Speaker 1: Hey, what's up everybody. I want to think our newest
Speaker 1: sponsor to the Perfect Gene. They sent us a couple
Speaker 1: of these in order of these for everybody last week,
Speaker 1: and I've been rocking them. And as I figured out,
Speaker 1: there's a reason why some sponsors don't want to send
Speaker 1: you stuff, but these people did, and I've been rocking
Speaker 1: these jeans. I rocked them a few times this past week,
Speaker 1: and they're probably the best jeans I've ever worn in
Speaker 1: my life. I'm not saying that because they're paying us.
Speaker 1: I tried them out. They are legit. I used to
Speaker 1: hate wearing regular jeans because like, they're just not comfortable
Speaker 1: and we all need to admit it. So I went
Speaker 1: to sweatpants. I was rocking the stretched chinos, which they
Speaker 1: do have. Also, I'm gonna go back to rocking jeans,
Speaker 1: I think with the Perfect Gene. I bought two other
Speaker 1: pairs too, with my own money. We used our promo code,
Speaker 1: which is how it's fifteen for fifteen percent off. But honestly,
Speaker 1: it's incredible. There's a part in this video where the
Speaker 1: guys are doing lungers and the ladies are checking them out.
Speaker 1: I don't know if it's because of the gene. But
Speaker 1: I have found that people were women were checking me
Speaker 1: out more and more over the last week. I don't
Speaker 1: know what that is. Maybe it's the way I carry myself,
Speaker 1: maybe it's my gate, or maybe it's the Perfect Gene,
Speaker 1: or maybe it's all combined at all three combined. I don't know,
Speaker 1: but check it out. We really appreciate them sponsoring us.
Speaker 1: For a limited time, our listeners get fifteen percent off
Speaker 1: their first order plus free shipping at the Perfect Gene
Speaker 1: dot nyc. Or you could google the Perfect Gene and
Speaker 1: use the code House fifteen. That's House one to five
Speaker 1: for fifteen percent off. That's fifteen percent off for new
Speaker 1: customers at the Perfect Gene dot NYC with promo code
Speaker 1: House fifteen. After your purchase, they'll ask you where you
Speaker 1: heard about them. Please support our show and tell them
Speaker 1: we sent you. K your khakis and get the Perfect Gene. Guys,
Speaker 1: thank you for supporting this show, and thank you for
Speaker 1: Perfect Gene for helping us support the show as well.
Speaker 1: We couldn't do it without you, guys. Thanks a lot,
Speaker 1: House fifteen fifteen percent off. Hey, everybody, welcome to another
Speaker 1: episode of Eyes on Eyes on Geopolitics, we changed the
Speaker 1: name up a little bit so it's better to find
Speaker 1: on YouTube and everywhere else, so don't forget to like
Speaker 1: and subscribe. There. Joined today with Mick Molroy Andy Milburn
Speaker 1: a lot of cooking since we last talked big news.
Speaker 1: This last uh, the end of last week was tariffs,
Speaker 1: all the tariffs that have been implemented on various countries,
Speaker 1: a ten percent baseline tariff and then if you were
Speaker 1: on the list, everyone had their own little little uh.
Speaker 1: Everyone had a different number. A little bit about the
Speaker 1: percentage of how they got to the tariffs is kind
Speaker 1: of hilarious. It's almost like they just did it on
Speaker 1: a napkin in the Oval office and said, let's do
Speaker 1: this this way. I mean, I don't know that for sure,
Speaker 1: but that's what I you know, it seems like what
Speaker 1: was I gonna say, Oh, the one little thing that
Speaker 1: I noticed was no Russia and a tarriffs. And before
Speaker 1: everyone says, oh, we don't really do trade with Russia,
Speaker 1: that we do three billion dollars a year in trade
Speaker 1: with Russia. So still even while this Ukraine war is
Speaker 1: going on and sanctions are high. So guys, I know
Speaker 1: you guys aren't economists, but what are your thoughts on
Speaker 1: what's happening with the tariffs? Do you guys decide first?
Speaker 1: Go first?
Speaker 2: All right, I'll go for it.
Speaker 3: An yeah, yeah, go ahead, all right.
Speaker 4: Well, I'll start with the fact that I'm not an
Speaker 4: economist nor a financial analyst, so I'm gonna pose my
Speaker 4: my statements in the form of a question, because you know,
Speaker 4: the old Socratic thing, because they're truly questions.
Speaker 2: I guess I'd start with.
Speaker 4: Tariffs obviously ultimately are attacks on somebody, right, whether it's
Speaker 4: the manufacturer that's coming in the company that's does the importation,
Speaker 4: or the people and the that are purchasing it.
Speaker 2: So or all the above.
Speaker 4: So it does seem to me that they could call
Speaker 4: it what it is is, which is the biggest tax
Speaker 4: potential tax increase on the American population since you know,
Speaker 4: incompact tax started.
Speaker 2: So we can at least be honest.
Speaker 4: About what this could be and we'll find out, like
Speaker 4: this is in one of those arguments that's going to
Speaker 4: go on in perpetuity.
Speaker 2: We're going to find out if.
Speaker 4: All the cost of goods across the United States goes up,
Speaker 4: and if it does, that's the tax, the tariff tax. Right,
Speaker 4: If it doesn't, then we'll know that too. So I
Speaker 4: think we start with that, and then the questions I'd
Speaker 4: have if you look back in history, and I know
Speaker 4: everybody's watched that. You know the clip from Ferris Bueller,
Speaker 4: I mean, has this worked in the past, and how effective?
Speaker 4: Apparently that actually causes a great depression to get work
Speaker 4: war was the smooth poly ter effact or whatever it
Speaker 4: was called. So I look it past, I look at
Speaker 4: what's going to actually happen, and then it's sets the
Speaker 4: stage of whether this is really going to have a
Speaker 4: massive impact, not just on the upper income, right, because
Speaker 4: everybody buys stuff, So this is a tax now all
Speaker 4: the way down to the lowest income, including people who
Speaker 4: are on some kind of assistance, because then your assistance
Speaker 4: buys less, so it's a tax. And then the question
Speaker 4: for me is whether it's worth it. So the intent
Speaker 4: is to bring all these manufacturing jobs back to the
Speaker 4: United States. My question to the economists, not politicians, because
Speaker 4: I'd like to know somebody actually spend a.
Speaker 2: Lot of time looking at this. Is that going to happen?
Speaker 4: If we on this podcast or audience were collectively looking
Speaker 4: at whether we're going to invest a couple of billion
Speaker 4: dollars in building a car manufacturing plant in Tennessee. Are
Speaker 4: we going to do that not knowing that within three
Speaker 4: and a half years, this entire policy's going out the window,
Speaker 4: because that's the danger of a president being able to
Speaker 4: do all this, whichever president it is, because the next
Speaker 4: president can undo the entire thing, and then we've just
Speaker 4: wasted a billion dollars potentially and halfway through a project
Speaker 4: that we're not going to complete. So that's the second,
Speaker 4: I guess question i'd have. And then the third question
Speaker 4: is aren't we automating right now? Isn't that the intent
Speaker 4: of manufacturers right now? Are we going to get to
Speaker 4: a point where it's not in going to increase jobs
Speaker 4: because we're trying to get to a point where we
Speaker 4: have these robotic systems that create cars and phones and
Speaker 4: everything that's that it can And if that's the case,
Speaker 4: I could still see some potential benefit of bringing that
Speaker 4: back to the United States, But it's not all about,
Speaker 4: you know, the jobs that we lost back in the eighties.
