists about Mauritania being a you know,
Speaker 3: a supporter and friend, et cetera. Et cetera. I mean,
Speaker 3: I'm not obviously there are people drawing conclusions from that.
Speaker 3: Perhaps again wouldn't be I mean, it's like it's like
Speaker 3: giving a home to, you know, someone to a plague patient.
Speaker 3: It may seem like a good idea at the time, compassionate,
Speaker 3: but there's more to lose for any country, as you
Speaker 3: point out. But on the topic Iran, I think that's
Speaker 3: a great way to start about. You know, we we
Speaker 3: have so far avoided speculation about the administration, the new
Speaker 3: you know, the new administration's policies. But I think it's
Speaker 3: a good topic of discussion to start with Iran. You know, what,
Speaker 3: what are your feelings, what are your.
Speaker 4: Thoughts name So, obviously, when I was at the Pentagon,
Speaker 4: we withdrew from the jcp AWA. The Pentagon collectively was
Speaker 4: not entirely with that idea, and I think it's pretty
Speaker 4: widely known. Not that it was a good agreement. It
Speaker 4: wasn't a very good agreement, but no agreements like that are,
Speaker 4: you know, because you're dealing with such a adversary. But
Speaker 4: the issue was how are we going to really try
Speaker 4: to keep them from going toward a nuclear weapon if
Speaker 4: we're not in the agreement that kept them from going
Speaker 4: toward a nuclear weapon the big issue.
Speaker 3: At least a channel of communication that we don't have now.
Speaker 4: Right, And it did give them incentive, incentivize them to
Speaker 4: be more open in us ensuring that they're not going
Speaker 4: for newgrop because you know, trust would verify you.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 4: The idea was that the agreement did not address the
Speaker 4: line activities that they were doing with the proxy forces,
Speaker 4: which is obviously something they never gave up. The criticism
Speaker 4: of getting out is the malign activities went up exponentially, right.
Speaker 4: The positive I would say is that it did limit
Speaker 4: the resources that the IRGC had to do the Malian activity,
Speaker 4: So it was a maximum pressure campaign. Significant financial restriction
Speaker 4: sanctions were placed on him, and it did cut down
Speaker 4: the actual resources that were available for I think that
Speaker 4: is a positive of the of the Trump administration's first
Speaker 4: ones policy toward Iran. They were also pretty hawkish, uh
Speaker 4: toward Iran. Brian Hook for inside policy. Folks might know
Speaker 4: him like me. I know him pretty well. He is
Speaker 4: in charge of the transition right now for the Trump
Speaker 4: team and the State Department. He was he was the
Speaker 4: special envoy for Iran when I was there, so he's
Speaker 4: a pretty hawkish on that, so I think that is
Speaker 4: an indicator of where they're going is he's in charge
Speaker 4: of the State Department's transition, So I think I think
Speaker 4: we could be looking for and that's to carry this forward.
Speaker 4: And some of the criticism on the Biden administration is
Speaker 4: they they've produced a lot of these sanctions and and
Speaker 4: it has given uh I think ran a feeling that
Speaker 4: they can essentially have their cake and eat it too,
Speaker 4: and they are close to being able to have a
Speaker 4: breakout moment to get enough nuclear material rich uranium to
Speaker 4: make a nuclear weapon. They of course have to weaponize it,
Speaker 4: so it's two steps, but they're closer now than they
Speaker 4: have ever been. I think the Biden administration to say, well,
Speaker 4: that's because you get out of the JCPA, and then
Speaker 4: the incoming Trump administration is because you reduce sanctions and
Speaker 4: you basically has given them no consequences significant cots because
Speaker 4: to the action that they can. So those are the
Speaker 4: two sides to that. But I do think the Trump
Speaker 4: administration is going to come in and really look at
Speaker 4: what they can do to respond to everything that's been
Speaker 4: going on with r on in the last year.
Speaker 3: Especially, it's also the case make that so that our
Speaker 3: range of options have been reduced, you know what I mean,
Speaker 3: And the problems run across administrations as we as we
Speaker 3: come in. But silf under the Biden administration this you know,
Speaker 3: and we're just stating facts here, there wasn't a clear
Speaker 3: eye on on enforcing those sanctions. In fact, the you know,
Speaker 3: rather than loopholes keeping the massive black holes appeared in
Speaker 3: them and not all the administration's fault, you know, in fairness,
Speaker 3: but you know, front companies have popped up over the world,
Speaker 3: particularly in you know, places like UAE are the potential
Speaker 3: allies that makes it problematic. Flat tankers get reflagged, the
Speaker 3: you know, the agreements between the Chinese and the Uranians
Speaker 3: and the Russians Erenians that involve the purchase of oil.
Speaker 3: All of these things mean that sanctions are even now
Speaker 3: you know, even if we wanted to go back and
Speaker 3: enforce them, we we just we don't. We're kind of
Speaker 3: on the ropes and being able to do that in
Speaker 3: a way that makes sense.
Speaker 4: Yes, actions avoidance has become a cottage energy.
Speaker 3: And global one. You know, I think probably playing in
Speaker 3: our favorite it's a really good point, Like what you said,
Speaker 3: about because I you know, of course you lived at
Speaker 3: a much higher level than me, but I was at
Speaker 3: Sock Center at the time, and Iran was a big
Speaker 3: problem for us, but the one of the one of
Speaker 3: the issues, and it was all about the proxies and
Speaker 3: the funding that went to the proxies. So now we're
Speaker 3: in a different world where paradoxically those proxies, the threat
Speaker 3: of that, I mean, Iran's options have been reduced too.
Speaker 3: His bolla is on the ropes. It's probably not down
Speaker 3: and out forever, but certainly on the ropes. I think
Speaker 3: everyone can agree that they've lost a wide sway for
Speaker 3: their leadership. And however, however they are structured. They've lost
Speaker 3: a very charismatic leader that held them together, and they've
Speaker 3: lost you know, estimates very but a huge bulk most
Speaker 3: most of there are of their their weapons that that
Speaker 3: we were most concerned about. And and similarly of course
Speaker 3: with har Maas so Iran, Iran's options have been reduced.