Speaker 4: So i'd have I think I'd like to hear those
Speaker 4: questions answered by non politicians who are not economists on
Speaker 4: either side of the aisle and start being asked to
Speaker 4: directly to the manufacturing CEOs, to the global economists. And
Speaker 4: then the last point I'd make is, this is one
Speaker 4: system that we're going to have to address because if
Speaker 4: this is wrong, this could could seriously damage and we
Speaker 4: haven't even started talking about the stock market, seriously damaged,
Speaker 4: our standing in the world, our relationships around the world,
Speaker 4: our economy, which is actually exceptional. I think we're too
Speaker 4: hard on ourselves try and always play that it's not
Speaker 4: or do we need to make this more balance like
Speaker 4: our whole systems checks and balances, right, So if the
Speaker 4: president can tear up the president can take off the tariffs,
Speaker 4: we could be dramatically going back and forth every four years.
Speaker 4: So that's what I got in the form of a question.
Speaker 2: Hopefully Andy can answer it all over then.
Speaker 3: No such luck. Make Actually I've got more questions and answers,
Speaker 3: but you know as to so you know that I
Speaker 3: do understand, and of course you know, everyone who knows
Speaker 3: me knows that I'm far from being an economist. But
Speaker 3: here's the little that I understand, and here are the
Speaker 3: questions that I that I would ask. So you know,
Speaker 3: as far as the technicalities of trade my understanding because
Speaker 3: the rationale for this was reduced the United States's trade deficit.
Speaker 3: That was kind of the leading rationale. And yet my
Speaker 3: understanding is that the trade deficit has nothing to do
Speaker 3: with the tariffs imposed on US exports at all. It
Speaker 3: has to do with the fact that Americans generally choose
Speaker 3: to spend more than they invest, right to include their government.
Speaker 3: That is what is creating the deficit, and tariffs terraffs
Speaker 3: won't affect that at all, except arguably perhaps leaving Americans
Speaker 3: with far less to invest or say for that matter.
Speaker 3: So you know, I would be interested to hear someone's
Speaker 3: answer who does know about trade deficits and their connections
Speaker 3: with protectionist policy, to see how they are connected at all.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: Secondly, my very rudimentary understanding of economics and recent history
Speaker 3: is simply that, I mean, this is undeniable. The United
Speaker 3: States economy has been so strong that in the last
Speaker 3: three decades it is far outstripped the G seven. And
Speaker 3: even when Europe, you know, in the last year, was
Speaker 3: looking at entering a recession, certainly a significant slowdown, the
Speaker 3: US economy was booming. So you know, in the words
Speaker 3: of the old phrase, if it ain't broke, Why fix it?
Speaker 3: What are we fixing? Okay, So that's my second question
Speaker 3: and the third mecha relating to you know, your historical references.
Speaker 3: It's very difficult because the judge calls an effect. But
Speaker 3: the truth is, one hundred years ago when the United States,
Speaker 3: when most countries had the system of protectionism, high tariffs,
Speaker 3: the US was nowhere near the lead economically in the world.
Speaker 2: And.
Speaker 3: The Great Depression coincided with some of the highest tariffs
Speaker 3: without the highest tariffs in the last hundred years occurred
Speaker 3: with they're in place immediately preceding the Great Depression. So,
Speaker 3: whether or not you believe in cause and effect, that's
Speaker 3: an incredible coincidence, isn't it. And it's only in the
Speaker 3: last eighty years where repeated rounds of trade talks in
Speaker 3: the aftermath of the sec World War have led incrementally
Speaker 3: to the lowering of tariffs around the world that you've
Speaker 3: seen the global economy rise. Okay, So whether or not
Speaker 3: you're interested in proving cause and effect, that's again a
Speaker 3: remarkable coincidence. So I would ask, why are we ignoring
Speaker 3: all of this history? All right? Even for the most
Speaker 3: basic understanding of economics, and history that I have. Those
Speaker 3: things seem pretty compelling arguments, and I haven't seen any
Speaker 3: counter arguments. And in fact, indeed, I think sadly in
Speaker 3: the years ahead, we're going to show exactly how disastrous
Speaker 3: these policies are, unless indeed they are a very incomprehensible
Speaker 3: negotiating tactic. If they are a negotiating tactic, what exactly
Speaker 3: are we asking for? Again, with the leading economy in
Speaker 3: the world, we're doing tremendously the stock market. You know,
Speaker 3: I know, not everything the economy in the stock market
Speaker 3: shouldn't be conflated, but the stock market was at its highest,
Speaker 3: you know late last year. Unemployment was low. People generally
Speaker 3: were by all measures, please with the way things are going.
Speaker 3: And we I mean, look at how far the US
Speaker 3: economy has progressed in the last decade. And it was
Speaker 3: the quickest to recover in the Western world off the pandemic.
Speaker 3: So all of these things were going really well. Again,
Speaker 3: why change that?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Also, you look at inflation too across the world
Speaker 1: compared to the US, Like, yeah, inflation was tough here,
Speaker 1: but it's nothing compared to EU. Turkey, for another, Like,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of developed countries that have been hit
Speaker 1: hard with inflation since COVID. This will obviously add to inflation,
Speaker 1: right because most of the stuff we get is not
Speaker 1: American made, and that's just the fact of globalization, market capitalism.
Speaker 1: And the big hit on Friday was for the stock
Speaker 1: market was because China announced a thirty four percent reciprocal
Speaker 1: tariff on the US goods.
Speaker 3: So we're going to make China a great again. I mean,
Speaker 3: this is absolutely playing into cheese hands. And he predicted.
Speaker 3: He predicted a few years ago that you know when
Speaker 3: when the argument was always he was always confronted with
Speaker 3: the argument, Hey, the US is booming, you know, the
Speaker 3: American way works and all of this. He said, yes,
Speaker 3: you're going to see things turned upside down in the
Speaker 3: next few years. And sure enough, I think that's what
Speaker 3: we're seeing. Yes, China will be hurt in the near term.
Speaker 3: Who knows as much as the US economy. The China
Speaker 3: will be hurt, but they're already redirecting the emphasis of
Speaker 3: their exports and they've proven to be very flexible in
Speaker 3: any case. They bypassed tariffs previously by going through Vietnam.
Speaker 3: Of course that's going to be less effective now that
Speaker 3: Vietnam is subject to tariffs. But the point is that
Speaker 3: they can direct trade. The Chinese government can direct the
Speaker 3: confluence of trade in a way that the United States cannot.
Speaker 3: And we'll recover, and we'll find a market throughout the
Speaker 3: world from all of those countries that we have now alienated,
Speaker 3: and not just the market for trade, but a market
Speaker 3: too for all those things that we for Chinese influence,
Speaker 3: you name it, military exports, allowing allowing basing rights, uh,
Speaker 3: extending the you know, the the there with what Cinma
Speaker 3: trying to remember the cliche about their uh you know,
Speaker 3: the the Chin to make home me out here, the
Speaker 3: rail rails and road and railway road initiative. Yeah, I
Speaker 3: mean all of the all of these things are going
Speaker 3: to flourish in the face. It's a gift. It's a
Speaker 3: gift to our adversaries.
Speaker 2: Yep.
Speaker 4: I mean we even talking, we're even here in Japan
Speaker 4: and South Korea talking to China about you know, trade policy,
Speaker 4: you talk about realignment. Remember, we are the biggest UH
Speaker 4: economy in the world. And I agree with Andy. If
Speaker 4: you look at the stats and I just saw charts,
Speaker 4: I mean, we have really done well against our most
Speaker 4: you know, significant not competitors, But I guess competitors like
Speaker 4: if you look at the EU, we've we or we
Speaker 4: have gone in twenty years from about equal to double
Speaker 4: the economy and our you know base mean salary is
Speaker 4: the best in the world as far as I could
Speaker 4: see in TH's charts unless the Church we're inaccurate. So
Speaker 4: I mean, to your point, Andy, what is it we're fixing?
Speaker 4: And then is this going to fix it? Or is
Speaker 4: this gonna essentially alienate the because this has all happened
Speaker 4: at the same time, we're talking about making Canada fifty
Speaker 4: first state and taking over, you know, territory of a
Speaker 4: NATO al it's do it's it's not just trade, it's
Speaker 4: also and then questioning the value of NATO, and we're
Speaker 4: going to reorder the world and right now the world
Speaker 4: is in our favor. Is I guess the question I
Speaker 4: would have? So why would we do that? And we
Speaker 4: could get all the negatives right because we did this
Speaker 4: and not on the positives, because it's then it's then
Speaker 4: on and flips back the other direction in three and
Speaker 4: a half years, because if a Democrat's elected, they're probably
Speaker 4: not going to continue on.
Speaker 2: This isolationist policy.
Speaker 4: And inside the Republican Party, it's traditionally been free trade
Speaker 4: since World War Two. Well, anybody that gets elected is
Speaker 4: from the traditional side of the Republican Party, which is
Speaker 4: most of the Senators, right, they could go back to
Speaker 4: the Reagan approach, which is more free trade than the Democrats.
Speaker 4: So and it seems like the only way this would
Speaker 4: be effective is if it's long term, and we just
Speaker 4: don't have the capacity to do long term things, so.
Speaker 1: It makes no sense whatsoever. Also, fun fact that I
Speaker 1: read this week was during the Great Depression, ten percent
Speaker 1: of households had stocks. Today it's seventy two percent of
Speaker 1: households have some money or a lot of money in
Speaker 1: the stock market. So to coup to multi couple on
Speaker 1: top of the fact that things are going to get
Speaker 1: more expensive with these tariffs are sticking around, people are
Speaker 1: getting smoked in. They're four to one k and their
Speaker 1: investment accounts and stuff like that. Their retirement Like.
Speaker 4: Yeah, everybody mind bodily, and this idea it's only for
Speaker 4: wealthy people is totally not true, right, I mean, we're
Speaker 4: based in our military. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong.
Speaker 4: Uh Andy, I've been retired for a while, but we're
Speaker 4: even basing a lot of our service members, you know,
Speaker 4: retirement on the stock market, aren't we isn't that what
Speaker 4: the TSP is and then invested in the stock market.
Speaker 4: So we're talking all the way out to the lowest
Speaker 4: level of soldier is invested in the stock market. And
Speaker 4: that's intentional by the government. So we do have a
Speaker 4: responsibility to make sure that we don't do anything to
Speaker 4: significantly just rup the stock market.
Speaker 3: In my opinion, so remember, uh yeah, remember Reaganomics, you know,
Speaker 3: taking us out of stackflation in the seminies. I mean,
Speaker 3: Reaganomics was based on I mean it was cold at
Speaker 3: the time, illliberalism, right, which was about reducing tariffs and
Speaker 3: trade paris. I mean, it's just it's extraordinary. Anyway, a
Speaker 3: lot of questions we're going to answer are informed listenership
Speaker 3: will be able to chime in in comments on.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the economists are going to chime in in the comments.
Speaker 2: Can't wait, let's put those to the top.
Speaker 3: But you know, you know, seriously, I gets back to
Speaker 3: what I've I've gone on about before. Is sadly that
Speaker 3: I and I don't. I don't, I can't you know,
Speaker 3: I wasn't brought up in the American education system. So
Speaker 3: I'm not thank god, yeah, I'm not. No, I mean,
Speaker 3: I'm not qualified to talk about it. I mean, you know,
Speaker 3: but it does seem to me that there is just
Speaker 3: an incredible blindness towards history. Geography too, by the way,
Speaker 3: but especially history, you know, even recent history. And it
Speaker 3: seems like as the this this ignorance has has uh
Speaker 3: has has risen to right to the right to the top,
Speaker 3: which is certainly concerning. I don't know how you address that,
Speaker 3: but that whole cliche about those who don't understand history
Speaker 3: are condemned to repeat it.
Speaker 1: Andy, I'll give you a nice anecdote. When I used
Speaker 1: to do podcasts that were more comedic focused. I used
Speaker 1: to have my you know, my buddies on and they
Speaker 1: used to give them the citizens citizenship test, just the
Speaker 1: questions from the citizenship test.
Speaker 3: That's tough, are they though?
Speaker 1: I mean, I mean they're not tough at all, and
Speaker 1: they would fucking fail And it was hilarious at the time.
Speaker 1: But it speaks to a broader thing of like what's
Speaker 1: wrong with our educational system? You know. I read another
Speaker 1: thing where like majority of kids are functionally illiterate, where
Speaker 1: like they can read obviously, but they like they're understanding,
Speaker 1: is by far, like way less than what he wants,
Speaker 1: you know, fifty years ago or something like that, you know,
Speaker 1: and it's.
Speaker 3: Scared, yeah, I think, I mean. And add to that
Speaker 3: so absolutely, you know, the at vent of the internet
Speaker 3: and then the phone, so the big thing that I
Speaker 3: think have steered people away from books. And so now
Speaker 3: you have you remember Mark Twain, you don't remember him,
Speaker 3: but Mark Mark Twain said something along the lines of,
Speaker 3: you know, being illiterate is sad, but sadder even than that,
Speaker 3: it is being literate, but choosing not to read. And
Speaker 3: I think that's that encompasses you know a lot of
Speaker 3: people sadly in this country or they read what they
Speaker 3: want to read. And and and it's certainly in not history, No, no.
Speaker 1: I don't think histories wouldn't any uh so, and on
Speaker 1: top of the charts.