Speaker 3: But my question is what you know that that kind
Speaker 3: of is not good for a sign of because the
Speaker 3: only option to them and now is the nuclear option
Speaker 3: to go ahead and really you know, push for the bomb.
Speaker 3: And I would argue too. Of course they take a
Speaker 3: big risk in doing that. If Israel has indeed removed that,
Speaker 3: you know, they as Israel claims, there are you know,
Speaker 3: the S three hundred radar, but the the the restrictions
Speaker 3: on Israel to go after the nuclear program are kind
Speaker 3: of gone too. So I guess what I'm saying is
Speaker 3: a much more unstable situation than it was during the
Speaker 3: first Trump administration or indeed during the last administration. How
Speaker 3: do you feel, I mean, are you confident about our ability?
Speaker 3: They say our ability, not this administration's ability to handle this.
Speaker 4: So I mean one part and every administration is said
Speaker 4: that Iran having the glue weapon is unacceptable. So the
Speaker 4: question then becomes what does that mean, right, because it's
Speaker 4: easy to say that. So what it means to me,
Speaker 4: being a kind of a matter of fact guy, is
Speaker 4: you've got to be willing to do something militarily about
Speaker 4: it if they're going to go to toward it. If not,
Speaker 4: then it's just empty rhetoric. And I think right now
Speaker 4: to your point, and which is a good one, is
Speaker 4: Iran has seen that they cannot stand up to Israel, period,
Speaker 4: not let alone US. Right conventionally, they had ballistic missiles.
Speaker 4: That's what they had. They don't have an air force
Speaker 4: to speak of. They don't have a very strong conventional
Speaker 4: military force period. Ballistic missiles is it. And we've shown
Speaker 4: collectively Israel and the United States that that isn't at
Speaker 4: all like we can shoot them down and if we
Speaker 4: if we go full retaliatory mode, we can take out
Speaker 4: their air missile defense. We can take I mean, it's
Speaker 4: Israel think has already proved that, and they really that.
Speaker 4: So then the question if we were them right, oh crap,
Speaker 4: I mean, now the whole world knows that we are.
Speaker 4: We cannot even compare to Israel, let alone Israel in
Speaker 4: the United States on a conventional military front. So what
Speaker 4: is our options?
Speaker 3: Very clear?
Speaker 4: Right? Which makes it more likely that they'll try to
Speaker 4: get to a point where they have nuclear weapons that
Speaker 4: they can't then can you know, for regime protection and
Speaker 4: all the reasons that for example North Korea with that direction,
Speaker 4: The question is are we willing to do something prevent
Speaker 4: them from getting there? I think our intelligence is good
Speaker 4: enough that we'll know. I think I don't have access
Speaker 4: to it anymore, but I don't want access because I
Speaker 4: gap so much on TV. But I think we will know,
Speaker 4: So then the question will come down likely to the
Speaker 4: next administration, are we going to participate? Because without getting
Speaker 4: into details, the US participation in that exponentially increase is
Speaker 4: the chances of success. So Israel is going to do it.
Speaker 4: I think I firmly believe that if they think they're
Speaker 4: on the verge of a nuclear weapon, they're not. They're
Speaker 4: not going to ask permission. They're going to do it
Speaker 4: with what they have and hope for the best. And
Speaker 4: the question is going to come down to the US.
Speaker 4: It's going to be viewed the same way. Even if
Speaker 4: it's not successful, are we going to step in and
Speaker 4: participate and make it successful? We have the munitions necessary.
Speaker 4: I think I think we could be successful, and that's
Speaker 4: a big question for the incoming administration. Nobody knows, so
Speaker 4: I don't want to pretend like I do, but I
Speaker 4: think they will be inclined to listen to the argument
Speaker 4: from Israel that we need to support them, because if
Speaker 4: we do this, we need to do it in a
Speaker 4: manner that sets back the nuclear program substantially, not just
Speaker 4: destroys the entry point. They have to dig it out
Speaker 4: and all this stuff. I'm talking like you know when
Speaker 4: it's all open source stuff on GVU fifty seven, twenty
Speaker 4: nine thousand pound bomb that, according to open source penetrates
Speaker 4: two hundred feet below the ground before it detonates. Like,
Speaker 4: that's a munition that is hard to replicate, and to
Speaker 4: my knowledge, no other country in the world has. So
Speaker 4: that's a little bit long winded, but I do think
Speaker 4: this is going to be an issue that it goes
Speaker 4: from one of the many to oh Man uh Harad's
Speaker 4: on the verge of a nuclear weapon. What are we
Speaker 4: going to do about it? Was our rhetoric for the
Speaker 4: last four administrations just that? Or are we willing to
Speaker 4: essentially do something to stop it for the benefit of
Speaker 4: the world Quite frankly, but it could trigger a larger
Speaker 4: scale conflint.
Speaker 3: Yes, suddenly for Instaureel, the decision doesn't seem to be
Speaker 3: a very high barber at all. I mean, you know,
Speaker 3: previously the Israel's biggest concern was proxy retaliation, I mean,
Speaker 3: and that was a significant and his was on that
Speaker 3: door step so heavily on. But that is no longer here,
Speaker 3: and then you know, it's a reminder, I mean, Israel
Speaker 3: destroyed Iraq's nascent nuclear program back in nineteen eighty one
Speaker 3: and hit I believe Syria Assyrian program what two thousand
Speaker 3: and six? You know, so they I'm sorry, go.
Speaker 4: Ahead, you're right two thousand and six.
Speaker 3: I wasn't, you know? So they So the president is there.
Speaker 3: It's not a it's not a it's not a tough
Speaker 3: decision for the Israelis, but certainly from US, I think too,
Speaker 3: and we're not you know, I'm not a nuclear I'm
Speaker 3: far from being nuclear Exponandum'm by my fingernails. But you know,
Speaker 3: the weapons in Richmond is one thing that uranium and
Speaker 3: Richmond weapons great in Richmond is one thing that can
Speaker 3: be done fairly quickly if they put their mind to it.
Speaker 3: I mean, we're talking weeks to months. But the weaponizing
Speaker 3: of the bomb itself is the hard part. But what
Speaker 3: is disturbing is that the news coming from experts saying
Speaker 3: that that could happen, and I'm just quoting from Twitter
Speaker 3: land and it's little as six months, which is you know.