Speaker 3: In the meantime, I suppose we're all, you know, snashing
Speaker 3: dollar bill notes or bars of gold into our mattresses
Speaker 3: and just hunkering down to for this on. There's a
Speaker 3: very sad component to this, and that is it touches
Speaker 3: on what Mick was talking about, the promise to return
Speaker 3: manufacturing to the United States, you know that, and there's
Speaker 3: so many things that are convoluted with that statement. We
Speaker 3: are no longer in manufacturing based industry for a country,
Speaker 3: you know, for good reason. We've evolved beyond that and
Speaker 3: we have the best of both worlds. But this promise
Speaker 3: to return manufacturing and coupled with lack of education in
Speaker 3: many of the areas that that were sort that were
Speaker 3: the sources of US manufacturing, you know, this promise has
Speaker 3: been believed, but it's it's very difficult to imagine you know,
Speaker 3: you name it the steel industry, or not manufacturing, but
Speaker 3: coal mining, or all of these things coming back to
Speaker 3: be viable industries within the US simply because we are
Speaker 3: isolating ourselves from the world. I mean, that doesn't seem
Speaker 3: to be a logical correlation here, and I think a
Speaker 3: lot of people are going to be not just disappointed,
Speaker 3: but really really hurt financially.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and if you saw the recent interview with Bill Gates,
Speaker 4: I mean, this is a guy who obviously knows technology
Speaker 4: and the potential of how it's going to evolve, and
Speaker 4: he's talking about just how we're going to automate almost
Speaker 4: everything we do in society, from building a house to
Speaker 4: being a physician. So we got to really look at
Speaker 4: that and whether we are trying to get back to
Speaker 4: a time that doesn't exist anymore, where people work in
Speaker 4: factories and we build things by our hands. There's people
Speaker 4: who know where this is going. I don't think it's
Speaker 4: a mystery. I think a lot of the automation has
Speaker 4: already occurred. I mean, I was just talking to somebody
Speaker 4: who was in a Tesla plant and he's like, they're
Speaker 4: already building this thing pretty much with robots. So if
Speaker 4: that's where we're going, you know, that doesn't mean we
Speaker 4: don't want that to be in the United States, I
Speaker 4: don't think. But it's still a question of we're trying
Speaker 4: to get back to a time that essentially doesn't exist anymore,
Speaker 4: and nor will it. So we need some economists, we
Speaker 4: need some futurists, we need some engineers to start weighing
Speaker 4: in on I think policy, because right now it's it's
Speaker 4: people who and in some cases, people who are supporting
Speaker 4: this that spent their entire you know, decades and decades
Speaker 4: long career saying the exact opposite Reaganomics, right, free trade,
Speaker 4: I mean they mean saying, I mean most of the
Speaker 4: people in the Senate have been around for a long time, unfortunately,
Speaker 4: and now they're either not saying anything or they're saying
Speaker 4: the opposite of what they what they supported for decades.
Speaker 4: So it takes you know, as far as way I
Speaker 4: see it, it takes them off of being a person that
Speaker 4: we should rely on. We should talk to people who
Speaker 4: actually know the industry, know how it's evolve, and know
Speaker 4: whether this is going to work. Even if it's the
Speaker 4: best case scenario that it's effective.
Speaker 1: It's like trying to turn a tanker going fifty forty
Speaker 1: knots like completely around, Like it's not going to happen.
Speaker 1: It's going to cost trillions of dollars to bring manufacturing
Speaker 1: and build factories and do all that back in the
Speaker 1: United States. How are you going to do that when
Speaker 1: your stock market's and the shitter and there's no capital
Speaker 1: to spend. Who's going to pay for it?
Speaker 4: The market right overseas, right exactly?
Speaker 3: You know, they're already pretty I mean, you name it.
Speaker 3: Any country in the world can import things now manufactured
Speaker 3: elsewhere cheaper, cheaper price than we can do in the
Speaker 3: United States. I mean it's yeah, so you know, even us, uh,
Speaker 3: bumbling novice economists. UH can can have pointed to multiple
Speaker 3: flaws UH in this and it makes you know a
Speaker 3: lot of thing out I'll say, I don't know this
Speaker 3: last thing. I'll say that's up to UH, that's up
Speaker 3: to d I don't mean to make it sound so final,
Speaker 3: but on this topic, and I think it's an important one,
Speaker 3: is you know, where is the GOP in the Senate?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 3: I mean that is that that is you know we
Speaker 3: even use that term the Senate. It's it's synonymous with
Speaker 3: kind of wise advice, right, something from Roman times. And
Speaker 3: that is where our elder statesmen are in the positive
Speaker 3: use of the term. And they's supposed to be a
Speaker 3: steady hand right there for and and as a constitutional
Speaker 3: bulwark against the executive perhaps getting out of bounce. And
Speaker 3: we we're still waiting to see any kind of coherent
Speaker 3: opposition from the Senate, not even opposition guidance. But sadly,
Speaker 3: some of the prominent names there seemed to be more
Speaker 3: concerned with re election and holding onto their seats than
Speaker 3: with really providing value to the country. You know, it's
Speaker 3: one of those times where you have to ask where
Speaker 3: is where is John McCain, for instance, Right, and I'm
Speaker 3: not you know, I get it, there's pretty people out
Speaker 3: there who hate John McCain. But the point is you
Speaker 3: could always rely on him right to criticize policy that
Speaker 3: he regarded being dumb, regardless of where it was coming from.
Speaker 1: Well, there is a bit of a.
Speaker 3: We don't have anyone quite like him, right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the Senate did vote on the Canadian terrorists like
Speaker 1: trying to block them, and a couple of Republicans did
Speaker 1: break ranks, Rand Paul being one, and a few four others,
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell in too, and some a couple other people,
Speaker 1: but they're well aware that it's not going to go
Speaker 1: to the House. The House is not going to bring
Speaker 1: it up for a vote to at least block even
Speaker 1: the Canadian terrorists and not just Canadian terrorists, not to
Speaker 1: top the bottom. You're not wrong, Andy, And like I'll
Speaker 1: be real, I mean, I like John McCain. I'm not
Speaker 1: a huge fan of like the Senate obviously, or like
Speaker 1: politicians in general. But yeah, you would think some people
Speaker 1: would step up because, like their constituents are gonna feel
Speaker 1: the crunch, whether it's in the markets from their four
Speaker 1: one ks or to the like the grocery store or
Speaker 1: when you're ordering something on Amazon, whatever the case may be,
Speaker 1: your day to day. I mean I saw a thing.
Speaker 1: It's four thousand dollars a year for an average family.
Speaker 1: That's real deal money that they probably don't have.
Speaker 4: Yep, and a cool fact or maybe not cool but
Speaker 4: in fact I just looked up because I heard this before.
Speaker 4: Senate comes from Senex, which is an old term for
Speaker 4: old man.
Speaker 1: So that's apt.
Speaker 4: Yeah there, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1: So I mean, maybe we'll get an economist onto, like
Speaker 1: you know, actually give us some like real real facts.
Speaker 1: I mean, but it doesn't take it. You don't have
Speaker 1: to be uh go over to the London School of
Speaker 1: Economics to you know, really have a grasp of what's
Speaker 1: going on. Moving on now, Uh, National Security Council has
Speaker 1: been a bit of an upheaval, some firings and stuff
Speaker 1: like that. Uh. National Security Agency Director General Timothy haw
Speaker 1: got the boot on. You know, he was one of
Speaker 1: the hold always from the Biden administration. Everybody generally said
Speaker 1: he was a rock solid guy. He used to run
Speaker 1: cyber Command as well for the military. This comes a
Speaker 1: day after far right conspiracy theorist Laura Lumer had an
Speaker 1: at a meeting with Trump in the White House, running
Speaker 1: her mouth and going on about people who are disloyal
Speaker 1: to the president. And then you saw the next day,
Speaker 1: I think about six people got fired. I don't know
Speaker 1: the names of the rest of them. I know more
Speaker 1: than that. What are your guys thoughts on that? En
Speaker 1: It's sake obviously a very important position when I say
Speaker 1: ans National Security Agency administered agency director.
Speaker 4: Yes, So a couple of things to point out. The
Speaker 4: appointments of people to these significant four star commands isn't
Speaker 4: supposed to be political at all. It's supposed to be
Speaker 4: the opposite. Uniform military is not supposed to be tied
Speaker 4: to a political party and certainly not loyal to a politician.
Speaker 4: That's just from the time you're a private or a
Speaker 4: lieutenant to the you're a some major four star general.
Speaker 4: You know, I think everybody knows this, but I have
Speaker 4: to say it. It's loyalty to the Constitution, So fidelity
Speaker 4: to your oath to the Constitution. So they're picked, in
Speaker 4: my experience, for their competence as military leaders, and there
Speaker 4: should remain in place if they were competent in the
Speaker 4: first place, regardless of who is the commander chief now yes,
Speaker 4: as a lot of people point out, the president gets
Speaker 4: to pick that. That's true, but having the right to
Speaker 4: do so and making and whether it is right is
Speaker 4: two different things. Right, you could fire every the president
Speaker 4: and Commander chief could fire every officer of the military,
Speaker 4: and obviously that's not right. So and I don't know
Speaker 4: General Hope. I would say everything about him sounds like
Speaker 4: he was the right person for the job and was
Speaker 4: an exceptional officer. So this is I don't think the
Speaker 4: kind of moves you'd like to see. And I know
Speaker 4: obviously a lot of Republicans on the Hill, and I
Speaker 4: with a few exceptions, i've heard anybody disagree with that.
Speaker 4: The other part, of course, is the NSC. The NSC
Speaker 4: is supposed to be where the fusion of policy comes together,
Speaker 4: and there are appointees. They are political appointees, but there's
Speaker 4: also details people who simply come from the different agencies
Speaker 4: and departments because they have to make this work, they
Speaker 4: have to represent, and they are the continuity. So if
Speaker 4: everybody switches out in the NSC every time there's an
Speaker 4: election in four years, then the continuity is damaged substantially,
Speaker 4: and our long term policy objectives that don't change because
Speaker 4: they're interests in the United States are damaged at least
Speaker 4: with the knowledge and.
Speaker 2: How and who and all that stuff. So there's a
Speaker 2: reason we have detailers at the NSC.
Speaker 4: And that's it, and that's commonly, that's a common belief
Speaker 4: that this consistency with detail ees is very beneficial to the.
Speaker 2: Long term US national security objectives.
Speaker 4: So that's to set it up. This person, I didn't
Speaker 4: know much about her. I was surprised by what people
Speaker 4: claimed that she had claimed herself. So to the best
Speaker 4: I looked at up, it does appear that she said
Speaker 4: pretty blatant supremacist stuff at a white supremacist rally, and
Speaker 4: that she said very anti Islamic.
Speaker 2: Statements, and that she.
Speaker 4: Denied or she has the theory that the US, you know,
Speaker 4: carried out Minor eleven against ourself right, which is not
Speaker 4: only wholly nonsensical illogical. It should be offensive to any
Speaker 4: American that somebody would propose that our government, elected by
Speaker 4: our people, attacked ourselves and then lost thousands of service
Speaker 4: men and women and others in the fights that came
Speaker 4: from it, and you know, to a trillion dollars.
Speaker 3: It's hard to be very confused. I just want to
Speaker 3: say pretty quickly, because that is the argument used to
Speaker 3: hit from al Qaeda.
Speaker 4: Yeah yeah, who who simultaneously took credit for it and
Speaker 4: then said we did it. On the inside, it was
Speaker 4: you know, yes. So it's hard to believe that that
Speaker 4: person is then having a significant influence over what has
Speaker 4: been traditionally non political positions.
Speaker 2: Right, not loyal to who?
Speaker 4: Right, and the NSC people that were picked by the
Speaker 4: NSC or the National Security Advisor. So this is seriously
Speaker 4: undercut the National Security Advisor. It is against all traditions,
Speaker 4: both sides of the aisle. And it's really hard to
Speaker 4: believe that somebody who admittedly said these things and has
Speaker 4: no experience that I could see in national security has
Speaker 4: this big of an influence. It's really shocking that more
Speaker 4: people haven't said the obvious. It's surprising when you talk
Speaker 4: I guess it isn't surprising when you talk to people,
Speaker 4: because I go brief people on the hill and you
Speaker 4: say one thing and then the cameras turn off, and God,
Speaker 4: but I don't know any senior elected official that thinks
Speaker 4: that the US military should be tied to a political
Speaker 4: person but on the basis of loyalty.
Speaker 2: I'll leave it there to them.
Speaker 3: Andy, Yeah, I've got very little to add to that
Speaker 3: very articulate defense of inter national security apparatus being should
Speaker 3: be free held above politics, and you know, I would
Speaker 3: it really confuses me when I hear people try to
Speaker 3: argue otherwise that it's okay to for you know, the
Speaker 3: military or the national again you know, NSA agency to
Speaker 3: have a political bias, or you know, to allow political
Speaker 3: bias to sway decisions to hire far people. You know
Speaker 3: what I mean, I think it goes should go without
Speaker 3: saying that if if you are if you're in the military,
Speaker 3: you hold a military rank or a rank indeed, you know,
Speaker 3: aside from the director of these agencies you know which
Speaker 3: of course our political appointees. But beneath that, if you're
Speaker 3: going to be fired, it should be for a question
Speaker 3: of performance or a question of conduct, right, not because
Speaker 3: someone has said something about your political views. I mean,
Speaker 3: think about it. That that just conjures up the worst
Speaker 3: images of you know, the Soviet Union, and people are
Speaker 3: by the way of throwing back and forth the term
Speaker 3: or welling in and as one of the people who's
Speaker 3: actually read nineteen eighty four several times, I do encourage
Speaker 3: our literate audience, which tells me is a minority of
Speaker 3: our audience, but nevertheless, our literate audience to reread that
Speaker 3: book or watch the movie because it is you're going
Speaker 3: to see some very astounding parallels.
Speaker 2: Good point.
Speaker 1: All right, yeah, well said. Moving on the campaign, I
Speaker 1: don't know if you want to call it that against
Speaker 1: the Houthis is continuing since March fifteenth, It's been about
Speaker 1: three weeks. A couple of MQ nine since it began
Speaker 1: have been shot down. I have a couple of questions.
Speaker 1: Has this slowed down the Hoothies at all?
Speaker 3: Well, it's difficult to say deep because the Hoothies have
Speaker 3: actually been fairly quiet since January. Remember when the cease
Speaker 3: file was agreed too in Gaza, Remember they you know,
Speaker 3: they were connecting their attacks, the piracy attacks on ships
Speaker 3: with what was happening in Gaza, even though the majority
Speaker 3: nearly all of the ships they hit had nothing to
Speaker 3: do with Israel. Actually none of them did. One of
Speaker 3: them had an Israeli officer on board. But since January
Speaker 3: they've been relatively quiet. The strikes, the current strikes started
Speaker 3: in March. I do want to preface this by saying
Speaker 3: that you know this is kind of the fourth group
Speaker 3: of strikes. The Saudis were pounding the hohofies for you know,
Speaker 3: since since twenty fifteen, you know, the Israelis have had
Speaker 3: their shot. I'm not saying this is in chronological order.
Speaker 3: There's been overlapped. Under the Biden administration. In twenty twenty four,
Speaker 3: there were a series of strikes largely ineffectual. It's fair
Speaker 3: to say, because they were, they were few and far between.
Speaker 3: And now we have since March the fifteenth, this set
Speaker 3: of strikes. It's difficult at this stage to judge their effectiveness.