Speaker 3: But the positive part of that is, as macause you
Speaker 3: pointed out that there are going to be indications and
Speaker 3: warnings that that is happening. That is why I think
Speaker 3: we're relying on and the question is do we have
Speaker 3: the political resolve and indeed the intent to go after it?
Speaker 4: I agree, And the other part of that is do
Speaker 4: they get assistance? Right, So when they're talking about preventing
Speaker 4: ran from it also should include discussions when it comes
Speaker 4: to Russia and North Korea in particular, are they buying
Speaker 4: the technology or are they trading, you know, to supporting
Speaker 4: Russia's war in Ukraine? Do they get technology? This could
Speaker 4: of course speed up the timeline required to weaponize and
Speaker 4: potentially deliver. They could essentially get the technology. So this
Speaker 4: is all got to be part of the discussion with
Speaker 4: the incoming administration. Who is I want to say, inheriting
Speaker 4: that's an overused.
Speaker 3: World the world.
Speaker 4: The world is what it is, but there is a
Speaker 4: very there's a lot of going on. There's a lot
Speaker 4: going on that they're going to have to address immediately.
Speaker 4: There's not going to be much of a lifetime.
Speaker 3: That's a that's a very disturbing part of this. You
Speaker 3: just brought up as Russia's playing this and you know,
Speaker 3: for those of those who are still clinging on to
Speaker 3: the myth that Russia may adhere to some kind of
Speaker 3: international norms, uh, this this week and Indeed, the last
Speaker 3: two three months, as we talked about on the show,
Speaker 3: Russia has been doing a lot of stuff in Europe,
Speaker 3: kinetic and non kinetic, to to you know, undermined stability
Speaker 3: among other things. But I mean seriously to and through
Speaker 3: trying to plant incendiaries or or planting test incendiaries, attempting
Speaker 3: to on airline as trans atlantic airliners. Yeah, you know,
Speaker 3: fairly harmless in centric. But but when you're talking about
Speaker 3: harmless incendiary and airliner in the same you're you're you're
Speaker 3: in trouble.
Speaker 6: And you know this is not Can I ask why
Speaker 6: are they doing that? Like what kind of message they
Speaker 6: trying to set? Because that's a pretty crazy one.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 6: If I if I planning going from Europe to America
Speaker 6: blows up and we trace it back to Russia, like
Speaker 6: that's people will to freak out.
Speaker 5: I don't The message may not even be for us,
Speaker 5: it may be for our partners, Like, yeah, we might
Speaker 5: not be able to smack the US with these, but
Speaker 5: we can certainly get to you. You know, I'm not
Speaker 5: saying that they're you know, over in Europe that their
Speaker 5: security measures or any you know, more lax and ours
Speaker 5: or less than ours, but that the message may not
Speaker 5: be for us. It may be that they're starting high
Speaker 5: saying if we can get them on the US you know,
Speaker 5: air carrier, then we could certainly get it on you know,
Speaker 5: some other countries. So that's that's just my thinking on it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's very fair. I mean these were kind of
Speaker 3: high school science and experiment looking in sentaries. I mean,
Speaker 3: you know the whole thing when you expose what is
Speaker 3: it when you expose magnesium to where you know it
Speaker 3: flares up? You know, so simply when you open the
Speaker 3: package it was going to flare up. Or but but nevertheless,
Speaker 3: as I said, they looked that maybe it was a
Speaker 3: test run, maybe they were meant to be found, who knows.
Speaker 3: As but the point is this that we're we are
Speaker 3: in a disturbing new world. And Mick brought up the
Speaker 3: Iranian Russian kind of deal in Russia is giving Iran
Speaker 3: something return for Shahid drones and we know that, you know,
Speaker 3: head offense systems are one thing to worry about another
Speaker 3: maybe nuclear thing. And then the North Koreans, yes, you know,
Speaker 3: we know the Russians are giving them a shipload of rice.
Speaker 3: Actually that's a that's a bad phrase. To use in
Speaker 3: conjunction with rice, a lot of rice, and and you know,
Speaker 3: money and this and that. But space and nuclear technology
Speaker 3: is doubtless something that the North Koreans have asked for
Speaker 3: and something we should worry about, which gets is back
Speaker 3: to Russia, right, you know, I mean that's there in
Speaker 3: the room, is literally the fact that there is concern
Speaker 3: perhaps that Trump is not as hard on going to
Speaker 3: be as hard on Putin as he is, for instance,
Speaker 3: on on she you know, the Chinese leader, and Mick,
Speaker 3: I know, I think you posted in our group chat
Speaker 3: the discussion just some details from the discussion about with
Speaker 3: Elon Musk or you know, the potential proposal for a
Speaker 3: peace proposal. Do you want to do you want to
Speaker 3: talk about that a little bit?
Speaker 4: Sure? And I'd start with this because I mean I
Speaker 4: wasn't a Russia person. I mean, most of us all
Speaker 4: focus on CT when we're doing our thing, right because
Speaker 4: it was the time. But I did have an engagement
Speaker 4: with the Russian general once that was so surprising that
Speaker 4: it had me rethink the way we deal with Russia
Speaker 4: and what it was is we for some reason this
Speaker 4: guy would talk to me at diplomatic receptions even though
Speaker 4: I was like designated the chief of my formal organization,
Speaker 4: which I found to be kind of interesting. Any advice
Speaker 4: us to play volleyball because they're really good and I
Speaker 4: like to beat the United States and stuff. We, of course,
Speaker 4: being the United States, went and found every good volleyball
Speaker 4: in the embassy and beat their ass. So I'll take that. Yes,
Speaker 4: we sacked the team, but anyway, other than that, and
Speaker 4: I'll try to make this story short, but it has
Speaker 4: an impact. He's telling me that the Americans don't understand
Speaker 4: Russians at all, and I'm like, what do you mean.