Speaker 3: You know, the Pentagons said very little about you know,
Speaker 3: what the targets were, but it is clear that you know,
Speaker 3: they've gone after some of the old targets. Military.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you just have your on a group signature,
Speaker 1: a signal chare you can find out whether the target exactly.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know, clear, it's clear some of the targets
Speaker 3: are old targets. Military sites we've hit before, radar stations,
Speaker 3: missile storage depots. You know, they've they've mostly been there's
Speaker 3: a lot a lot of the bombings focused in the
Speaker 3: northern governorate sadark And, but there's also you know, they've
Speaker 3: been going after mid level HOOFI commanders. And there's a
Speaker 3: I forget his name, but there's kind of a Yemen
Speaker 3: Yemeny analyst in one of think tanks in Washington, al
Speaker 3: Muhammad al Basha something he estimates anyway that you know,
Speaker 3: nineteen officers who the officers if I didn't know if
Speaker 3: there was such a thing, but nineteen hooth the officers
Speaker 3: have been killed from you know, around mid mid ranking,
Speaker 3: you know, at the rank of major or above.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 3: My point is, sis though bombing alone we just never
Speaker 3: really learned this lesson doing. I mean, the airpower theorists
Speaker 3: again and again confound us. But bombing alone achieves little,
Speaker 3: and it's going to achieve little, especially against the Yemeny's
Speaker 3: for all the reasons we talked about on this program,
Speaker 3: which have to do with terrain, which have to do
Speaker 3: with just the way the Hoothies are structured, and has
Speaker 3: to do also with the ready resupply of fresh materials
Speaker 3: from Iran. Now we are putting pressure on Iran, which
Speaker 3: is good, I would argue too, though you do need,
Speaker 3: you do need a combined effort on the ground. I'm
Speaker 3: not suggesting for a moment we send us troops. And
Speaker 3: I don't think the government would do that either, but certainly,
Speaker 3: you know, is where special forces come into play. I'm
Speaker 3: not saying that we do that work as special forces,
Speaker 3: but doing what we do buy with and through raising
Speaker 3: or working with existing anti Houthy Yemeny militias to you know,
Speaker 3: to follow up on the ground and not just conduct
Speaker 3: bda but go after objectives and targets and most of all,
Speaker 3: the lead the flow of lethal weight, that is, you know,
Speaker 3: resupplying the hoothis unless we do that, unless it's a
Speaker 3: comprehensive strategy, imagine that word, than bombing alone is going
Speaker 3: to accomplish little. And I don't think you're going to
Speaker 3: see companies, you know, merchant marine companies around the world
Speaker 3: having a great deal of confidence were transitting the Red
Speaker 3: Sea just based on the strikes that have being conducted,
Speaker 3: because all it takes is one of two missiles to
Speaker 3: be fired for you know, for any one of these
Speaker 3: companies to self catastrophic loss. And I would be amazed
Speaker 3: if we have prevented that capability with the last round
Speaker 3: of bombing.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so a lot there, I agree with I agree
Speaker 4: with you, Andiot I'd say a few things. So last administration.
Speaker 4: I mean, they obviously had an effort. I don't think
Speaker 4: it was substantial enough, So I concur with the escalation.
Speaker 4: I do can also concur that we need to start
Speaker 4: hitting the decision makers because you can kill you know,
Speaker 4: you know, foot soldiers to the end of time and
Speaker 4: it's not very effective. I'd also agree that it's largely
Speaker 4: air campaigns just don't get to the place that we
Speaker 4: intend most of the time. So we have a very effective,
Speaker 4: especially honed over the last twenty years, ability to do
Speaker 4: a regular warfare in the form of as Andy said,
Speaker 4: by with and through and partner forces, right, and we
Speaker 4: have done that in Yemen. I have done that in Yemen,
Speaker 4: so it is something that we're very familiar with. Hopefully
Speaker 4: there's some guys left that are familiar specifically with Yemen
Speaker 4: and partner force operations. But we could do this. We
Speaker 4: could actually combine our substantial air effort with working with
Speaker 4: in their own interest right elements on the ground that
Speaker 4: could challenge to Huthi's position both in Yemen and their
Speaker 4: ability to keep carrying out these which are clearly terrorist attacks. Right,
Speaker 4: you're attacking civilian commerce vessels on arm and it affects
Speaker 4: the whole world economy, so I think we should look
Speaker 4: at that. So I plod for the increase, but I
Speaker 4: think there's going to have to be more done to
Speaker 4: make it, you know, fully effective. But just us showing
Speaker 4: up could turn the tides. I read a long time
Speaker 4: ago there's a depiction of the Spartans in Sicily. If
Speaker 4: you remember back during the Peloponese you war, they had
Speaker 4: a lot of partner forces out there too. Just the
Speaker 4: Spartans showing up. They only had the ability to send
Speaker 4: six and they showed up with the Sicilians on top
Speaker 4: of the ridge line, and it changed the tide of
Speaker 4: the battle, even though obviously those six weren't going to
Speaker 4: add much, but when they saw the Spartans up there,
Speaker 4: it the morale even switched from the Athenians who were
Speaker 4: there to try to take over that area. So I
Speaker 4: agree we should look at partner force operations. Easier said
Speaker 4: than done, but could be effective in combination with this
Speaker 4: substantial military expenditure too, of resources, because they're going to
Speaker 4: have to ask for increase because this is really working
Speaker 4: at the cyclic rate. And of course all of this
Speaker 4: is set up for when I think we're talking about next,
Speaker 4: which is, uh, you know what influence with this Avnora
Speaker 4: And I'd say the last part on Yemen is it
Speaker 4: does appear that a lot of the are IRGC cuts
Speaker 4: force kind of counterparts are leaving Yemen right now. So
Speaker 4: they're concerned about just what's going to happen on the
Speaker 4: ground there. And I think that might be in part
Speaker 4: not trying to poke the bear that's the United States,
Speaker 4: but also because they're concerned that this could keep escalating
Speaker 4: and they could leave, they could lose yet another significant
Speaker 4: proxy force.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and mak it on the head we are talking about.
Speaker 1: I ran next and the nuclear negotiations just came out
Speaker 1: from Reuters literally thy minutes ago that uh M, let
Speaker 1: me find it. Uh, Iran wants Iran wants indirect talks
Speaker 1: with the US and warns regional countries over strikes against
Speaker 1: it where I'm assuming we have bases, whether it's in Turkey,
Speaker 1: uh and other areas obviously rain right, for sure, there
Speaker 1: was I saw a little thing that there was a
Speaker 1: little bit of uh. The Trump administration did kind of
Speaker 1: seem a little bit receptive to indirect talks, even though
Speaker 1: that was a red line. A couple of weeks before that.
Speaker 1: That's where we're at. What do you guys, what are
Speaker 1: you guys tracking with that?