Speaker 4: I mean, we're all people, you know, I mean, can't
Speaker 4: we There's got to be something that we see eye
Speaker 4: to eye. And he goes, well, let me tell you
Speaker 4: the story. So Russian fable. This fisherman's out to see
Speaker 4: and it's long, but again I'll cut it down. And
Speaker 4: he's about to go in and he hasn't got any fish,
Speaker 4: hasn't cutting fish yet. So he throws his last cast boom,
Speaker 4: pulls it in, pulls it off the hook, and it's
Speaker 4: it's a magic fish.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 4: Let's talking to him, says, you know, I will give
Speaker 4: you any wish, but just know this whatever you wish
Speaker 4: for your neighbor will get doubles. Okay, I'm thinking it's
Speaker 4: a joke, right, and so I'm waiting for the punchline,
Speaker 4: and then he goes the Russians thought about it for
Speaker 4: a long time, and then his answer was, I wish
Speaker 4: to be blinded in one eye Jesus.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 4: And I'm like, oh, that's demented man, right. I mean most,
Speaker 4: I mean most Americans would say, okay, I'll take a
Speaker 4: million dollars in might never get two whatever. So everybody wins, right,
Speaker 4: you know, I mean, but his and I literally had
Speaker 4: to sit there and think, like, well, that wasn't a joke,
Speaker 4: and is he really saying that that sums up to
Speaker 4: him a Russian general, what Russians are like. And then
Speaker 4: the answer was yes, I mean obviously. So when I
Speaker 4: you know, I wrote it up of course, as we
Speaker 4: all do, and I asked people, and I go, no,
Speaker 4: oftentimes and their folklore they root for the bad guy.
Speaker 4: And it's just it was so odd to me because
Speaker 4: even people that I know are not good people still
Speaker 4: would say they vote the good guy, right, and these
Speaker 4: guys and you know, I'm not, I'm not this is
Speaker 4: not anti Russian like the ethnic group, but to have
Speaker 4: a Russian explain that to me, and then I found
Speaker 4: out from Russian experts like, oh no, this is this
Speaker 4: is common. The black hats are you know, that's who
Speaker 4: they're So I'd start off with that. I know, it's
Speaker 4: it's more of a broad but when I found out
Speaker 4: that this is actually the case, they have no problem
Speaker 4: being the bad guys. So that's why they leave their
Speaker 4: calling car. They can trace the you know, the radioactive
Speaker 4: material into killing somebody in England, They're okay with that.
Speaker 4: They'll be the bad guy, they'll embrace it. So I
Speaker 4: think that's one of the things that people have to
Speaker 4: think about when they're talking about the Russians the government. Right,
Speaker 4: I'm not saying all Russians are bad, okay, So what
Speaker 4: do they gotta look at. There's big concerns, you know,
Speaker 4: those that support Ukraine, both from a moral perspective. You know,
Speaker 4: it's a democracy fighting an autocracy, which happens to be
Speaker 4: our one of our biggest adversaries, and it's in our
Speaker 4: own national security interest in my opinion, I mean, your strength,
Speaker 4: our strength, collective strength the United States is relative to
Speaker 4: our adversaries. If we have a partner who is diminishing
Speaker 4: their military capability, substantially take away the moral, ethical, all
Speaker 4: that stuff. Leader of the Free World, it's still in
Speaker 4: our interest to do it. They are becoming weaker, so
Speaker 4: we are becoming relatively stronger. We don't have any soldier, sailors,
Speaker 4: Airman's marine on the ground less. Some one's a volunteer,
Speaker 4: but not officially. They're doing the fighting. All we're doing
Speaker 4: is a supporting. To try to cut that off, to me,
Speaker 4: would be like, you know, Chamberlain, you know in World
Speaker 4: War two, appeasement is going to work. Don't buy it.
Speaker 4: You don't know who you're dealing with. So I'd start
Speaker 4: with that, and hopefully I know a lot of people.
Speaker 4: You know, I'm no Partison, but I know people on
Speaker 4: both parties, and I know there's people in the Republican
Speaker 4: Party who firmly believe what I just said, and I
Speaker 4: hope they can get that perspective in front of those
Speaker 4: making this proposal. As you said, Andy, and on the proposal,
Speaker 4: you know this idea, we're gonna have a lot of demarcation,
Speaker 4: and you know I've seen that. You know they're going
Speaker 4: to ask European forces to enforce it in US, there's
Speaker 4: gonna be this big pause and their ability.
Speaker 2: To join ATA twenty years, right.
Speaker 4: Twenty years, which means it's so far in the future
Speaker 4: that it's not a political reality right now.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 4: The issue I think is of course Ukraine, who won't
Speaker 4: want to concede twenty percent of their territory, I don't think.
Speaker 4: But the author issue is Russia, Like did Russia do
Speaker 4: this to gain twenty percent of largely unusable terrain?
Speaker 3: Now?
Speaker 4: I mean it's so mined and so destroyed that from
Speaker 4: their perspective if they think they're going to they could win,
Speaker 4: and they obviously still think they can, especially if we
Speaker 4: cut off support to the Ukrainians. Why would they agree
Speaker 4: to this?
Speaker 3: And wouldn't they just they might agree to it, but
Speaker 3: why would they adhere to it? That's here, That's what
Speaker 3: concerns me with trusting Putin to agree to agreement that
Speaker 3: is not in his interests at all. It's mature, you know, it's.
Speaker 4: Yeah, how does this work if he then sees us
Speaker 4: cut off? So again, it's easier said than done. So
Speaker 4: I think negotiations are fine as long as Ukraine is
Speaker 4: leading them and we're not telling them what to do.
Speaker 4: But it's still in our interest to support Ukraine to
Speaker 4: the hilt. One. If we do want Putin to have
Speaker 4: an agreement that he actually adheres to, you got to
Speaker 4: put them in a position where he thinks it's advantageous.
Speaker 4: He's losing. So I you know, not that they'll listen
Speaker 4: to me. I would suggest to the current administration, wemove
Speaker 4: all the restrictions right now, remove all the restrictions. There's
Speaker 4: about two hundred major military targets within the realm, within
Speaker 4: the range rather of our weapon system. We prefer so
Speaker 4: that when it gets to these negotiations, if they're going to.
Speaker 3: Happen, they're on the ropes. There are the ropes, right,
Speaker 3: Like Churchill said, you don't negotiate with a line when
Speaker 3: your heads in his mouth.
Speaker 4: Yes, exactly, And that's a good that's a perfect.
Speaker 6: So they did allow they're allowing like the contractors in
Speaker 6: now to go and hike.
Speaker 2: I guess maintain. I know.
Speaker 6: That's my point is it's like it's been very incremental
Speaker 6: in terms of like what the help they get.
Speaker 2: Like it's like you're not getting F sixteen's.
Speaker 6: But then you are, you're not getting attackles, then you
Speaker 6: are it's like either shit or get off the pot
Speaker 6: for you know.
Speaker 2: We we have a truth way of saying it.
Speaker 3: Absolutely are are there's absurd absurd fear of escalation shows
Speaker 3: we don't understand Putin and we played his game and
Speaker 3: we've we've meeted out our support. We gave them, we
Speaker 3: get them a handful of heimas, right, and until the
Speaker 3: Russians learned how to adapt, right, they you know, they
Speaker 3: they adjusted their supply lines, the systems, they moved there
Speaker 3: command and control centers out of range, and they developed
Speaker 3: a means to block the gimlers you know, the GPS
Speaker 3: in high mass because they could do so because they
Speaker 3: were never overwhelmed. We'd hem and hold about attackers, right.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's it's just not if if you, I
Speaker 3: would argue, you know, if you bring the mentality and
Speaker 3: make that you just outlined, we've got to we can't
Speaker 3: keep mirror imaging and being scared of our shadows when
Speaker 3: it comes to escalation. But there is something I want
Speaker 3: to talk about here then maybe a positive aspect of
Speaker 3: this talk of negotiation. It has scared European leaders Macron
Speaker 3: you know Macron today And don't get me wrong, I
Speaker 3: mean Europeans listening to this, I don't. It's not that
Speaker 3: I like seeing Europeans scared. I'm half of me as well, British,
Speaker 3: not European. It's totally different. But anyway, I empathize with
Speaker 3: you people. But you know, I mean Macron warned on
Speaker 3: Thursday about naive I think, you know, talking about the negotiation,
Speaker 3: negotiation talks, naive trance atlanticism. He spoke to European leaders
Speaker 3: gathered in Budapest. But he did say, look, Trump's been
Speaker 3: elected by the American people and he would defend American interests,
Speaker 3: which is legitimate and a good thing. The question is
Speaker 3: whether we are ready to defend the interests of Europeans.
Speaker 3: This is you any question. And and to his point,
Speaker 3: the Baltic States and Poland, to a lesser extent and
Speaker 3: less important, the Czech Republic have stepped up to the
Speaker 3: plate hugely, and you know, with a view to the
Speaker 3: fact that that Ukraine may not be getting the help
Speaker 3: that it has from the United States, and everything from
Speaker 3: reduction of one five to five millimeter shells, which was
Speaker 3: a big issue, to just enhancing their own military's capability
Speaker 3: to rebuff the Russians. Uh to to you know, the
Speaker 3: cyber the cyber thing. The poels are becoming very very
Speaker 3: good at them. And you know, we also know public
Speaker 3: are doing other things, so there is an import I
Speaker 3: think that's a really useful aspect of this perception that
Speaker 3: this administration coming in may not be as supportive. But
Speaker 3: make I agree with you one hundred percent. It's you know,
Speaker 3: what do we spending? Was spending money? I mean, the
Speaker 3: whole as horrible as the Ukraine conflict has been a
Speaker 3: god as I know you know firsthand, and I would
Speaker 3: love to see the killing stop. It's it's just horrific
Speaker 3: what is happening on both sides. You know, the manpower,
Speaker 3: the young generations of both countries. But of course my
Speaker 3: sympathies are with Ukraine being just torn up in this
Speaker 3: Channel house and it breaks my heart. But but like you,
Speaker 3: I think the solution is to co art, to scare Russia,
Speaker 3: to really put them on the ropes, and then negotiate,
Speaker 3: not talk about peace beforehand for what its worth. On that,
Speaker 3: on that, on that shiny topic, Hey what about you
Speaker 3: know the Pacific? Uh? We last time when when we
Speaker 3: were talking, we talked about that, we thought neither administration
Speaker 3: would go to the defense of Taiwan. I know, Trump,
Speaker 3: you know, coming in, has always been a hawk on China.
Speaker 3: And and I saw today in the news that that
Speaker 3: there's been some rejoicing in the Philippines in particular. We
Speaker 3: talked about allies who you know are happy, uh And
Speaker 3: and you know, the Philippines just made a declaration about
Speaker 3: their stakes in the South China Sea, which is doubtless,
Speaker 3: I think, an anticipation of getting more support. But what
Speaker 3: But also at the same time, there's a lot of
Speaker 3: fear in Taiwan from some of what Trump's been saying
Speaker 3: about the chip market. And you know what, what do
Speaker 3: you see do you see change in policy of these
Speaker 3: the I mean, are we fine, You're going to see
Speaker 3: a pivot to the Pacific?
Speaker 4: Well, let's start with I hope they don't use the
Speaker 4: word because it's it's it's done every administration. We're gonna
Speaker 4: pivot from the Middle East, pivot from that, and and
Speaker 4: then something happens and it's not the case. So not
Speaker 4: that it shouldn't be prioritized in the national security strategy
Speaker 4: as the most important, but I hope they don't act
Speaker 4: as if it's either or right. We have a national
Speaker 4: security capability that's designed to be worldwide. So let's just
Speaker 4: accept the fact that we're going to be yes in
Speaker 4: the Indo Pacific, Yes in UH, the Middle East, in Africa, obviously, Europe,
Speaker 4: et cetera. We're designed in South America. We are designed
Speaker 4: to be global. Let's not do the typical DC argument
Speaker 4: to make it either or when some case. You know,
Speaker 4: one of the things I saw that, I think a
Speaker 4: lot of paulitism comes in and from the policy making community,
Speaker 4: which looks at things in a specific way, not necessarily economic. Right,
Speaker 4: A lot of us didn't come from business backgrounds. President
Speaker 4: Trump obviously did. So one of the consistent things is
Speaker 4: he looks at things, I think primarily the economics first,
Speaker 4: and then you know, legacy things like alliances in such
Speaker 4: potentially second. I'm not diminishing the points of alliances at all.