Speaker 4: So the issue with indirect talks is they're slow, right,
Speaker 4: They're really slow, and there's a lot of miscup. We
Speaker 4: can see all this with the negotiations right for uh
Speaker 4: ceasefire and GOSSA, and we've traditionally we have also used
Speaker 4: ther bodies there. They they tend to be very effective
Speaker 4: when it comes to being the go between, usually in
Speaker 4: passing messages. This complex negotiation, I can't see working to
Speaker 4: get to a new JIGPOA or new nuclear agreement that
Speaker 4: also includes proxy forces. Super complicated, very detailed. You have
Speaker 4: to bring in experts. I'm not sure how this could
Speaker 4: work entirely through an intermediary. So I think the Trump
Speaker 4: administration's right is to be effective. This needs to be
Speaker 4: face to face, and if they don't want to do that,
Speaker 4: it's probably going to look to many as if they're
Speaker 4: just delaying this. So this is going to be then
Speaker 4: a question of do they go toward a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 4: If they do, I think the US has at least
Speaker 4: made it clear that we're willing to take the military
Speaker 4: military steps to mitigate that from becoming a reality, which
Speaker 4: is a substantial increase in escalation, and it would be
Speaker 4: pretty destabilizing in the region, especially on what Iran doesn't retaliation,
Speaker 4: which could be things like mine the Straits of Homose,
Speaker 4: which would seriously disrupt the flow of global trade, including
Speaker 4: energy and take months to work out.
Speaker 2: We would have to do it.
Speaker 4: We're the only country in the world that can d
Speaker 4: mind something like that, and then it's up to commercial
Speaker 4: insurance companies or whether they're going to ensure whether we
Speaker 4: got all the mines right so and we won't know so,
Speaker 4: I mean they have they have a and I'm not
Speaker 4: saying this is the reason I do it, but we
Speaker 4: have to look at what Iran can do in retaliation.
Speaker 4: But we're it looks like from our force posture that
Speaker 4: we are preparing to have that capacity in place by
Speaker 4: mid April, including air and missile defenses at these key
Speaker 4: bases you already reference d and the lift, the airlift
Speaker 4: necessary to drop the types of munitions these massive ordnance
Speaker 4: penetrators at GBU fifty seven Alphas and Bravo to be
Speaker 4: able to do this. So we are headed toward that.
Speaker 4: I think we would all be better off if Iran
Speaker 4: came to the negotiation table. They're talking about they can't
Speaker 4: be forced by you know, bravado. I would just point
Speaker 4: out that the newspaper in Tehran supported the idea of
Speaker 4: killing President Trump. So when they want to talk bravado,
Speaker 4: I don't. I don't think they have a lot to
Speaker 4: hold on there. I think we should just drop all
Speaker 4: the bravado and get to the negotiation table and start
Speaker 4: talking behind the scenes and not doing everything in public,
Speaker 4: which is mostly postured.
Speaker 3: Nick, Do you think that we can do anything long
Speaker 3: term to the Do you think we still have the
Speaker 3: ability militarily to to affect the long term ability of
Speaker 3: Iran to create nuclear weapons?
Speaker 2: That's a damn good question, Andy.
Speaker 4: So we have the only military capability that I think
Speaker 4: has a chance at Fordal for example, is mostly underground,
Speaker 4: mostly defended, very difficult, but also Menton's and as for
Speaker 4: On and there's more, right, there's several more. So we
Speaker 4: have the capacity to do to degrade it. I think
Speaker 4: it's it's essentially going to be setting the program back,
Speaker 4: so it's not going to be a one and done.
Speaker 4: We're not like, oh, it's all done and they're ever
Speaker 4: going to do and this is just the ones we
Speaker 4: know about.
Speaker 2: We don't know.
Speaker 4: We don't know, so we have to be I think,
Speaker 4: very upfront with the chances of success, right because it's
Speaker 4: not a guarantee. We're the only ones that I think
Speaker 4: they can actually have a chance, but it's not a guarantee.
Speaker 4: And then the big issue out there is what if
Speaker 4: they just acquire it from somewhere else, right, and they
Speaker 4: obviously Russia has it, North Korea has it, they have
Speaker 4: the know how to do it. Could they purchase it?
Speaker 4: That would be a big step on those willing to
Speaker 4: sell them this capability. But if it is a big
Speaker 4: if there's no one pull the trigger and this is
Speaker 4: not this could be pulled the trigger and we've set
Speaker 4: it back for another four months, we're going to have
Speaker 4: to do it again. So the best best case for
Speaker 4: us is to get a negotiated, verifiable agreement, right, so
Speaker 4: we know that they're not going toward a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 4: Why because they're going to have major sanctions relief, if
Speaker 4: not complete sanctions relief, so that their economy and their
Speaker 4: people can start joining the rest of the world economy.
Speaker 2: If it's you know, hopefully it's still still are out
Speaker 2: to go back to our beginning, but.
Speaker 4: That's better for us. If not, we're going to have
Speaker 4: to continuously have direct military action against the country to
Speaker 4: keep them from getting that, and they will have the
Speaker 4: ability to respond it could have I'm not against I
Speaker 4: think if you say it's unacceptable, you have to be
Speaker 4: willing to use the military option. So I'm not against this.
Speaker 4: But I'm also not gonna pay to Polyanner's position, like
Speaker 4: we're gonna wake up the B two's are gonna do
Speaker 4: their things at all.
Speaker 2: This is sober, it's not over. It's just started.
Speaker 1: Once that happens, and I think we definitely need to,
Speaker 1: like at least to talk about the Israel's whole play
Speaker 1: on this. I mean, they're itching for it, they want
Speaker 1: it to happen as soon as possible. I don't think
Speaker 1: Israel really gives a shit about an agreement or not.
Speaker 1: I think the quicker they do it, the happier they'll be. Frankly,
Speaker 1: at least that's my opinion. BB Netna. Who's going, I believe,
Speaker 1: to Washington this week to meet with Trump. I think
Speaker 1: that's about tariffs, but who knows. I mean, it could
Speaker 1: be about tariffs anoles because Israel got hit with seventeen percent.
Speaker 1: I think it also could be you know, maybe finalizing
Speaker 1: or figuring out what to do next with O RAN's
Speaker 1: nuclear program. And if it it does like Charles Lister,
Speaker 1: your felt, your colleague from the Middle East Institute last
Speaker 1: week said that he spoke to somebody in the Pentagon
Speaker 1: where yeah, at most it's probably gonna not come back
Speaker 1: three months Iran. If we hit them, even with our
Speaker 1: big boy bunker busters, what does that do Like if
Speaker 1: we do hit him, I mean, we have to just
Speaker 1: be like, we're gonna hit you again and again and
Speaker 1: again until you come to this negotiation table. I don't know.
Speaker 1: It's I got self flick an ice cream cone.
Speaker 4: You gotta have carrots and sticks. You gotta get both.
Speaker 4: They gotta be willing to use them. But it's also
Speaker 4: there's no there's no clear answer here. We don't control
Speaker 4: you know, what the enemy in this case Ron decides
Speaker 4: to do in retaliation, or whether they view regime security
Speaker 4: so far above the good will of their people or
Speaker 4: the good outcome of their people that they really don't
Speaker 4: care about sanctions really, because it's funny like, no matter
Speaker 4: how much you sanction, the regime always ends up you know,
Speaker 4: driving the fancy cars and drinking you know John Walker
Speaker 4: blow right, they always end up ridge no matter what.
Speaker 4: So anyway, this is a this is a big, big,
Speaker 4: big step, but I think we got to be ready
Speaker 4: to do it. We just have to understand that it's
Speaker 4: not it's not they answer at all and sanctions.
Speaker 3: First of all, you know, the much of the sting
Speaker 3: has been taken out of sanctions. Iran has found ways
Speaker 3: around them. And of course, you know, the China and Russia,
Speaker 3: as major allies, they very you know, Iran has a
Speaker 3: sizeable market or access to markets. So you know, our
Speaker 3: our ability to impose painter in Iran through sanctions is
Speaker 3: not the same as it was, say ten years ago.