Speaker 4: I'm just looking at it from his perspective. One of
Speaker 4: the things he really doesn't like is when he feels
Speaker 4: like the United States is getting ripped off. I think
Speaker 4: that's a business you It's like, we're putting money into this,
Speaker 4: you're not yet you benefit from us like NATO. I
Speaker 4: don't know that. I think sometimes people make it more
Speaker 4: complicated than that, and I don't know that it is.
Speaker 4: So one of the biggest things NATO can do is
Speaker 4: all meet their obligations. They should have done that without
Speaker 4: the threat every president is. I think President Trump has
Speaker 4: just made it more of an important point. So, and
Speaker 4: that's also what he said when he was in office
Speaker 4: the first time to Japan and South Korea. If you
Speaker 4: were called, it's like, why are we doing all this?
Speaker 4: Pay for all your defense and you're just you know,
Speaker 4: not contributing at least in his perspective enough. So one
Speaker 4: of the first things that our partners and allies, Japan,
Speaker 4: South Korea and obviously is to get to where they're
Speaker 4: supposed to be in the first place. So you can
Speaker 4: take that argument off the table or go in willing
Speaker 4: to contribute to your own defense more so than you
Speaker 4: have in your past. So I think that isn't that.
Speaker 4: And then when it comes to China, the question is
Speaker 4: it's a legit And then we, like you said, and
Speaker 4: we talked about this last time, Americans really willing to
Speaker 4: fight and die for Taiwan. I don't know. I think no.
Speaker 4: I mean, I think if the election is a clear
Speaker 4: indication of you know, interventionism and isolationism. I just think
Speaker 4: even the ones in the center are going to say, no,
Speaker 4: I think we should support them on hundred percent. We
Speaker 4: have a law that requires you know, all that, but
Speaker 4: the law doesn't require us to send you know, the
Speaker 4: entire Marine Corps to defend Thailand or Taiwan.
Speaker 3: Sorry, maybe Thailand though, I mean maybe Thailand.
Speaker 4: Going back to the rink, Yeah yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, might to save Thailand.
Speaker 4: Yeah right, but Taiwan. But that but there are a
Speaker 4: lot of Hawks coming in right that are on the team.
Speaker 4: And you know, you know, I know for sure on China.
Speaker 4: So I think I think from my president Trump's are
Speaker 4: soon to be President Trump. For a President Trump right now,
Speaker 4: it's going to look at a lot of it economically.
Speaker 4: That's why you're talking sanctions, and I'm not an economist,
Speaker 4: probably haven't economist sonics right now that's gonna work, but
Speaker 4: it's going to be mostly aligned with that, trying to
Speaker 4: get the US more competitive with China, taking them head on,
Speaker 4: and hopefully that does translate into supporting our allies and
Speaker 4: partners in the region, right because I think we're much
Speaker 4: better off with alliances and try to do anything so
Speaker 4: and they know it too, right. That's why they're trying
Speaker 4: to go out and start the you know, their version
Speaker 4: of all these things as well they being in a Russia, China, etc.
Speaker 4: So I hope that that part gets through. I hope
Speaker 4: that people take into account the way President Trump views
Speaker 4: many of these issues around the world, and when it
Speaker 4: comes to you know, you know, even steven when it
Speaker 4: comes to the defense. If not, then it could be
Speaker 4: it could it could be pretty.
Speaker 3: Damn bumpy because you know, I'm staying an obvious point.
Speaker 3: Here is no equivalent to NATO in the pacifics, so
Speaker 3: you know, arguably involved building up a network of my
Speaker 3: lateral alliance and to do that, I think, you know,
Speaker 3: the incoming president has announced the skepticism of alliances, but
Speaker 3: that doesn't necessarily mean that, you know, his the people
Speaker 3: coming in with him may understand the importance of this
Speaker 3: and be able to persuade him. Look, and this may
Speaker 3: cost us money, but it's not going to cost us lives.
Speaker 3: And that's the key issue in that I think, if
Speaker 3: nothing else, would would piss off the Chinese nicely. And
Speaker 3: I think you know, and I get it, economists get
Speaker 3: very afraid of tariffs, But in the end Tarif's the
Speaker 3: one thing the Chinese are really afraid. They hate the
Speaker 3: prospect of that, they'll worry by it, and so that
Speaker 3: may too be a strong disincentive in our hand as
Speaker 3: a tool short of conflict, which I agree with you,
Speaker 3: you know, I mean, I get it, you know, And
Speaker 3: I'm not blaspheming the Marine Corps plans here on on
Speaker 3: their birthday. But the thought of, you know, marine's being
Speaker 3: committed to seize the first island chain under a bombardiment
Speaker 3: of Russian I mean, I sorry, Chinese missiles is just
Speaker 3: too far fetched for me to subscribe to. It, really is.
Speaker 3: I just don't. I don't see that happening.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 6: So I got one more question. We had reports the
Speaker 6: other day of not reports, confirmed reports that Trump had
Speaker 6: a phone call with Zelenski and Elon Musk happened to
Speaker 6: be on that phone call. I know, that's definitely a
Speaker 6: rare thing that we don't hear about, where like some
Speaker 6: billionaire is on a phone call that a president elected
Speaker 6: the president of another country. So what are your guys'
Speaker 6: thoughts on that? Anyone can take it, whoever wants to.
Speaker 6: Fir Us could take it.
Speaker 4: I could start I mean I've been on so a
Speaker 4: lot of those official This is an official, right, so
Speaker 4: it is trans he's in transition. Yes he's going to
Speaker 4: be the president, but this isn't an official head of
Speaker 4: state to head of state yet. So these calls are
Speaker 4: mostly you know, congratulations on the success and look forward
Speaker 4: to working with you, and I might touch on some
Speaker 4: topics and then once you are the president for those
Speaker 4: that don't know, oftentimes people are listening into the conversation,
Speaker 4: you know, if you're if you're responsible, like when President
Speaker 4: Trump was talking Middle East. Obviously the second deaf is
Speaker 4: going to be invited to be on the call. And
Speaker 4: by on the call doesn't mean they're a participant. Is
Speaker 4: there listening in why? Because that's when policy can get
Speaker 4: made right the president says something, they agree, somebody's got
Speaker 4: to write that down, right, And so even you know,
Speaker 4: on my level as the dazz D, I'd be on
Speaker 4: the call listen right again, taking notes and if something
Speaker 4: was agreed to in in the past. To be honest,
Speaker 4: they were much more boilerplate, like we would write the
Speaker 4: talking points for the president. The president in the most
Speaker 4: part would go down the talking points. What do we
Speaker 4: need to hit They can't keep track of every nuance
Speaker 4: of every relationship around the world, you know, and then
Speaker 4: he'd go down the talking points and if they agreed,
Speaker 4: then it was followed up by the team. Okay, they
Speaker 4: agreed to this, right, So that's the traditional way to it.
Speaker 4: President Trump, you know, doesn't follow scripts, at least the
Speaker 4: ones that a lot of the ones that we get right,
Speaker 4: So it's it's tend he tends to go and talk
Speaker 4: about that's his prerogative, right he's the president. I think
Speaker 4: that's going to be the same going forward. So it's
Speaker 4: going to be more of less like suggesting and more
Speaker 4: just keeping track of what the president's agreeing to with
Speaker 4: these world leaders.
Speaker 6: So, you know, I think I'm sorry, I don't want
Speaker 6: to cut you off. I'm sorry, but like that's staff,
Speaker 6: that's not the richest guy in the world who just
Speaker 6: spent a ton of money to Yeah, I mean it's
Speaker 6: a bit different, like degrees to this.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I agree. So I'm just kind of, you know,
Speaker 4: kind of explaining the way we might not no him
Speaker 4: to be on the call is a little it's definitely unorthodox.
Speaker 4: It really puts somebody who's a civilian, to your point,
Speaker 4: who was a big financial uh donor to the Trump
Speaker 4: campaign into a position where, at least from Zelenski's president.
Speaker 4: Of Zelenski's perspective, he's thinking, is this guy going to
Speaker 4: be help and draft US Ukrainian policy? Why would it
Speaker 4: be a call?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Right, so, uh, that would that's unorthodox for sure. He's
Speaker 4: not in a position yet, so yeah, it's it's but
Speaker 4: we we can expect, so we know he's an unauthor
Speaker 4: unorthodox leader. And so this is this is going to
Speaker 4: be something that we could probably talk about every episode.
Speaker 6: I mean, I'm reminded of another phone call that was
Speaker 6: perfect with Zelensky too, that you know, wasn't exactly orthodox, you.
Speaker 3: Know, And I mean, I'm not defending any any stance here,
Speaker 3: but I think too perhaps Selensky was kind of the
Speaker 3: known party, right, I mean, not Selensky mask, you know,
Speaker 3: I mean, Musk has a prior relationship with Zelenski. Selensky's expressed, yes,
Speaker 3: I know what happened with starlinkly familiar with the shortcomings
Speaker 3: of star Starling, not not the system itself, but Musk's
Speaker 3: subsequent change of mind about how it could be used.
Speaker 3: But nevertheless, you know, for a considerable course of the
Speaker 3: war during some critical time, starlink was a really important
Speaker 3: I would say, a critical communications now. It was a
Speaker 3: game changer, and so doubtless Selenski feels some sense of
Speaker 3: some memory of that, and perhaps Trump wanted him there
Speaker 3: as to kind of soften what he was going to say. Look,
Speaker 3: we we you know, to say, hey, look I've got
Speaker 3: a guy here who obviously has your interests at heart.
Speaker 3: You know, bear that in mind when you listen to
Speaker 3: what we have to say. That's that's just my thought.
Speaker 3: And I have listened to the alternate views, the concern
Speaker 3: that we're drifting into an oligarchy. But the second pieced
Speaker 3: you know, he doesn't have a staff yet, so it
Speaker 3: doesn't really matter who he picked. Anyone he picked would
Speaker 3: have been it would have been unconventional call at what
Speaker 3: you will, It would have been Joe Blow.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 6: But even when a president elect is having a phone
Speaker 6: call with another head of state who's congratulating him, and
Speaker 6: it's a lot of like small talk bullshit, you're gonna
Speaker 6: have staff on the call, right, You're gonna have people
Speaker 6: listening in. I'm assuming right, like there's not you know,
Speaker 6: you're gonna have your possible chief of staff or whoever
Speaker 6: your national security advisor was while you were running and
Speaker 6: stuff like that, your foreign policy guy or girl. You know,
Speaker 6: it's concerning only because Mosk is a civilian and he
Speaker 6: has a relationship with Putin too, like he's been talking
Speaker 6: to Putin as well. I'm not a I've never was
Speaker 6: a CIA guy. If I'm a CIA guy, I'm like,
Speaker 6: what the fuck is going on?
Speaker 2: Right? Keep it as plain as possible.
Speaker 5: I think I'm sorry has said that repeated.
Speaker 2: J had something, Jay, what were you going to say?
Speaker 5: No, I was just gonna say And this is not
Speaker 5: in defense of him at all, because I'm not in
Speaker 5: his head, thank god. But I Mick knows this as
Speaker 5: well too. When we're writing our reports, we go to
Speaker 5: a meeting, you know, with an asset whatever. You're writing
Speaker 5: a report, you write it in two parts. There's the
Speaker 5: what was said in the meeting and then why you
Speaker 5: believe it was said. So there's two different things. You're
Speaker 5: not going to put your opinion in the what was said.
Speaker 5: You're going to put your opinion in the you know
Speaker 5: why it was said portion of it. And so it
Speaker 5: could be because he has a past relationship Musk with
Speaker 5: Zelenski It could be that when the phone call was over,
Speaker 5: you know Trump where his people said, Okay, this is
Speaker 5: why we think he said it. Elon, what do you think?
Speaker 5: Because you would want someone who is close to that person,
Speaker 5: that source or whatever it is, to be able to say,
Speaker 5: you know what, yeah he said this, but he's angry
Speaker 5: right now, or he's got a sick child right now,
Speaker 5: and that might have just been a motion or whatever
Speaker 5: it is. It could very well be that, and it
Speaker 5: also could be Trump foreshadowing. Hey, world, get ready because
Speaker 5: Elon Musk is going to be on a lot of
Speaker 5: these calls for whatever reason, as far as foreign as
Speaker 5: that is to us, you know, right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, hey men, what do you know? I know you've
Speaker 3: talked on ABC about this, so we forgive you for
Speaker 3: talking to them first.