Speaker 3: And by the way, now, compared to the rest of
Speaker 3: the world, we pretty much sanctioned the whole world now,
Speaker 3: so Iran might be better off than most. I mean, I'm
Speaker 3: only half joking there. So yes, Ron's in a Rance
Speaker 3: had a really bad year. Iran's being denuded of its
Speaker 3: i ADS, it's integrated AD defense system, it lost its president,
Speaker 3: it's suffering internal dissensions, its economy is in the shitter.
Speaker 3: But on the other hand, h it's it is you know,
Speaker 3: it's it's creating enough enhanced uranium to make two bombs
Speaker 3: per year. So in that sense, time is on its
Speaker 3: side by by delaying, and of course it knows. And
Speaker 3: the lesson of North Korea is that if you join
Speaker 3: that nuclear club, you get treated totally differently.
Speaker 2: Yep, very true.
Speaker 1: It's the ultimate regime security, is it not?
Speaker 2: It is? You want to be North Korea? Do you
Speaker 2: want to be Libya? You know? And who's you know?
Speaker 2: Drug and killed in a ditch? That's key. Give he
Speaker 2: gave up his nuclear weapons ambitions, so.
Speaker 3: As did you?
Speaker 2: Yeah, as did Ukraine.
Speaker 4: Here's that's a good point and another another example of
Speaker 4: the fork in the road in which one a country
Speaker 4: could take. So we have to be ready and it's
Speaker 4: going to trigger you know, nuclear o's race obviously.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I was gonna say, Shia bomb is going to
Speaker 1: trigger a Sunni bomb in Saudi Arabia, Right, Saudi Arabia
Speaker 1: can have that probably done in a year.
Speaker 2: Sure you can pay for it, they can pay absolutely.
Speaker 1: And maybe that's the move, is that the move to
Speaker 1: like mutually assured destruction on both sides.
Speaker 2: We don't want that to happen, obviously, but it.
Speaker 1: Worked during the Cold War. That's a discussion for another day, yep.
Speaker 2: But yeah, it.
Speaker 3: Worked in the Cold War and a you know, it
Speaker 3: was a if a buying poland that's the wrong time
Speaker 3: to use. But you know, they the world was divided
Speaker 3: down two lines, fraight and both sides. You could rely
Speaker 3: on both sides to some extent to make rational decisions
Speaker 3: based on rational assessments of self preservation. That is why
Speaker 3: it worked. I'm not sure you can rely on the
Speaker 3: same calculus and today as well.
Speaker 1: All right, last bit of news about fog Bow.
Speaker 4: Now, yeah, guys, let me let me say this. So
Speaker 4: obviously there's a lot of issue around the world. For
Speaker 4: an eight, we're increasing our activities. If you don't know
Speaker 4: what I'm talking about, fog Bow does a humanitarian enablement
Speaker 4: around the world.
Speaker 2: Our model is uh.
Speaker 4: You know, for the most part veterans, but also diplomats,
Speaker 4: intelligence folks and people.
Speaker 2: Of course you uh did a lot of work with
Speaker 2: NGO's charity.
Speaker 4: So we're looking at potential expansion pretty substantially because of
Speaker 4: the uh, you know, the lack the vacuum that's out
Speaker 4: there for the folks that have those backgrounds. Would love
Speaker 4: for you guys to send me your resume. If you're interested,
Speaker 4: you can just go to fog Boa the website and
Speaker 4: go through there. Just put my name Mick if you
Speaker 4: in mind, so they'll kick it over to me and
Speaker 4: I'll review it. I'd also point out that our new advisor,
Speaker 4: our most senior advisor on our board, is David Beasley,
Speaker 4: former governor of South Carolina. More importantly, the former director
Speaker 4: of the World Food Program, and he was the director
Speaker 4: when when they were nominated and receive the Nobel Peace Prize.
Speaker 4: So we're super lucky to have them. We're moving out
Speaker 4: as fast as we can to get to cover down
Speaker 4: on all these areas around the world, but ultimately we
Speaker 4: need more people, so please if you're interested in that
Speaker 4: kind of work. Again, we're primarily veterans, but we really
Speaker 4: need people who spend a lot of time in austere
Speaker 4: environments to include conflict zones, that want to help get
Speaker 4: critical food aid medical aid to the people in need.
Speaker 2: So thanks for leting me of course.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and that the link for that is in the
Speaker 1: description for Fogbo always in the description, so check it
Speaker 1: out both in the video description and the show notes.
Speaker 1: So hit that link if you want to shoot over
Speaker 1: your resume to mix organization. I mean, I'm assuming there's
Speaker 1: probably a lot of AID workers out there who are
Speaker 1: experienced who are out of a job now.
Speaker 2: Right, So fourteen thousand at US.
Speaker 1: Eight, So check them out. Fog Bo, they do great work.
Speaker 1: Andy Milburn Andy Reginald Milburn to be exact, when the
Speaker 1: Tempest gathers an incredible book. You could check out all
Speaker 1: of his publications as substack is Twitter's LinkedIn. Everything is
Speaker 1: in the description as well. Jason Lyons too. Do us
Speaker 1: a favor if you like this show and you want
Speaker 1: to get an ad free both this show and The
Speaker 1: Team House. So two shows for the price of one.
Speaker 1: Go to our patreon Patreon dot com slash the Teamhouse
Speaker 1: and all the information that I just said is in
Speaker 1: a description of the show notes. Check them out there.
Speaker 1: As always, guys, this is great. I really appreciate it.
Speaker 2: I have a great Bison.
Speaker 1: Hey guys, it's Jack.
Speaker 5: I just want to talk to you for a moment
Speaker 5: about how you can support the show. If you've been
Speaker 5: watching it enjoying it, but you'd like to get a
Speaker 5: little bit more involved and help us continue to do this,
Speaker 5: you can check out our Patreon. It is patreon dot
Speaker 5: com slash the Teamhouse and for five dollars a month
Speaker 5: you can get access to all of these episodes of
Speaker 5: The Teamhouse ad free.
Speaker 2: The same goes with.
Speaker 5: Our affiliated podcast eyes On with Andy Milburn, Jason Lyons
Speaker 5: mcmulroy that one you will also get all of those
Speaker 5: episodes ad free, and you support the channel and the show,
Speaker 5: and we really appreciate it. The Patreon members are literally
Speaker 5: what has helped this company, this small business survive, especially
Speaker 5: during our early years, and you are what continues to
Speaker 5: help this thing going even as we navigate the turbulent
Speaker 5: world of YouTube advertising.
Speaker 1: So we really appreciate all of you guys.
Speaker 5: There's going to be a link down in the description
Speaker 5: to that Patreon page, and there is also going to
Speaker 5: be a link to our new merch shop, so if
Speaker 5: you guys want to go and get some Teamhouse merchandise,
Speaker 5: we got stickers and we also have patches, and I
Speaker 5: should mention if you sign up for Patreon at ten
Speaker 5: dollars a month, we will mail you this patch as well,
Speaker 5: so we really appreciate that. But they're also for sale
Speaker 5: on the merch shop and additionally, they got T shirts
Speaker 5: up there, water bottles, a tote bag, coffee mugs, all
Speaker 5: that good stuff, So please go and check them out
Speaker 5: and support the show.
Speaker 1: We really appreciate it, guys.
Speaker 5: Thank you, assass