Speaker 2: Just but.
Speaker 3: You know, speculation about who he's going to bring in.
Speaker 3: I saw the tweet about Pompeo is out, Nikki Haley
Speaker 3: is out. He thanked them magnanimously for that performance, you know,
Speaker 3: their support during previous administration. But I know Pompeo that
Speaker 3: was talking about him coming in to take to be
Speaker 3: so de right, he's off the list, and and then
Speaker 3: hay Ley's off who what what are you hearing? Sects
Speaker 3: probably the most, the one that I care about most,
Speaker 3: that I be interested in the agency.
Speaker 4: Too, sure, and you know, caveat it with this is
Speaker 4: you know, and again unconventional. I really just get the
Speaker 4: impression Trump team likes the sweepstakes aspect of this, right,
Speaker 4: So who's in, who's out? It's a you know, fine,
Speaker 4: So I've seen lists that just switched, you know, completely overnight.
Speaker 4: So I'm just caveating that with you know, if we
Speaker 4: wake up tomorrow and everybody I suggest is smell like sorry.
Speaker 4: And and I think the conventional wisdom was that Pompeo
Speaker 4: was going to be the odds on favor for Secretary Offense.
Speaker 4: You know, he's been the d C, I A, it's
Speaker 4: been Secretary of State. So who I'm hearing and this
Speaker 4: is internal to the media, swirrel and not just ABC,
Speaker 4: but people bounce stuff off me for Secretary of State.
Speaker 4: Robert O'Brien, the former National Security Advisor, is really well
Speaker 4: liked by President Trump and respected by the team as
Speaker 4: a whole. Uh. And you know, I think has the qualifications. Grennell,
Speaker 4: former Ambassador to Germany. Members of person Robert maybe Richard
Speaker 4: Richard Richard. There you go. I don't I know Robert
Speaker 4: O'Brien for it's worth, and he is a he's a
Speaker 4: pretty he's easy to work with, you know, all things.
Speaker 4: He was the before the National Security Advisor, he was
Speaker 4: special Envoy for hostages and such. And since a lot
Speaker 4: of hostages are in the Middle East, Uh, you know,
Speaker 4: me and him engaged for a bit. I don't know
Speaker 4: mister Grenell, but he's he's the two top ones that
Speaker 4: I've heard consistently for Secretary. I've also heard Senator Rubio,
Speaker 4: which I haven't heard as much lately. I don't know
Speaker 4: if it's an issue of wanting to use the Senator
Speaker 4: that you know, that's a political decision on the d
Speaker 4: D now that Pompeo is obviously not in the mix.
Speaker 4: I've heard Representative Waltz, former Green Beret Mike Wells. I
Speaker 4: believe it is his name I've heard come up for
Speaker 4: Secretary of Defense and National Security Advisor, the other name
Speaker 4: for Secretary of Defense. After Pompeo Cotton pulled himself out.
Speaker 2: Yeah yeah, back then.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so that was another name. I heard a lot
Speaker 4: that if he's pulled himself up, he said he wasn't
Speaker 4: interested in.
Speaker 2: So, yeah, he's angling for a leadership position in the Senate.
Speaker 4: There you go. Yeah, So then I'm I don't know,
Speaker 4: I'll hurry you tomorrow, right, It's it's Sunday. But tomorrow
Speaker 4: I'll hear with the other names, because I doubt they
Speaker 4: will just settle on one that quick just because the
Speaker 4: others pulled out. I think they'll want to review and
Speaker 4: talk to folks. And then a national securitydvisor. I have
Speaker 4: heard Waltz and Ratcliffe. Radcliffe was the d and I
Speaker 4: under the first drump and then for CI director. I've
Speaker 4: heard Radcliffe so or Wals. So there's a lot of
Speaker 4: names that are getting at least discussed openly from multiple positions.
Speaker 3: Will be good, I mean, you know, I'm looking at
Speaker 3: civil linings. I mean, the good thing is that they
Speaker 3: all are experienced, with the exception of a Rubio, they
Speaker 3: have some experience. Yeah, I mean, okay, you can see
Speaker 3: being a low level yes, but well the Wals hasn't
Speaker 3: had experience, I guess, but he But regardless, I I'm
Speaker 3: not I think, yeah, I'm just trying to cling on
Speaker 3: to the good things too, I mean positive note knocking on,
Speaker 3: But look at some of the positive aspects of this.
Speaker 3: And you know, I mean, change is painful, but change
Speaker 3: is often good. So we will we will see.
Speaker 4: Yes, it's yeahs American people, I mean the American people
Speaker 4: have spoken.
Speaker 3: Do you do you have anything?
Speaker 2: No, that's it. We hit it all. We figured out
Speaker 2: the world's.
Speaker 3: Problems very quick. Shout out please, I promise the Marine
Speaker 3: Corps Birthday in in Tennant, Nashville, Tennessee right now is
Speaker 3: eighty one millimeter Mortal Platoon from nineteen ninety two from
Speaker 3: the landing in Somalia. They've been blowing on my phone
Speaker 3: up during this discussion. I was there a lot suffering
Speaker 3: platoon commander back then, and I just want to say
Speaker 3: happy birthday, fellas. You know that I think truly that
Speaker 3: was my That was my happiest command as a as
Speaker 3: a lieutenant. And I hope you're having a good time
Speaker 3: and I hope you're staying at trouble but but happy
Speaker 3: birthday to you, and happy birthday to all Marines full
Speaker 3: marines and their families out there. No bless you all.
Speaker 4: Sound per five by everybody.
Speaker 2: Boys don't remember, don't forget, and girls don't forget to
Speaker 2: like and subscribe. The new channel is very important. Uh.
Speaker 6: Check out Mick of course, all the links will be
Speaker 6: in the description. Check out Andy his book When of
Speaker 6: the Tempest Gathers, and patreon dot com Slash the teamhouse.
Speaker 2: It's the best way to support the show. Thank you.